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

[Bumper]

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 dont know how you say tennis has never seen individual domination. I have lived thru the years when literally Navratilova and then later Steffi Graf used to steam roll all opponents year over year & win everything in sight. Besides, winning 4 grand slams in a single year (that Rod Laver did) is huge domination over peers. If you think this is not domination, i dont know what is.

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.

Career 100s just like grand slams are one metric to judge the greatness of players. You take a guy like SRT, who has close to 100 100s in the game & look at the next guy, there is clearly a huge gulf between him and the next player. Why is this not considered domination ?

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.

All these arguments are arbitrary & capricious. I can come up with an analysis (based on my own assumptions) and conclude that Bradman would have likely averaged in the 30s. How do you know the analysis that concluded the average would have been 75 is better than mine.

[zen]

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. 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:

:omg: this is so hilarious! You just don't get anything, do you? So you deduced that I am implying that computerized GMAT is not standardized :hysterical: And then is it a surprise that you think that your question on MoYo is still unanswered despite giving you the HINT :giggle:

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

If only BD, ZIM, WI and Pak play against each other, then teams like Ind, SA, Aus, Eng, SL dont exist. Armed with the knowledge of his overall record, you are asking us to judge MoYo based on your cherry picking :spiteful: .... But if the cherry picked scenario exists then your knowledge of his overall record doesn't apply, and if it applies then the cherry picked scenario doesn't exist. Unfortunately for you folks, we know how "Tendulkar is the greatest" brigade arrives at the conclusions :hysterical:

[zen]

Career 100s just like grand slams are one metric to judge the greatness of players. You take a guy like SRT' date=' who has close to 100 100s in the game & look at the next guy, there is clearly a huge gulf between him and the next player. Why is this not considered domination ?[/quote'] :omg: .... So now career 100s said to be like grand slam wins to judge the greatness of players and domination! :hysterical: Based on that, 5-fors would be the metric to judge the greatness of a bowler and his peer domination :giggle: :icflove:

[yoda]

ok, this seems like a never ending discussion. i am going to stop now. :icflove:

[zen]

Sachin, Bradman, GMAT :hmmm:

where, a = Tendulkar b = Sehwag c = Bradman :giggle:

[Bumper]

:omg: this is so hilarious! You just don't get anything, do you? So you deduced that I am implying that computerized GMAT is not standardized :hysterical: And then is it a surprise that you think that your question on MoYo is still unanswered despite giving you the HINT :giggle:

Why dont you edificate the relevance of the GMAT analogy then ? If you already knew computerized GMAT is standardized why did you mention it, genius, esp to challenge my assertion that GMAT is standardized ? Remember you randomly inserted this GMAT analogy when we were debating competition in high school. This one's a no brainer. Once you explain your reasoning behind this random GMAT example, i'll break down the fallacy in what you choose to call 'your logic'.

If only BD, ZIM, WI and Pak play against each other, then teams like Ind, SA, Aus, Eng, SL dont exist. Armed with the knowledge of his overall record, you are asking us to judge MoYo based on your cherry picking :spiteful: .... But if the cherry picked scenario exists then your knowledge of his overall record doesn't apply, and if it applies then the cherry picked scenario doesn't exist. Unfortunately for you folks, we know how "Tendulkar is the greatest" brigade arrives at the conclusions :hysterical:

I dont know why this is impossible to comprehend for you. Where did i say Tendulkar is the greatest ever ? Since comprehension is not your forte (in addition to drawing analogies :haha:), i'll break it down step by step. Had, since the 90s, only BD, ZIM, WI and Pak played cricket, Moyo would have averaged 101. There is simply no closest rival to challenge Moyo's greatness in this league. He is clearly way ahead of his peers from teams such as BD, ZIM, WI or even Pak. Clear ? If not lookup some stats to convince yourself. MoYo then would be as good as Bradman and would steam roll the likes of Gavaskar, Viv, Sobers et al who never dominated their peers to that extent. Trust me, this is not so difficult to comprehend. You read it over and over again, you'll get it.:cantstop:

[TumTum]

For they guys that rate SRT > DGB, what will you say now that he has failed against a weak attack like NZ? Now can you comprehend the difficulty in maintaining an average of 100? The real "god" is Bradman, in comparison everyone else are mortals that can fail even against the weakest of opposition.

[Raghav_12]

For they guys that rate SRT > DGB, what will you say now that he has failed against a weak attack like NZ? Now can you comprehend the difficulty in maintaining an average of 100? The real "god" is Bradman, in comparison everyone else are mortals that can fail even against the weakest of opposition.

Bradman could not manage even 4 runs when required. How he can be greatest or God?

[Ranjha]

Lets say this is year 2100 and I am looking at two batsman from the past...One averages almost 100 and other only 50....for me, both the past playing conditions will be different from my time and I will base the judgement purely on stats and Bradmans superiority will withstand.

[Bumper]

Lets say this is year 2100 and I am looking at two batsman from the past...One averages almost 100 and other only 50....for me' date=' both the past playing conditions will be different from my time and I will base the judgement purely on stats and Bradmans superiority will withstand.[/quote'] Thats exactly right. Thats why George Lohmann who played cricket some 100 years ago averaging 10 per wicket is the greatest bowler ever.

[Ranjha]

Thats exactly right. Thats why George Lohmann who played cricket some 100 years ago averaging 10 per wicket is the greatest bowler ever.

He played a grand total of 18 tests. Bradman played 52. I think a minimum of 50 tests is needed to test the longetivitiy of a player. But Lohmann played 18 tests and won 15 of them. Took 112 wickets at 10.75. For years he played, he was excellent as a medium pacer. Not to overstate the fact,but he bowled during the times when bowlers held sway. However, this has always been the case that batsman have been given more importance and the fact that Bradman stands out as the greatest batsman since his figures are so freakishly higher than other players that there should be no argument when you analyze both sachin and bradman 90 years from now.

[Bumper]

He played a grand total of 18 tests. Bradman played 52. I think a minimum of 50 tests is needed to test the longetivitiy of a player. But Lohmann played 18 tests and won 15 of them. Took 112 wickets at 10.75. For years he played, he was excellent as a medium pacer. Not to overstate the fact,but he bowled during the times when bowlers held sway. However, this has always been the case that batsman have been given more importance and the fact that Bradman stands out as the greatest batsman since his figures are so freakishly higher than other players that there should be no argument when you analyze both sachin and bradman 90 years from now.

Back then in the Lohmann's days, it was just a small matter of six months by ship to shuttle between England and Australia, the two prominent nations to play cricket. So i agree that his 18 tests spanning a 10 year career is too little. He must have played at least for 35 years to qualify for the min 50 test criteria, which i think is the watermark. Its not 60, not 70, its gotta be 50. Had Bradman played 42 instead of 52 tests, I reckon in that case 40 would have been a more fair min criteria. And i also agree that Lohmann's avg of 10ish is only 100% better than the modern day bowling stars. Its gotta be at least 200% better for him to be even considered a great.

[Raghav_12]

He played a grand total of 18 tests. Bradman played 52. I think a minimum of 50 tests is needed to test the longetivitiy of a player. But Lohmann played 18 tests and won 15 of them. Took 112 wickets at 10.75. For years he played, he was excellent as a medium pacer. Not to overstate the fact,but he bowled during the times when bowlers held sway. However, this has always been the case that batsman have been given more importance and the fact that Bradman stands out as the greatest batsman since his figures are so freakishly higher than other players that there should be no argument when you analyze both sachin and bradman 90 years from now.

There is another fast bowler who played just 18 test matches, but that did not stop judges from including in one of all time cricinfo 11's. Though this fast bowler averaged just double of great Lohmann. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-new-zealand-2010/engine/current/match/464532.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/429010.html Then why not Lohmann?

[The Outsider]

Batting is so difficult these days, that Harbhajan is scoring back to back hundreds! Bradman would have struggled to get into double figures during these days of top notch bowlers breathing fire.

[Ranjha]

There is another fast bowler who played just 18 test matches, but that did not stop judges from including in one of all time cricinfo 11's. Though this fast bowler averaged just double of great Lohmann. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-new-zealand-2010/engine/current/match/464532.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/429010.html Then why not Lohmann?

top 11 and best ever ....big difference

[Ranjha]

Back then in the Lohmann's days, it was just a small matter of six months by ship to shuttle between England and Australia, the two prominent nations to play cricket. So i agree that his 18 tests spanning a 10 year career is too little. He must have played at least for 35 years to qualify for the min 50 test criteria, which i think is the watermark. Its not 60, not 70, its gotta be 50. Had Bradman played 42 instead of 52 tests, I reckon in that case 40 would have been a more fair min criteria. And i also agree that Lohmann's avg of 10ish is only 100% better than the modern day bowling stars. Its gotta be at least 200% better for him to be even considered a great.

Like I wrote in my previous post: Not to overstate the fact,but he bowled during the times when bowlers held sway. Whereas, Bradman was just in a completely different league when compared to batsmen in his time.

[Bumper]

Batting is so difficult these days' date=' that Harbhajan is scoring back to back hundreds! Bradman would have struggled to get into double figures during these days of top notch bowlers breathing fire. [/quote'] Alternately, even bowlers are such good batsmen these days that its almost impossible to dominate your peers, however good a batsman you are

[TumTum]

Batting is so difficult these days' date=' that Harbhajan is scoring back to back hundreds! Bradman would have struggled to get into double figures during these days of top notch bowlers breathing fire. [/quote'] :hysterical: These people are really nuts.

[saneindian]

Blame WW 2 for all these debates. Had it not happened, no one would have ever dared to question Bardman's numbers. He lost his peak years to the WW 2.

[WeStMiDz]

In which of the videos is there evidence of covered pitches, Bossbhai?