Predict Bradman in ODIs in modern era.

[akshayxyz]

Wrong. Prediction is something quite different. Look it up.

I was referring to issuing certificates of stupidity, when all you could have done is leave a wild guess, or simply stay away.

Endorse it to the extent of it's scope. No, it's not. Try to understand the scope of the study and argument. The study attempts to quantify one variable - the presence of a larger pool of cricketers today - and concludes the equivalent statistical outlier today would be in the range of 75-80. It is not a prediction.

So - do you (or stat experts) claim that such outlier is possible in modern setup(size of pool, rules, dynamics etc.)

[Sachin=GOD]

Is the following your quote or not? If it is, what does it mean, Wren and Martin ke champion? .

I merely copied this from the internet :dontknow: In the North vs South thread people were talking about famous things/people/food etc from their state.

[The Outsider]

I merely copied this from the internet :dontknow: In the North vs South thread people were talking about famous things/people/food etc from their state.

Source? And do you endorse the statement or not?

[The Outsider]

So - do you (or stat experts) claim that such outlier is possible in modern setup(size of pool, rules, dynamics etc.)

No such claim was made in that study. Do I make the claim? Yeah sure it's possible. Will we see it in our lifetimes? I don't know.

[akshayxyz]

No such claim was made in that study. Do I make the claim? Yeah sure it's possible. Will we see it in our lifetimes? I don't know.

So, if no one has yet claimed/proved/disproved whether it is feasible or not to attain such extent of domination in significantly different setup - then why is it brought over and again to judge the greatness or not-so-greatness of sportsmen in that different setup? Besides, have you come across any study which explores how much of that deviation was due to individual's skill and how much of it was due to the cricket scene those days and/or any other factors? How intelligent is it to say - Don was 4.x deviations from the mean in his era, so one has to achieve same level of domination to be considered as/more/less greater in current era. Or - He would have adapted to every change in cricket setup and yet maintain same level of domination ( in terms of standard deviations) in any era?? I have observed these are often repeated by you/rett and other cross era experts.

[akshayxyz]

It is an interesting exercise to evaluate which is dumber: a) Don (cricket batsman) was greater than Pele( footballer!!,and others lesser endowed sportsmen) because his test avg was more std deviations away from the mean of his peers than was Pele's goals/match from Pele's peers'. b) Don would have adapted to every single change in cricket (why just test cricket!!!) and yet been able to maintain the "m.n" standard deviations distance from his peers in every era. So - Don is greatest sports person ever - others just wasted their lives.

[The Outsider]

So, if no one has yet claimed/proved/disproved whether it is feasible or not to attain such extent of domination in significantly different setup - then why is it brought over and again to judge the greatness or not-so-greatness of sportsmen in that different setup?

Are you dense or playing? It is brought up to negate one variable brought up in discussions - that Bradman's average and domination was a result of a smaller cricketing pool at the time.

How intelligent is it to say - Don was 4.x deviations from the mean in his era, so one has to achieve same level of domination to be considered as/more/less greater in current era. Or - He would have adapted to every change in cricket setup and yet maintain same level of domination ( in terms of standard deviations) in any era?? I have observed these are often repeated by you/rett and other cross era experts.

Because there are numerous examples of great batsmen having adapted to gradual changes introduced in cricket and having maintained their level of performance across the changes right through change in leg before laws, use of bouncers, rise in fielding standards, reverse swing etc. Tendulkar himself has been able to do that over a span of 20 years. So did Sobers, so did Chappell, Gavaskar etc. The onus is on the naysayers to show how the introduction of some change in playing conditions translated in a visible and significant discontinuity in the performance of any all time great batsman on average over a significant sample. In fact I can give an example of when this actually happened around 1920 when pitch preparation significantly improved and batting averages went up visibly. In some earlier post someone had contended that mid 70s was the time when cricket suddenly became more competitive. I had taken a sample of great and good batsmen who played across that time and shown their pre-75 and post-75 batting averages. There was no significant change.

[The Outsider]

So - Don is greatest sports person ever - others just wasted their lives.

So, unless you are the greatest something you are living a wasted life?

[zen]

It is an interesting exercise to evaluate which is dumber: a) Don (cricket batsman) was greater than Pele( footballer!!,and others lesser endowed sportsmen) because his test avg was more std deviations away from the mean of his peers than was Pele's goals/match from Pele's peers'. b) Don would have adapted to every single change in cricket (why just test cricket!!!) and yet been able to maintain the "m.n" standard deviations distance from his peers in every era. So - Don is greatest sports person ever - others just wasted their lives.

Appears as if Tendulkar being over-shadowed by likes of Ponting, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, etc during various periods makes you feel that way Since this thread is abt ODIs, didn't you expect Tendulkar to be amongst the top 5 run getters in this WC? If yes, then how did this expectation come from? When people saw Tendulkar at the age of 16, many felt he was good enough to play for India despite him not playing the bowlers like Pakistan had then .... If nothing could be foreseen, implied, then Tendulkar wouldn't have played for India at 16 :winky: It's foolish to even suggest that the greatest batsman of AT wouldn't be able to adjust in the modern era. There is a reason why he is called the greatest. I haven't seen Pele play except may be in short clips but I can see his brilliance in that. No matter what era a champion plays in, he will be successful. Which is why he is a champion. And here we are talking abt an outlier like Bradman Don't forget that only reason you have to go through all this trouble is because Tendulkar is NOT an outlier. Which is why you need to start such threads, pick and choose, talk abt things like nothing can be proven because deep down you know Tendulkar isn't the greatest batsman. You have seen him play along with Lara, Ponting and Waugh. You probably have seen (even in highlights) Sobers, Richards, Chappell or Gavaskar play. There is no way anyone can say that Tendulkar is way ahead of any of them. (which is why the cherry picking) Case closed.

[akshayxyz]

Appears as if Tendulkar being over-shadowed by likes of Ponting, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, etc during various periods makes you feel that way

You do have problem remembering what I have been trying to prove.

Since this thread is abt ODIs, didn't you expect Tendulkar to be amongst the top 5 run getters in this WC? If yes, then how did this expectation come from? When people saw Tendulkar at the age of 16, many felt he was good enough to play for India despite him not playing the bowlers like Pakistan had then .... If nothing could be foreseen, implied, then Tendulkar wouldn't have played for India at 16 :winky:

There have been many examples of - such and such guy is next don/sachin/Akram, but people remember only the examples that lived upto expectation not the numerous such failed predictions. Btw - lets keep the parameters simple - based on Sachin's performance of 90s, would you have been able to predict his performance in 2001-2006? or 2008-2011?

It's foolish to even suggest that the greatest batsman of AT wouldn't be able to adjust in the modern era. There is a reason why he is called the greatest. I haven't seen Pele play except may be in short clips but I can see his brilliance in that. No matter what era a champion plays in, he will be successful. Which is why he is a champion. And here we are talking abt an outlier like Bradman

I never suggested he would not have adapted - but its foolish to claim that he would have maintained similar domination. He could very well have been pushed around as Ponting/Sachin/Lara/Dravid keep doing to each other.

Don't forget that only reason you have to go through all this trouble is because Tendulkar is NOT an outlier. Which is why you need to start such threads, pick and choose, talk abt things like nothing can be proven because deep down you know Tendulkar isn't the greatest batsman. You have seen him play along with Lara, Ponting and Waugh. You probably have seen (even in highlights) Sobers, Richards, Chappell or Gavaskar play. There is no way anyone can say that Tendulkar is way ahead of any of them. (which is why the cherry picking)

Well open your eyes - and you can see the 'outlier' factor in many aspects related to cricket. Test cricket average is not the only benchmark of how good a cricketer is.

Case closed.

When you close your eyes, the world does not stop. The best it suggests is limitation of your brain/abilities. Anyway - as I said before - intention of this thread is to highlight the shallowness of some numbers people bring about - to support their cross-era claims. And as if that is not enough use statistical observation to 'predict/proclaim' numbers across sports/eras.

[The Outsider]

Anyway - as I said before - intention of this thread is to highlight the shallowness of some numbers people bring about - to support their cross-era claims. And as if that is not enough use statistical observation to 'predict/proclaim' numbers across sports/eras.

If the purpose of this thread was to highlight your tenuous understanding of a 'prediction' versus a statistical result to quantify one variable it would have served it's purpose.

[akshayxyz]

If the purpose of this thread was to highlight your tenuous understanding of a 'prediction' versus a statistical result to quantify one variable it would have served it's purpose.

When some people are using a statistical result to claim (with high level of confidence) that it can(or has to) stay the same, disregarding the changes in countless parameters (across time and space) that can affect the very same statistical parameter - then many would interpret it as a prediction. And I am one of them.

[The Outsider]

^ Yeah, make your own fantasies, attribute them to others, negate them, and proclaim victory.

[akshayxyz]

^ Yeah' date=' make your own fantasies, attribute them to others, negate them, and proclaim victory.[/quote'] I hope you are enjoying your life in unidimensional ("4.3 standard deviation") world? :two_thumbs_up:

[Mariyam]

I read some of the posts here. Intriguing stuff. I can understand that by some mathematical tricks you can adjust for conditions in Bradman's era and make them applicable to today. One of the posters said he could do that by comparing averages of that era etc. But what about intangibles. For eg, there was no 1 bouncer an over rule before. So a batsman would always be scared of a bouncer and not freely charge down to hit every delivery. Nowadays, after the stipulated bouncer in an over is done with, the batsman knows that he doesn't have to face another bouncer. That way, he can go ahead or whatever being fearless. This difference in mindsets between batsmen of the two eras would have an impact on their scoring. How can you estimate for something like this? Just an example.

[Bumper]

If Gandhi was born in the modern era' date=' he would have been the greatest ODI cricketer because it's a completely different world now. He would have averaged 200 with a strike rate of 400.[/quote'] Fortunately we dont have to imagine. Gandhi was born in the modern era & he only managed an average of 16 http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/28770.html

[Sachin=GOD]

^

[zen]

I never suggested he would not have adapted - but its foolish to claim that he would have maintained similar domination. He could very well have been pushed around as Ponting/Sachin/Lara/Dravid keep doing to each other.

If you can claim that Sachin is the greatest despite him being pushed around by others, then why would you think Bradman would have to dominate others to be hailed as the greatest if he were playing now? By claiming Tendulkar as the greatest, you have already settled on the idea that you don't have to dominate to be the greatest so you shouldn't have a problem even if you think Bradman wouldn't have dominated. The idea of the greatest batsman is in existence mainly because of Bradman. How many discussions have you seen abt who the greatest bowler is? If Bradman didn't exist, the idea of greatest batsman probably wouldn't just like it doesn't exist that much for bowlers. Because the top guys would be more or less around the same level :winky:

[akshayxyz]

If you can claim that Sachin is the greatest despite him being pushed around by others, then why would you think Bradman would have to dominate others to be hailed as the greatest if he were playing now? By claiming Tendulkar as the greatest, you have already settled on the idea that you don't have to dominate to be the greatest so you shouldn't have a problem even if you think Bradman wouldn't have dominated. The idea of the greatest batsman is in existence mainly because of Bradman. How many discussions have you seen abt who the greatest bowler is? If Bradman didn't exist, the idea of greatest batsman probably wouldn't just like it doesn't exist that much for bowlers. Because the top guys would be more or less around the same level :winky:

Arey nahi bhai, I never get into "Greatest ever" business. My only interest is in pointing out the problems with the numbers people use to lay their claims (esp the extreme ones). As of now I just feel there is something missing in this 4.x std deviation thing. And using it as the only/(heavily weighted) dimension to do comparison across boundaries/systems which are drastically different. Of course, Don's avg is an anomaly in his era, but there are many ways to interpret such statistical constructs. You just do not want to look other possible perspectives, as it just serves your stance. I have said countless times - it is way too simplistic to entirely attribute outliers factor to an individual - this shouts for deeper analysis, but problem is I am not sure we have all the data that can be used to simulate that system - from those days - except the limited cricket stats. Anyway, you believe what you like using whatever numbers to support. And enjoy continue leading your brigade against BBs battalion. And I am enjoying what I like.

[CSK Fan]

Well seeing how Sachin has taken to T20 like a fish to water, there is no doubt Bradman could have as easily adapted to ODIs too. Class will be class