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

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[WeStMiDz]

Thanks, keep it up with these videos. They are really an eye opener of the appalling standards back then.

[zen]

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'. 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:

Since you want to prove me wrong, I thought you would atleast back yourself to put two and two together, otherwise there is no point if I have to continue to spoon feed you on every little detail that I write. Also what example is used is of little importance compared to what it being implied as the example can always be changed :winky: For the last time (spoon feeding): GMAT as a standardized test is compared with the standard of cricket. Paper based tests and computer based tests reflect the difference in standards of different eras. (Here I am also implying that standard of paper based test is slightly different the computer based as on computer, you can only move to the next one once you answer and the next question that shows up also depends up on what you answer). Despite the difference on how the test was given, the GMAT scores are comparable. If you couldn't understand this then obviously you are wasting other people's time :P Again, I know what you are saying wrt MoYo. But again it appears as if you didn't get my answer. The point is that you are implying that MoYo would appear better based on stats than Gavaskar/Richards because you know that he didn't do that well against better attacks. But if only those 3-4 teams existed, how would you know that MoYo would not have done that well! The absurity of your question lies in the fact that if you know MoYo's overall record, then the cherry picked scenario you presented doesn't exist and if such a scenario exists then the you don't know what MoYo's record would be against "better bowling" attacks :--D .... I hope you realize that you see the comedy in your question :giggle: I am not interested in wasting my time like this to spoon-fed you. Pull up your socks :icflove:

[Nirvanam]

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. 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. There are a few other things missing from your equation as well: 1. Bradman >> peers 2. No modern great >> peers (average/inning wise) 3. Bradman's average (99.94) similar to average by today's players facing mediocre opposition of their times, but Bradman's was scored at a time when that was the standard bowling and as we all know batting had also not evolved. So his 99.94 that time against that bowling gets significantly more points than what someone would score against similar bowling today. 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.

Yoda, I have absolutely no problem in anointing Bradman as an ATG. But it is when you argue that he is THE best and that too based on his relative greatness v/s his peers that I am compelled to say that that is scientific logical fallacy. I notice that you haven't asserted Bradman = best in this post so I'll assume you don't think he is best ever. Or do you?

[zen]

Alternately' date=' even bowlers are such good batsmen these days that its almost impossible to dominate your peers, however good a batsman you are [/quote'] :omg: another gem! Unless you think that bowlers are avg in 50s too, top batsmen of this era are already dominating the bowlers. It just that noone is good enough to stand out :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Btw, would Ravi Shastri be a better all-rounder than Vinoo Mankad and/or Keith Miller based on the videos and "those" points :icflove:

[Nirvanam]

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']Nope. You will consider that batsman greatest based on the success of the PR for the batsman. Give it 10 more years the PR for Sachin will rule over Bradman. Even the white boys are already claiming Sachin is the best...so if you are a white boy then depending on how much respect you have for the white boy who claimed Sachin is greatest, you will believe him. If you are a black boy then depending upon how much respect you have for the black boy who claimed Sachin is greatest, you will believe him. More than likely, NZ'ers who consider Richard Hadlee as an awesome great will take his word when he said Sachin is the greatest ever. Similarly West Indians who have great respect and amazing fanning for Richards will believe Sachin is greater coz Richards said so. However, Windians who have more respect for Sobers will believe Gavaskar is greatest coz Sobers said so! Among the convicts, Ian Chappell has been committing the blasphemy that Braddy boy is not the greatest cricketer ever for decades now...those who respect him a lot consider Braddy boy is not greatest. Another convict, Benaud has in very cunning words already stated that Sachin is the best based on who he has seen play...(very cunningly he says I did not play against Bradman...does not say I did not see Bradman play)...he has left it for people to read what they want to read from his statement...I read that, Braddy fan boy would read something different. Let's face it...none of we fellows here have ever seen Bradman play to be so confident of his 'best'ness.

[Nirvanam]

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']You know nothing about cricket's history do you? Batting era is considered to be between 1920s and unto 1960. That is commonly considered as batting era by many cricket historians. FYI, Larwood scored a hundred ... and he was a tailender...you knew that right? Come on man, give up this bandwagon of ridiculing and have the guts and conviction to argue based on facts and logic.

[Bumper]

For the last time (spoon feeding): GMAT as a standardized test is compared with the standard of cricket. Paper based tests and computer based tests reflect the difference in standards of different eras. (Here I am also implying that standard of paper based test is slightly different the computer based as on computer, you can only move to the next one once you answer and the next question that shows up also depends up on what you answer). Despite the difference on how the test was given, the GMAT scores are comparable. If you couldn't understand this then obviously you are wasting other people's tim

What a ridiculous explanation. You seem to be assuming the very argument here :hysterical: Doofus, i understand why GMAT is standardized. I already told you, i have enough exposure to GMAT. I am interested in hearing how this analogy applies to test cricket. You have not shown me how or why you consider test cricket standardized, which is what you need to prove, esp, given how much the competition, team strengths etc differ from era to era. In the 90s there were so many quality pacemen. In this decade there arent that many. In the early 2000s, Aussies were a dominant force, now they arent. That is how fast cricket changes in a span of 5-10 years. Go work on your GMAT again & tell me how this analogy explains why test cricket is standardized across eras. To really make progress on this, you need find something that is "adaptive" in the cricketing world that accomodates changes in degree of difficulty. There is simply no such thing in cricket. To draw a parallel, you need to show me how the cricketing body controls the degree of difficulty faced by batsmen by altering an external variable to ensure the same standards. Eras spanning 50 years, are as different as they can get. There is nothing standardized about them. In all this quagmire of your analogies, dont muddle the central theme of this discussion -- "the standards of test cricket across eras". Stay on course on this topic. Dont jump around! In the mean time, FWIW, a piece of advice that will serve you well - do not indulge in analogies, you aint got a clue what it is.

Again, I know what you are saying wrt MoYo. But again it appears as if you didn't get my answer. The point is that you are implying that MoYo would appear better based on stats than Gavaskar/Richards because you know that he didn't do that well against better attacks. But if only those 3-4 teams existed, how would you know that MoYo would not have done that well! The absurity of your question lies in the fact that if you know MoYo's overall record, then the cherry picked scenario you presented doesn't exist and if such a scenario exists then the you don't know what MoYo's record would be against "better bowling" attacks .... I hope you realize that you see the comedy in your question

I didnt get your point ? Perhaps you didnt have one ? You keep shifting goal posts in each post of yours. In the mean time, I'll address your next goal post. What a KLPD of a defense this! I thought you really had a defense the way you were building this up. So lemme get this straight. Your objection is that since Moyo would have only played the three opponents how do i know that he wouldn't have been a quality bat against other opponents ? Do you see the irony in this argument ? This is the essence of our argument about Bradman. Since Bradman only played an inferior league, how do we know that he would not have been a Moyo had he been exposed to higher competition ? The Moyo's example brings perspective to this discussion. I have taken a modern day avg batsman & shown him to be an all time great, by choosing his stats against relatively weaker opponents. In Math, there is proof by contradiction, there is also proof by induction. In these cases, to prove or disprove a premise, you take a known fact & use that to contradict or corroborate the premise. **THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE**. MoYo's batting prowess is a known fact. Bradman's prowess is more of a premise worth debating. I used Moyo's stats to cast doubts on the assertion that Bradman is the greatest ever. In essence, the purpose of my task is to show that if Bradman is deemed the greatest ever, then Moyo is also the greatest ever using the same criteria (domination of peers and 100+ avg). But we all know that Moyo is not that great a batsman, then how come Bradman's prowess is unquestionable ? Got that ? Feel free to go over this as many times as you like. Its important that you understand what you are arguing against. Honestly, having seen your last 2-3 posts, i wouldnt put it past you to come back with yet another gem on Moyo. Eagerly awaiting your next insightful post.:hysterical:

[WeStMiDz]

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=61610 at about 01:20

Although is it true that they were actually covering the run ups and not the pitch as the rules were such that the pitch was not allowed to be covered during the duration of the game (including overnight)?

[zen]

What a ridiculous explanation. You seem to be assuming the very argument here :hysterical: Doofus, i understand why GMAT is standardized. I already told you, i have enough exposure to GMAT. I am interested in hearing how this analogy applies to test cricket. You have not shown me how or why you consider test cricket standardized, which is what you need to prove, esp, given how much the competition, team strengths etc differ from era to era. In the 90s there were so many quality pacemen. In this decade there arent that many. In the early 2000s, Aussies were a dominant force, now they arent. That is how fast cricket changes in a span of 5-10 years. Go work on your GMAT again & tell me how this analogy explains why test cricket is standardized across eras. To really make progress on this, you need find something that is "adaptive" in the cricketing world that accomodates changes in degree of difficulty. There is simply no such thing in cricket. To draw a parallel, you need to show me how the cricketing body controls the degree of difficulty faced by batsmen by altering an external variable to ensure the same standards. Eras spanning 50 years, are as different as they can get. There is nothing standardized about them. In all this quagmire of your analogies, dont muddle the central theme of this discussion -- "the standards of test cricket across eras". Stay on course on this topic. Dont jump around! In the mean time, FWIW, a piece of advice that will serve you well - do not indulge in analogies, you aint got a clue what it is. I didnt get your point ? Perhaps you didnt have one ? You keep shifting goal posts in each post of yours. In the mean time, I'll address your next goal post. What a KLPD of a defense this! I thought you really had a defense the way you were building this up. So lemme get this straight. Your objection is that since Moyo would have only played the three opponents how do i know that he wouldn't have been a quality bat against other opponents ? Do you see the irony in this argument ? This is the essence of our argument about Bradman. Since Bradman only played an inferior league, how do we know that he would not have been a Moyo had he been exposed to higher competition ? The Moyo's example brings perspective to this discussion. I have taken a modern day avg batsman & shown him to be an all time great, by choosing his stats against relatively weaker opponents. In Math, there is proof by contradiction, there is also proof by induction. In these cases, to prove or disprove a premise, you take a known fact & use that to contradict or corroborate the premise. **THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE**. MoYo's batting prowess is a known fact. Bradman's prowess is more of a premise worth debating. I used Moyo's stats to cast doubts on the assertion that Bradman is the greatest ever. In essence, the purpose of my task is to show that if Bradman is deemed the greatest ever, then Moyo is also the greatest ever using the same criteria (domination of peers and 100+ avg). But we all know that Moyo is not that great a batsman, then how come Bradman's prowess is unquestionable ? Got that ? Feel free to go over this as many times as you like. Its important that you understand what you are arguing against. Honestly, having seen your last 2-3 posts, i wouldnt put it past you to come back with yet another gem on Moyo. Eagerly awaiting your next insightful post.:hysterical:

Your comedy show is making my day. Your exercise of writing the same thing again and again as if I don't understand it only shows you still don't relaize that your points have been thrown out :hysterical: Let's ONCE AGAIN look at the essense of your point:

In essence, the purpose of my task is to show that if Bradman is deemed the greatest ever, then Moyo is also the greatest ever using the same criteria (domination of peers and 100+ avg). But we all know that Moyo is not that great a batsman, then how come Bradman's prowess is unquestionable ? Got that ? Feel free to go over this as many times as you like. Its important that you understand what you are arguing against.

On top of what has already been said, in the above scenario basic assumption is that everyone is playing at the peak of their ability and motivational level against these teams and the cherry picked scenario displays the best of what everyone has to offer :giggle: .... Also the cherry picked scenario is similar to playing in Bradman's era, where players played against all the test playing nations :haha: Let's also use the reverse logic on your scenario based on the your rules and "knowns" below: 1. MoYo averages blah blah against the choice of your teams and we know that he is a good batsman 2. Batsmen from the era of 1970-1990, i.e. Gavaskar/Richards, played better attacks than what Moyo did against minnows. 3. Ian Redpath, avg of 50 in 33 tests from 1970-1976 So Beta, would you also say that Redpath is better than MoYo? :--D .... Or how about Ravi Shastri being a better all-rounder than Mankad and Miller? Leave such comical logics to school. Since you gave GMAT, you must have gotten out of school already but the tendency to use childish arguments hasn't gone I guess :hysterical: :icflove:

[Bumper]

I made a mistake of getting into a debate hoping for an intelligent conversation with you. Now that i've learnt, I think i've just wasted my time honoring you with a response. Each time i read your post, you're throwing new garbage without ever addressing or finishing the old conversation that is ongoing. You have obviously ignored the GMAT analogy which you floated cluelessly. Your response filled with smiley poohs is notoriously missing an answer to even one of the queries i posed. You are yet to answer my queries grilling you on why or how test cricket is standardized or how GMAT analogy is relevant to this. I dont think you will ever answer this, coz, admit it, you are clueless.

Let's also use the reverse logic on your scenario based on the your rules and "knowns" below: 1. MoYo averages blah blah against the choice of your teams and we know that he is a good batsman 2. Batsmen from the era of 1970-1990, i.e. Gavaskar/Richards, played better attacks than what Moyo did against minnows. 3. Ian Redpath, avg of 50 in 33 tests from 1970-1976 So Beta, would you also say that Redpath is better than MoYo? .... Or how about Ravi Shastri being a better all-rounder than Mankad and Miller?

This once again, proves how clueless you are. While am tempted to comment on your non-existing intelligence, I'll refrain from it, as it will deflect my attention from exposing your clueless logic. What is the relevance of RedPath & Moyo here, esp, when we are discussing Bradman & MoYo ? Genius, arent you ? And your logic (you must be generous to call it that), is just contradicting yourself. Here is some logic 101 that you missed in school: 1) You claimed that Bradman is the greatest ever based on his averages & his gulf over his peers. 2) I pointed out that in a similar league MoYo is as great, as he not only averages 101, but also trumps all his peers. 3) Since high average and domination of peers makes Bradman greater than the likes of Gavaskar, Viv & Sobers, my point is that you could deduce using the same criteria that Moyo is better than these guys too. Now you go, "Gavaskar faced better attacks", "RedPath averaged 50" etc. I dont see how this is relevant to this conversation. Because if you claim that Gavaskar faced better attacks than Moyo & therefore greater than Moyo, the same logic applies to Gavaskar vs Bradman comparison & hence Gavaskar would be better than Bradman as well. Choose your argument, dont drive in circles. And, stop harping on cherry picking, blah, blah. I already explained this in my prev posts. It is a league chosen amongst the playing nations where there exists a player with superior credentials than his peers. If you have any background in logic, i should not find it this hard to grill this into your head. And for christ's sake, finish the existing argument before adding more variables. And if you can, post something sensible & earn a response. So far, you are just spouting more and more nonsense with each post and in the process littering the board with your smiley poohs.:haha:

[zen]

What is the relevance of RedPath & Moyo here, esp, when we are discussing Bradman & MoYo ? Genius, arent you ? And your logic (you must be generous to call it that), is just contradicting yourself. Here is some logic 101 that you missed in school: 1) You claimed that Bradman is the greatest ever based on his averages & his gulf over his peers. 2) I pointed out that in a similar league MoYo is as great, as he not only averages 101, but also trumps all his peers. 3) Since high average and domination of peers makes Bradman greater than the likes of Gavaskar, Viv & Sobers, my point is that you could deduce using the same criteria that Moyo is better than these guys too Now you go, "Gavaskar faced better attacks", "RedPath averaged 50" etc. I dont see how this is relevant to this conversation. Because if you claim that Gavaskar faced better attacks than Moyo & therefore greater than Moyo, the same logic applies to Gavaskar vs Bradman comparison & hence Gavaskar would be better than Bradman as well. Choose your argument, dont drive in circles. And, stop harping on cherry picking, blah, blah. I already explained this in my prev posts. It is a league chosen amongst the playing nations where there exists a player with superior credentials than his peers. If you have any background in logic, i should not find it this hard to grill this into your head.

That's exactly the point being made about the example that you gave for MoYo. See you FINALLY got it when I used the reverse logic! :--D Instead of trying to explain to me again and again what you cooked , if you had realized this simple thing which I had explained you a long time ago, you have had saved your time not only from writing this post but making an ass out of yourself :hysterical:

[Bumper]

That's exactly the point being made about the example that you gave for MoYo. See you FINALLY got it when I used the reverse logic! :--D Instead of trying to explain to me again and again what you cooked , if you had realized this simple thing which I had explained you a long time ago, you have had saved your time not only from writing this post but making an ass out of yourself :hysterical:

Is this all you got to say, come on ?:haha: Just incase its not obvious to you yet, the only one who is making an a.$$ out of himself here, is clearly **you**, as i have picked your arguments apart one at a time and shown how woefully inadequate your logic (which is tantamount to "nonsense"), is. You are yet to answer even one of my challenges. When you do that, you can get your tail up again. Until then, **tail between legs** and **hands on mouth**. Shooo now!

[zen]

Is this all you got to say, come on ?:haha: Just incase its not obvious to you yet, the only one who is making an a.$$ out of himself here, is clearly **you**, as i have picked your arguments apart one at a time and shown how woefully inadequate your logic (which is tantamount to "nonsense"), is. You are yet to answer even one of my challenges. When you do that, you can get your tail up again. Until then, **tail between legs** and **hands on mouth**. Shooo now!

Omg, "cherry picker" also thought that he threw my argument apart :hysterical: Appears as if the light still hasn't go on in your brain: cherry picking MoYo's fig and then comparing it to Gavaskar's is as dumb as cherry picking Moyo's numbers and comparing them to Redpath. Because if you are trying to show Gavaskar with an avg of 50 is better than Moyo's (based on cherry picking) than Redpath should be better than MoYo too. So for your example to be valid, it should be applicable to both the scenarios :--D .... And you thought you have it in you to teach others logic :giggle: Go cherry pick, I guess that's the only thing you are probably good at :P

[Raghav_12]

I made a mistake of getting into a debate hoping for an intelligent conversation with you. Now that i've learnt' date=' I think i've just wasted my time honoring you with a response.[/quote']

haha.. you are not the one to feel that way. Bossbhai, Me and Nirvanam have also gone through same and ended same way. It's not we can't have a debate decently on this topic, but few people are just impossible.

[dial_100]

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74605 Watch that clip and tell me honestly what you think of the 2 bowlers operating at around 09:00.00 to 10:00.00 one is a left armer bowling from the far end (top of your screen towards bottom ) and the right arm bowler from the other end. Rate them on a scale of 1(Ajit Agarkar) to 10( Dale Steyn). PS: Sometime you may have to do full-screen to see the video counter.

Nice reflexes while the crowd is clapping. I guess in 30s everyone were top notch. Bowlers, fielders and even spectators as well.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

Dumb: These fools don't understand that 57>100 Dumber: Yeah, even antilog proves that Dumb: Did you see the videos? Dumber: Yep and also MoYo's record against minnows shows why can't one question Bradman's superiority Dumb: These fools laugh at our arguments and troll Dumber: Yeah, some folks are just impossible. They can't have a decent discussion :giggle: