Facts based debate: Bradman's superiority questioned - Parameter 3

[Bumper]

Your problem is you are trying to compare people across era in absolute terms. Given that the times are different, a direct comparison is not possible cause of the kind of bowling they played, the environment they were brought up in, quality of cricket in general (both batting and bowling). Now how then do you compare greatness, all time greatness, etc across era? In Bradman's case it has been actually easy cause the man simply towered above the rest of his era. So, all things being equal (which is possible only in an era, not across era), he showed he was mighty ahead of his peers. Now, let's take the modern greats. They have all been great, but none of them have towered above the rest, so all things being equal (which is again is possibly only in an era, not across), no one has showed that they are mighty ahead of his peers. Sachin has amassed massive numbers of runs/centuries/number of games, so yes he has won the longevity award, but not necessarily towering over his peers avg/inning wise. Neither has anyone else from the post Bradman era.

So you are saying that, to be called the greatest ever, you need to tower over your peers in the league you play ? It does not matter how competitve your league is ? Why is that , in pretty much all sports, the gap between the champ and his rival were a lot wider as you go back in time ? Have you ever considered the fact that in all sports, the gap between the champ & his next rival is closing ? Arguing this way, the best sportsmen are always players of the 40s and 50s, when it was easier for an individual to dominate the sport.

Given that it is not fair to compare stats across era, we can only look at relative performance in their respective era to compare players across era. So it is not just Bradman >> peers, so he is by definition >> any future batsman.

Extending this argument, the barbarian who learnt to produce fire is the brainiest scientist ever. The greatest male tennis player ever has to be decided between Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Don Budge the only three to have won 4 grand slams in a single year (no modern player has done that) etc.

If Bradman had scored a 60 avg and the next best guy was at 40, he wouldn't be getting the same treatment he is today, but the 99.94 is a bit too much for many of us to just dismiss it as easily as some you would like to do. No one is saying you need to score 99.94 today to be considered better than Bradman. But you need to do something special like he did, which is to average much better than your peers. I don't think you need to be 30-40%, but may be in the 15-20% range to account for more competitiveness. Given that all the current greats are all crowded in the 50-55 range makes their case weak.

You are only as good as your competition lets you. Mohd Yousuf averages 101 against WI, Zim & BD, approx equivalent of the competition Bradman faced. None of his peers come close. So had the modern day league spanned just these three nations, according to you, MoYo would be the greatest batsman ever. Does not matter Sunny Gavaskar faced stiffer competition in his era. His avg after all is not significantly better than his peers. So Mohd Yusuf must be the better batsman ?

[zen]

Simple. Because B was better than his peers. Student B scores 97% in his class, the next inline scores 72%. The gulf is over 25%. What does this tell us ? It says that student B is clearly better than his peers. Does that tell me, student B is the greatest student ever ? Hell no. Especially, since that student B happens to some Kandan from Aandipatti, going to a corporation school. He could be the brainiest kid ever, but less likely given the competition he faced in the environment he grew up.

I skimmed through your post and the standard stuff that you wrote can be answered by others. I will just comment on the above example that you gave mainly because I remember you had picked out one of my posts somewhere to say something along those lines. That example that you gave about the student scoring 97% is off the mark in my opinion as test cricket is like a "standard test" say GMAT for example. So a GMAT score of say 800 in 1930 is still on the same lines as a GMAT score today even though GMAT may be computerized now and the one in 1930 was paper-based. But anyways, I don't agree with the example that you gave. More ept example would be along the lines of a shooting competition where everyone gets to fire 10 shots. Now in the history of this competition (test cricket), top shooters across the era have managed to hit the bulls eye 5 to 6 times (avg 50-60) out of 10. One particular gentleman, manages to hit the bulls eye 10 out of 10 times (avg of 100)! So wouldn't this gentleman be the greatest shooter? Arguments as to how many good shooters were in that competition when that great shooter hit 10 out of 10 are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if say only 3 others managed to hit the bulls eye 5-6 times then and now we have 20 shooters who hit bulls eye 5-6 times. You can bring in factors like how the conditions varied at different times like the wind factor, the quality of guns, etc but the fact is that hitting 10 out of 10 no matter what the condition is NO JOKE (like what you are trying to make that out to be). And for a shooter to be compared with the 10 out of 10 guy, he should at least hit the bulls eye 7-8 times, when his peers are hitting the same at say 5 times :winky: I remember you talked about MoYo avg 100 against minnows but is his career avg 100? If only Pak, WI, NZ, BD and Zim are playing than that's what the test standard is as Ind, Aus, SA, Eng and SL don't exist. And if they exist then the test standard is different, which is why MoYo isn't Bradman even though he avg so high against the minnows :winky: Coming back to your example on Mugham (hope I got the spelling right) who "Muhgamed" everyone in your Don Basco (or whatever) league. It's way off the mark too because in Bradman's case we are also talking about hitting the bulls eye 100%, when no one in the history has managed to hit the target like that! Mugham of your Don Basco town wasn't Bradman because despite being better than his peers, he wouldn't hit the bulls eye 100%. :--D

[zen]

rett' date=' analogy is certainly not your cup of tea, is it ? So you are saying DS with all the modern weapons was less dangerous than WW2 ? Like how ? And what is the point you are trying to make ? That cricketers of the 40s were more dangerous :haha: EPIC FAIL![/quote'] Is that what you understood? :giggle: The point is you can't make judgment based on videos (don't make me spoon feed you on why is that) :winky:

[Bumper]

That example that you gave about the student scoring 97% is off the mark in my opinion as test cricket is like a "standard test" say GMAT for example. So a GMAT score of say 800 in 1930 is still on the same lines as a GMAT score today even though GMAT may be computerized now and the one in 1930 was paper-based. But anyways, I don't agree with the example that you gave.

And you are implying that cricket is standardized across eras ? How ?:haha:

More ept example would be along the lines of a shooting competition where everyone gets to fire 10 shots. Now in the history of this competition (test cricket), top shooters across the era have managed to hit the bulls eye 5 to 6 times (avg 50-60) out of 10. One particular gentleman, manages to hit the bulls eye 10 out of 10 times (avg of 100)! So wouldn't this gentleman be the greatest shooter?

You've just shot yourself on the foot :cantstop: Shooting is an individual sport, much like 100m dashing. You control your own destiny. The last time i checked, you cant bat in isolation. The quality of the bowlers, fielders you face matter a lot. Besides, the diff formats you play, the conditions et al play a crucial role. Didn't i say analogy is not your strength ?:haha:

You can bring in factors like how the conditions varied at different times like the wind factor, the quality of guns, etc but the fact is that hitting 10 out of 10 no matter what the condition is NO JOKE (like what you are trying to make that out to be). And for a shooter to be compared with the 10 out of 10 guy, he should at least hit the bulls eye 7-8 times, when his peers are hitting the same at say 5 times :winky:

Blah, blah! See above.

I remember you talked about MoYo avg 100 against minnows but is his career avg 100? If only Pak, WI, NZ, BD and Zim are playing than that's what the test standard is as Ind, Aus, SA, Eng and SL don't exist. And if they exist then the test standard is different, which is why MoYo isn't Bradman even though he avg so high against the minnows :winky: Coming back to your example on Mugham (hope I got the spelling right) who "Muhgamed" everyone in your Don Basco (or whatever) league. It's way off the mark too because in Bradman's case we are also talking about hitting the bulls eye 100%, when no one in the history has managed to hit the target like that! Mugham of your Don Basco town wasn't Bradman because despite being better than his peers, he wouldn't hit the bulls eye 100%. :--D

I think you missed the point and possibly the context. Had today's league just comprised of WI, Zim & BD Moyo would be the greatest batsman ever. As he not only averages 101, but also towers over his peers. Moyo then would be everyone's pick over Gavaskar who averaged exactly half of Moyo & never dominated his peers.

[Bumper]

Is that what you understood? :giggle: The point is you can't make judgment based on videos (don't make me spoon feed you on why is that) :winky:

Right. You cant make judgments based on what you see. Instead you can easily jump to conclusions based on what you read in cricket literature and more importantly from cricket statistics. Some logic, eh:haha:

[yoda]

So you are saying that, to be called the greatest ever, you need to tower over your peers in the league you play ? It does not matter how competitve your league is ? Why is that , in pretty much all sports, the gap between the champ and his rival were a lot wider as you go back in time ? Have you ever considered the fact that in all sports, the gap between the champ & his next rival is closing ? Arguing this way, the best sportsmen are always players of the 40s and 50s, when it was easier for an individual to dominate the sport.

You don't have to tower over your peers. It depends on each sport. If there was no one who had towered in a specific sport in the past, that criteria is irrelevant in the present. This is the case in Tennis. (See below). Yes gap between champ and rival is closing in all sport, which is why greatness doesn't sustain in the modern era, it gets easily overtaken by the next best. It still doesn't mean someone from the past can't sustain his greatness over era simply because he played in the past.

Extending this argument, the barbarian who learnt to produce fire is the brainiest scientist ever. The greatest male tennis player ever has to be decided between Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Don Budge the only three to have won 4 grand slams in a single year (no modern player has done that) etc.

Not sure why Barbarian example is in the pic here, unless you are saying someone here is claiming that oldies are the greatest simply because they played in the 1930s. Inventions and discovery aren't competitive in nature and no one compares peers or across generations to see who is the best and whose discovery was greater, although the impact of a discovery on mankind is typically a criteria and it gets quite subjective. Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Don Budge are some of the greatest players of all time and considered so even today. Federer and Sampras have taken over simply because they overtook the all time Grand slam number of Roy Emerson (which is the measure of greatness in Tennis.) even though that record was set in the 1960s, that itself tells you that old timer's records need to be broken for one to be considered greater. Since, in cricket an individual player doesn't win or lose any game, career average has been the comparison benchmark. Whether career average is a fair number or not, is not for me to judge, that's just the way each sport is. The criteria is just different.

You are only as good as your competition lets you. Mohd Yousuf averages 101 against WI, Zim & BD, approx equivalent of the competition Bradman faced. None of his peers come close. So had the modern day league spanned just these three nations, according to you, MoYo would be the greatest batsman ever. Does not matter Sunny Gavaskar faced stiffer competition in his era. His avg after all is not significantly better than his peers. So Mohd Yusuf must be the better batsman ?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Bradman's competition cannot be compared with the WI, ZIM and BD of today simply because you are taking performance against standard opponent of the time vs the lower rung of today without accounting for the fact that he did it 80 years ago. I don't understand why anyone would want to compare performance against the worst of your time (Yousuf example) vs performance against the standard of your time (Bradman example) without accounting for the evolution of batting to counter the improvements in bowling.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

And you are implying that cricket is standardized across eras ? How ?:haha: You've just shot yourself on the foot :cantstop: Shooting is an individual sport, much like 100m dashing. You control your own destiny. The last time i checked, you cant bat in isolation. The quality of the bowlers, fielders you face matter a lot. Besides, the diff formats you play, the conditions et al play a crucial role. Didn't i say analogy is not your strength ?:haha: Blah, blah! See above. I think you missed the point and possibly the context. Had today's league just comprised of WI, Zim & BD Moyo would be the greatest batsman ever. As he not averages 101, but also towers over his peers. Moyo then would be everyone's pick over Gavaskar who averaged exactly half of Moyo & never dominated his peers.

And how is test cricket not a standard test? If it weren't, then we would have to reset test records after every era :winky: (Hint: Ind has played 444 tests till date) To me it appear as if I hit the bulls eye with my shooting analogy, it's you who is failing to see the crux of whats being said :P .... And appears as if you forgot the Rod Laver example that you gave. Did you forget that Tennis is an individual sport too? :giggle: I didn't miss the point but you got your analysis wrong. Let me try one more time: If only BD, Zim, WI, NZ and Pak are playing then that's the test standard. Teams like don't Ind don't exist so does Gavaskar. If Gavaskar exists then teams like Ind exist too :P Try harder :--D

[zen]

Right. You cant make judgments based on what you see. Instead you can easily jump to conclusions based on what you read in cricket literature and more importantly from cricket statistics. Some logic' date=' eh:haha:[/quote'] Well, you must be a genius to judge the quality of WW2 from those videos :hysterical: And based on what I read, I believe that Alexander the great was one of the greatest strategist of all time. Would you tell me that I should go around looking for videos to know who was the greatest strategist and not base my opinion on what I read :giggle: Keep trying :P

[Bumper]

You don't have to tower over your peers. It depends on each sport. If there was no one who had towered in a specific sport in the past, that criteria is irrelevant in the present. This is the case in Tennis. (See below).

You are moving the goal posts now. I thought you said in your prev post that towering over peers is the crucial criteria.

Yes gap between champ and rival is closing in all sport, which is why greatness doesn't sustain in the modern era, it gets easily overtaken by the next best. It still doesn't mean someone from the past can't sustain his greatness over era simply because he played in the past.

Which is why, you should not point to the gap that existed in the past & use that as the yard stick for modern players. It is simply not possible with the existing competition to achieve that kinda dominance.

Not sure why Barbarian example is in the pic here, unless you are saying someone here is claiming that oldies are the greatest simply because they played in the 1930s.

That barbarian was clearly ahead of his peers, who couldnt even have a civilized expression, leave alone think. Thats why its relevant. Einstein for that matter, was not that much ahead of his peers, most of whom were master physicists. So barbarian >>>> Einstein, right ?

Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Don Budge are some of the greatest players of all time and considered so even today. Federer and Sampras have taken over simply because they overtook the all time Grand slam number of Roy Emerson (which is the measure of greatness in Tennis.) even though that record was set in the 1960s, that itself tells you that old timer's records need to be broken for one to be considered greater.

Once again your are moving goal posts. So its not about dominance over peers anymore, when it comes to Sampras and Federer ? One could argue that in terms of runs, 100s, doing it in diff formats, competition etc, Lara, SRT, Ponting are all ahead of Bradman. Why is that not used to big up the modern day players over Bradman ?

Since, in cricket an individual player doesn't win or lose any game, career average has been the comparison benchmark. Whether career average is a fair number or not, is not for me to judge, that's just the way each sport is. The criteria is just different.

And you think career avg is not influenced by competition, conditions the batsman faces etc ? How come career avg across eras is immune to all these vars ?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

I am not. You guys are. I have been saying that cricketers of the 40s should never be compared to those of the modern era since the sport has changed so much.

Bradman's competition cannot be compared with the WI, ZIM and BD of today simply because you are taking performance against standard opponent of the time vs the lower rung of today without accounting for the fact that he did it 80 years ago. I don't understand why anyone would want to compare performance against the worst of your time (Yousuf example) vs performance against the standard of your time (Bradman example) without accounting for the evolution of batting to counter the improvements in bowling.

That was just a theoretical supposition. Suppose that these were the only three nations to play cricket, is it correct or not to state that Moyo would have been the most dominant batsman ? Lower rung or not, it still applies to MoYo's peers, doesnt it ? I could see people arguing that Moyo in that case would have been a better batsman than Sunny Gavaskar who never dominated his peers. Bottom line: How well you bash inferior competition is not indicative of your batting prowess.

[Sooda]

David Haye totally pwns Mohammed Ali.

[Bumper]

And how is test cricket not a standard test? If it weren't, then we would have to reset test records after every era :winky: (Hint: Ind has played 444 tests till date)

Man, you are spouting random nonsense. Test cricket is standard based on rules. Not standard, based on the degree of difficulty it poses for players. GMAT attempts to standardize the degree of difficulty for its test takers across years, so no matter what you score, when you score, it can be compared with your peers.

To me it appear as if I hit the bulls eye with my shooting analogy, it's you who is failing to see the crux of whats being said :P .... And appears as if you forgot the Rod Laver example that you gave. Did you forget that Tennis is an individual sport too? :giggle:

Puhleeeze, can you promise to read the context once again before you go on your assumption spree... The Rod Laver example was to counter Yoda's point that a player who dominated in his era is not necessarily deemed the greatest ever. Both Federer and Sampras who never dominated their peers as much as Laver, are considered better players. See the point ? You used shooting to argue that cricket is some kinda standard sport where you can hit the bulls eye era across era that could be compared. You seriously need to reconsider what you are trying to argue against.:haha:

I didn't miss the point but you got your analysis wrong. Let me try one more time: If only BD, Zim, WI, NZ and Pak are playing then that's the test standard. Teams like don't Ind don't exist so does Gavaskar. If Gavaskar exists then teams like Ind exist too :P Try harder :--D

Duh! I'll try one more time. But this is the last time. Forget about Gavaskar's era. He averaged 50 in his era, that is a fact. I am talking about the decade starting the late 90s, when Moyo played. For argument's sake, if we assumed only WI, BD & Zim played in this period, then MoYo with his avg of 101 would be well ahead of Gavaskar who just averaged 50. Got it ?

[Bumper]

Well, you must be a genius to judge the quality of WW2 from those videos :hysterical: And based on what I read, I believe that Alexander the great was one of the greatest strategist of all time. Would you tell me that I should go around looking for videos to know who was the greatest strategist and not base my opinion on what I read :giggle: Keep trying :P

You are the genius to assume that i watched those videos. You asked a question remember about which war was more dangerous & then i posted a retort. Go read that post and respond if you can. And stop moving the goal posts randomly. I am having a hard time keeping up with it, focus on an argument and prove or disprove it before you jump to the next.

[yoda]

You are moving the goal posts now. I thought you said in your prev post that towering over peers is the crucial criteria.

Goal post stays the same. Dominance over peers is a factor if there is someone who has dominated peers. In tennis it has never been the case, so not a factor there. BTW in Golf Jack Niclaus' major wins from over 30 years ago is still the benchmark.

Which is why, you should not point to the gap that existed in the past & use that as the yard stick for modern players. It is simply not possible with the existing competition to achieve that kinda dominance.

Yes, so you discount for that growing competition, not ignore the past because of that.

That barbarian was clearly ahead of his peers, who couldnt even have a civilized expression, leave alone think. Thats why its relevant. Einstein for that matter, was not that much ahead of his peers, most of whom were master physicists.

See my added explanation above. Invention is not a competitive sport, so not applicable. No one compares a Newton to an Einstein.

Once again your are moving goal posts. So its not about dominance over peers anymore, when it comes to Sampras and Federer ? One could argue that in terms of runs, 100s, doing it in diff formats, competition etc, Lara, SRT, Ponting are all ahead of Bradman. Why is that not used to big up the modern day players over Bradman ?

You are confused. Where peer dominance is there it is a factor. Sampras and Federer did not dominate their peers in terms of grand slams. Borg had won 5 wimbledons and 6 french IIRC, many other examples. In tennis GS is the benchmark. In cricket avg/inning is the bechmark. In golf majors is the bechmark. Take it or leave it.

And you think career avg is not influenced by competition, conditions the batsman faces etc ? How come career avg across eras is immune to all these vars ?

Yes, it is influenced, so you discount for it, but not blindly. Also take into the factor that those 99.94 runs were scored using the batting techniques of those times against the bowling standards of those times. You also take into the fact that he was the only one to do so. Not an easy task which is why there is so much discussion.

I am not. You guys are. I have been saying that cricketers of the 40s should never be compared to those of the modern era since the sport has changed so much. That was just a theoretical supposition. Suppose that these were the only three nations to play cricket, is it correct or not to state that Moyo would have been the most dominant batsman ? Lower rung or not, it still applies to MoYo's peers, doesnt it ? I could see people arguing that Moyo in that case would have been a better batsman than Sunny Gavaskar who never dominated his peers. Bottom line: How well you bash inferior competition is not indicative of your batting prowess.

[zen]

Man, you are spouting random nonsense. Test cricket is standard based on rules. Not standard, based on the degree of difficulty it poses for players. GMAT attempts to standardize the degree of difficulty for its test takers across years, so no matter what you score, when you score, it can be compared with your peers. Puhleeeze, can you promise to read the context once again before you go on your assumption spree... The Rod Laver example was to counter Yoda's point that a player who dominated in his era is not necessary deemed the greatest ever. Both Federer and Sampras who never dominated their peers as much as Laver, are considered better players. See the point ? You used shooting to argue that cricket is some kinda standard sport where you can hit the bulls eye era across era that could be compared. You seriously need to reconsider what you are trying to argue against.:haha: Duh! I'll try one more time. But this is the last time. Forget about Gavaskar's era. He averaged 50 in his era, that is a fact. I am talking about the decade starting the late 90s, when Moyo played. For argument's sake, if we assumed only WI, BD & Zim played in this period, then MoYo with his avg of 101 would be well ahead of Gavaskar who just averaged 50. Got it ?

Ah ha, so I guess you don't even know the difference b/w paper based GMAT and a computer based GMAT :giggle: I never took any objection to your using the tennis example. Just pointed out that my example served similar purpose :winky: .... And (For batting) I compared the avg of 100 with hitting the bulls' eye 100% (For shooting) :--D Obviously, you aren't getting how stupid your Moyo's example is! If you are so hell bent with trying to show how wrong my analogies are (when they are not but are over your level of understanding), you use resort to using proper analogies too .... HINT: you know how good or bad MoYo is ONLY because he has played against each and every team. For your example, you are cherry picking his best performances against minnows and on top of that expecting others to consider that point with some degree of seriousness :hysterical: Anyways, it's good to see that one comedy guy shows up after another. The entertainment keeps flowing :P

[zen]

And I will post this again:

There are two factors that goes for Sir Don Bradman: 1. An avg of 100 (probably the holy grail of batting), which no one even in domestic games have achieved. Let alone avg 100 per inning, it's difficult to even avg 100 per test. 2. A lead over his peers like Hammond, Hutton and Headley. The performances by the likes of these 3 are enough for us to know how good they were and thus how good Bradman was You ( a modern batsman) don't become the greatest just by scoring more than others by virtue of playing more games. You need to score like 10k runs in 100 tests when others take 125 tests or something like that. Over the history of the game, top batsmen have been averaging 50-60 no matter what the era. Just because the game has evolved, it doesn't mean that an avg of 50-60 today is more valuable than an avg of 50-60 in the past. If today's batsmen were born in the past, they would be playing as per the standards of that time and vice-versa. Don't forget that in reality you don't get transported back and forth in time. Let's look at this by drawing parallels with driving a car (trying to understand what's being implied): 70-80 years ago, you would probably struggle to handle a car properly even at a speed of 100 kmph (if they went that fast) but today driving at 100 kmph is pretty normal. You don't even feel a thing driving at 100 kmph .... The argument that Tendulkar is better than Bradman is based more or less on the line of thinking that if Tendulkar (today's driver) were transported back in time, he would be able to handle the old cars at 100 kmph better than drivers of those time because he can handle today's car at 100 kmph easily .... But the fact is that you don't get transported back and forth in time so if Tendulkar were born in the past he would be brought up to drive cars of that era just like others and not like drivers of today and vice-versa. Tendulkar (or one of his peers), if he were playing in the past, would be batting just like those guys in the video. And if those guys were playing now, they would be batting like the batsman of today .... For Tendulkar (or his peers) to show that he would have been truly exceptional like Bradman if he played in Bradman's time, he has to have some sort of a distance from his peers today. Otherwise he is just like any other top batsmen, irrespective of the era .... Which is why someone who avg 100 when no one in the history has managed to do that and when his peers averaged much like top batsmen of any era (50-60) is considered the greatest! Even IF Bradman didn't exist, based on how close the top batsmen are, it is difficult to get a consensus on who the greatest batsman is just like it is difficult to get a consensus on who the greatest pace bowler is. The very concept of greatest batsman is because of Bradman In short, at the moment, trying to show Bradman isn't the greatest is a pointless exercise :winky:

Case Closed :P

[Bumper]

Goal post stays the same. Dominance over peers is a factor if there is someone who has dominated peers. In tennis it has never been the case, so not a factor there. BTW in Golf Jack Niclaus' major wins from over 30 years ago is still the benchmark.

In tennis (an individual sport) dominance over peers is not factor for greatness, but in cricket (a team sport) dominance is ? What strange logic. Even more stranger is that in Golf, which is also an individual sport you imply that such dominance matters. Your criteria seems pretty arbitrary and at best your opinion.

Yes, so you discount for that growing competition, not ignore the past because of that.

You yourself said in the other post not to compare apples and oranges. But you are doing so, asking me to ignore all aspects of an orange that is not comparable with an apple. Competition is not some kinda mathematical formula to be discounted. Stiff competition quickly reduces even very good batsmen to an average one. If you think discounting competition is possible, I'd like to hear your proposal on the same.

See my added explanation above. Invention is not a competitive sport, so not applicable. No one compares a Newton to an Einstein.

Arbitrary logic. But i have already pointed out the flaw in your Tennis vs Cricket vs Golf example.

You are confused. Where peer dominance is there it is a factor.

I guess you are. Which is why you saying its a factor when it suits you and not a factor when it doesnt.

Sampras and Federer did not dominate their peers in terms of grand slams. Borg had won 5 wimbledons and 6 french IIRC, many other examples. In tennis GS is the benchmark. In cricket avg/inning is the bechmark. In golf majors is the bechmark. Take it or leave it.

I'll leave it. Because it does not sound logical to me. First the benchmark is something you came up with. Second, as i pointed out personal achievements of a player is largely dictated by the competition he faces. Dominance over peers is influenced by competition, so is the career avg.

Yes, it is influenced, so you discount for it, but not blindly. Also take into the factor that those 99.94 runs were scored using the batting techniques of those times against the bowling standards of those times. You also take into the fact that he was the only one to do so. Not an easy task which is why there is so much discussion.

How do you discount for competition ? Pls educate me. Its like saying Moyo may average 100 vs BD. But when he plays Australia discount his avg by 20%. Doesnt work like that.

[yoda]

In tennis (an individual sport) dominance over peers is not factor for greatness, but in cricket (a team sport) dominance is ? What strange logic. Even more stranger is that in Golf, which is also an individual sport you imply that such dominance matters. Your criteria seems pretty arbitrary and at best your opinion.

Who said it is a factor only in cricket? I said it is a factor when someone has dominated his peers. How exactly are you going to discuss peer domination in a sport like Tennis when there has been none? Even in the olden times of Laver, there was Emerson. Even if you use Sampras as an example of peer domination, he was considered the greatest of all time till Federer took over and now with Nadal eating into Federer's domination, Federer's legacy is being questioned. In any sport, if a guy blows his competition away, it is a factor.

I'll leave it. Because it does not sound logical to me. First the benchmark is something you came up with. Second, as i pointed out personal achievements of a player is largely dictated by the competition he faces. Dominance over peers is influenced by competition, so is the career avg.

So you want to use career 100s or total runs scored career wise as a way to compare the greatest players in cricket, that's fine. It is not what others are going to discuss the sport using. I didn't come up the avg/innings benchmark in cricket, it is what most people compare two players with.

How do you discount for competition ? Pls educate me. Its like saying Moyo may average 100 vs BD. But when he plays Australia discount his avg by 20%. Doesnt work like that.

We are talking about discounting for competition across era, not from country to country. There have been a few such attempts, one of which was at the old ICF site which put a Bradman average at around 75 by today's standards. Ofc you are free to disagree, but people have attempted.

[Bumper]

Ah ha, so I guess you don't even know the difference b/w paper based GMAT and a computer based GMAT :giggle: I never took any objection to your using the tennis example. Just pointed out that my example served similar purpose :winky: .... And (For batting) I compared the avg of 100 with hitting the bulls' eye 100% (For shooting) :--D

Yeah, i dont know what computerized GMAT vs paper GMAT is. And your point is that computerized GMAT (with its adaptive questionnaire) is not standardized ? I dont know what your point is, then. FWIW, i did take the GMAT computerized test couple of years back & score on the 98th percentile. So i know a thing or two about GMAT. GMAT regardless of whether its computerized or not, it is still a standard test. How do i know this ? I took numerous paper tests for practice & my scores on the computerized test were pretty much in the ball park of my paper test scores. Questions are designed in such a way that the degree of difficulty presented to the test takers is about the same, regardless of when they take it. Now enough of GMAT, if you know anything about GMAT - i doubt it, you wouldn't even bring it up as an analogy here.

Obviously, you aren't getting how stupid your Moyo's example is! If you are so hell bent with trying to show how wrong my analogies are (when they are not but are over your level of understanding), you use resort to using proper analogies too .... HINT: you know how good or bad MoYo is ONLY because he has played against each and every team. For your example, you are cherry picking his best performances against minnows and on top of that expecting others to consider that point with some degree of seriousness :hysterical: Anyways, it's good to see that one comedy guy shows up after another. The entertainment keeps flowing :P

Blah, Blah, answer my question about Moyo vs Gavaskar. You are just throwing more blah blah, to defend your old blah blahs. Advance your argument with some logic if you can.:haha:

[vvvslaxman]

Sachin, Bradman, GMAT :hmmm: