Predict Bradman in ODIs in modern era.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

doesnt work like that ... because the bouncer rule doesnt stop the bowler from aiming at anything below shoulder height ... you can bowl any number of such deliveries.

Have you played cricket? .... Do this simple exercise: get a tennis ball, mark 2 sections on a wall/door/whatever. Draw a line where what would be a usual waist area and another at the shoulder level .... See what length you need to throw at to try to hit the sections b/w waist and shoulders and above the shoulders. See what lengths are needed to do that

[ravishingravi]

I have not seen a better batsman that Viv Richards period. So, to me he is best of all times notwithstanding 99.84

[Sachin=GOD]

I have not seen a better batsman that Viv Richards period. So' date= to me he is best of all times notwithstanding 99.84

at least you rate a batsman to be the greatest after having watched him play - these members of the Bradman Brigade haven't even seen Bradman play except in very few short clips and they have made him the greatest of all time :haha:

[rkt.india]

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:

right.

[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.

As I said before - I do not buy this all time greatest business. until you specify the greatness criteria as clearly as possible. The problem with your claim - Bradman-greater than every other cricketer - is it is based only only one parameter test cricket average domination over peers. If that is the only criteria you want to consider, then yes Bradman will stand out. SRT and other modern greats do push around each other in terms of test cricket averages or couple of more parameters, but there have been many other numbers related to cricket - that SRT stands heads and shoulders above the rest. Which is why the big words that Viv, Hayden, Ponting, Dravid and everyone else use for SRT.

Because the top guys would be more or less around the same level :winky:

This shows the high level of competition. Most of these would come out with bradmanesque test averages, in the kind of amateurish competition Bradman enjoyed. I will repeat once again - in an inefficient system, even a skill difference of 5% can be magnified to bradmanesue levels. Besides, can anyone with access to data verify that - the frequency distribution curve of the test averages in 30s is a normal distribution and not one of other type that allows farther outliers..e.g. like heavy-tailed?

[akshayxyz]

Have you played cricket? .... Do this simple exercise: get a tennis ball' date=' mark 2 sections on a wall/door/whatever. Draw a line where what would be a usual waist area and another at the shoulder level .... See what length you need to throw at to try to hit the sections b/w waist and shoulders and above the shoulders. See what lengths are needed to do that[/quote'] So one has to try bowling himself, to see whether steyn/morkel/marshall can consistently bowl at the length they want to - to achieve the desired height after pitching? - which can be observed from watching their videos! I am glad you did not say - go to cricket academy, try domestic cricket, and the national cricket and then bowl on all the pitches and then only come back here to discuss their bowling.

[Sachin=GOD]

So one has to try bowling himself' date= to see whether steyn/morkel/marshall can consistently bowl at the length they want to - to achieve the desired height after pitching? - which can be observed from watching their videos! I am glad you did not say - go to cricket academy, try domestic cricket, and the national cricket and then bowl on all the pitches and then only come back here to discuss their bowling.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

So one has to try bowling himself, to see whether steyn/morkel/marshall can consistently bowl at the length they want to - to achieve the desired height after pitching? - which can be observed from watching their videos! I am glad you did not say - go to cricket academy, try domestic cricket, and the national cricket and then bowl on all the pitches and then only come back here to discuss their bowling.

So I guess you agree with him that the one bouncer per over rule doesn't make much difference to either the batsman or the bowler :P

[zen]

As I said before - I do not buy this all time greatest business. until you specify the greatness criteria as clearly as possible. The problem with your claim - Bradman-greater than every other cricketer - is it is based only only one parameter test cricket average domination over peers. If that is the only criteria you want to consider, then yes Bradman will stand out. SRT and other modern greats do push around each other in terms of test cricket averages or couple of more parameters, but there have been many other numbers related to cricket - that SRT stands heads and shoulders above the rest. Which is why the big words that Viv, Hayden, Ponting, Dravid and everyone else use for SRT. This shows the high level of competition. Most of these would come out with bradmanesque test averages, in the kind of amateurish competition Bradman enjoyed. I will repeat once again - in an inefficient system, even a skill difference of 5% can be magnified to bradmanesue levels. Besides, can anyone with access to data verify that - the frequency distribution curve of the test averages in 30s is a normal distribution and not one of other type that allows farther outliers..e.g. like heavy-tailed?

I thought you already replied to this one .... Anyways, I think you are a bit confused, why? .... Kindly note that all the points are related to one another in one way or the other. So you will have to connect all the points together to get the picture. 1. Test avg is the main parameter to judge a batsman. For some Tendulkar fanboys, test avg stopped being the main parameter since Tendulker cannot compete based on that. 2. No one in the history of the game has achieved a test avg of 100 after 50 tests. Next best is in 50s (min 50 tests). 3. To put that avg of 100 into perspective, we look at Bradman's peers, who were AT greats in their own right. And you admitted that Hammond would be amongst the top 10 in any era. You expect AT greats to adjust to any era, which is why they are AT greats. Bradman is 40 points higher than these AT greats. These AT greats like Hammond, who according to you would be in top 10 of any era, faced the same kind of bowling that Bradman faced. To illustrate, lets assume we have these brands in the following periods: 1930s-1950s - Mercedes and BMW 1990s-today - Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti and Acura. Let's also say that we had Bugatti in 1930s-1950s and it was much better than Mercedes and BMW. So the popular belief is that Bugatti is the best car ever made. That is based upon it being better than Mercedes and BMW of that era. The status Mercedes and BMW of that era is the same as the status of Mercedes and BMW in this era. Just because other brands sprang out in "1990s-today" period and give more competition to Mercedes and BMW, it doesn't mean that the brand that people buy the most today is the best ever. Nor does it mean that Mercedes and BMW of that era weren't good cars. They were amongst the best that was available according to the technology (environment) of that time. The point that Tendulkar fanboy make is that Mercedes of today is better than Mercedes of past. And since it competes with more brands today and probably does slightly better, it is even better than Bugatti of 1930s-1950s. The deviation b/w Bugatti and Mercedes/BMW of past means little. You only have to look at the videos. If today's Mercedes were to be taken back to 1930s, it would be better than 1930s cars. And if 1930s Mercedes were to be brought in today, it will not compete with today's cars. ..... The reality is that Mercedes of today is the product of evolution. A 2011 Mercedes would never exist is 1930s. In 1930s all cars would be like what 1930s cars were! A Mercedes can never be made on 1930s specs today, it will be made as per today's specs (and thus the importance of understanding evolution and why most feel that AT greats of past would adjust today) If we judge batsmen based on pure evolution, then the next one will always be better. And thus today's Mercedes will go on and smoke 1930s Mercedes is not even a point because, as I said, greatness is not based on evolution but how you managed to do in the environment that you were presented with. If evolution is a factor then the best car is the one that is yet to come out. Which is why people would gladly pay millions for the 1930s Bugatti, whose value wouldn't depreciate even today. And thus, many believe Bradman is the greatest. I have tried to simplify as much as I could. As I said you have to read everything to understand what's being implied. I would imagine, some would pick a few lines and comment on that w/o understanding what's being said. But not understanding things properly is the hallmark of many of the Tendulkar fanboys :icflove:

[Sachin=GOD]

1. Test avg is the main parameter to judge a batsman. For some Tendulkar fanboys, test avg stopped being the main parameter since Tendulker cannot compete based on that.

Test average is the parameter that means while judging the greatness of the modern day players you will completely ignore the thousands and thousands of runs they have made in limited overs cricket - against pretty much the same bowlers which they faced in Tests, on the same pitches?? As for him not competing against Bradman in terms of average - isn't it obvious, one man plays 63 out of 80 innings against one single team on a grand total of 9 grounds in just 2 countries averaging around 3 Test matches per year against bowlers who would'nt even make it to the top 50 in the all time bowling list and another man plays 8-10 opponents in more than 60 grounds in more than 10 countries averaging around 10 Tests and 20 ODIs per year against bowlers which included quite a few who are among the very best in the game ever and then there's the small factor of the expectations of a billion people and then you expect him to average 99.94 :hysterical::hysterical:

2. No one in the history of the game has achieved a test avg of 100 after 50 tests. Next best is in 50s (min 50 tests).

So??? This only means that Sir Don Bradman was the best of his times and since then the game of cricket has changed so much and has become so competitive that it is not possible for cricketers to average so much against such high quality bowling. Its one thing to average 99.94 against mickey mouse bowlers, crappy fielding with no competition and quite another to average even in the 50s in the modern day game.

To illustrate, lets assume we have these brands in the following periods: 1930s-1950s - Mercedes and BMW 1990s-today - Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti and Acura. Let's also say that we had Bugatti in 1930s-1950s and it was much better than Mercedes and BMW. So the popular belief is that Bugatti is the best car ever made. That is based upon it being better than Mercedes and BMW of that era. The status Mercedes and BMW of that era is the same as the status of Mercedes and BMW in this era. Just because other brands sprang out in "1990s-today" period and give more competition to Mercedes and BMW, it doesn't mean that the brand that people buy the most today is the best ever. Nor does it mean that Mercedes and BMW of that era weren't good cars. They were amongst the best that was available according to the technology (environment) of that time. The point that Tendulkar fanboy make is that Mercedes of today is better than Mercedes of past. And since it competes with more brands today and probably does slightly better, it is even better than Bugatti of 1930s-1950s. The deviation b/w Bugatti and Mercedes/BMW of past means little. You only have to look at the videos. If today's Mercedes were to be taken back to 1930s, it would be better than 1930s cars. And if 1930s Mercedes were to be brought in today, it will not compete with today's cars. ..... The reality is that Mercedes of today is the product of evolution. A 2011 Mercedes would never exist is 1930s. In 1930s all cars would be like what 1930s cars were! A Mercedes can never be made on 1930s specs today, it will be made as per today's specs (and thus the importance of understanding evolution and why most feel that AT greats of past would adjust today) If we judge batsmen based on pure evolution, then the next one will always be better. And thus today's Mercedes will go on and smoke 1930s Mercedes is not even a point because, as I said, greatness is not based on evolution but how you managed to do in the environment that you were presented with. If evolution is a factor then the best car is the one that is yet to come out. Which is why people would gladly pay millions for the 1930s Bugatti, whose value wouldn't depreciate even today. And thus, many believe Bradman is the greatest.

That Sir, is BS of the highest order :hatsoff:

[The Outsider]

^ Wren and Martin ke champion, why don't you answer post #23 from this thread?

[bhanu]

I think bradman woud average around 80s in test and 70s in odi if he played in today era.

[akshayxyz]

So I guess you agree with him that the one bouncer per over rule doesn't make much difference to either the batsman or the bowler :P

What part of my statement makes conclude this, logically speaking? If I subscribe to certain thought, I will specify. I highlighted the absurdity of the exercise you suggested - that is about it. If you want you can prove otherwise, which part of your suggestion made sense.

[zen]

What part of my statement makes conclude this, logically speaking? If I subscribe to certain thought, I will specify. I highlighted the absurdity of the exercise you suggested - that is about it. If you want you can prove otherwise, which part of your suggestion made sense.

So do I take it that you don't agree with what he said? Neither did I, which is why I asked him to perform that exercise so that he could find that out practically (because if he based his opinion on videos then he didn't get the answer spot on) You responded to my point on exercise (which was designed to help him see what he could not) which was made at a point you don't agree with. But you still had it in you to suggest that what I suggested was absurd, great :hehe: TF logic

[akshayxyz]

I thought you already replied to this one .... Anyways, I think you are a bit confused, why? .... Kindly note that all the points are related to one another in one way or the other. So you will have to connect all the points together to get the picture.

Even if I fail to connect the dots that are there in your mind - feel free to explain again. And be assured I (and many others) also have lots of dots that I/they are trying to present. So - what you see as clear picture may not be the only truth. So respect others views w/o being biased. Only if it was so easy to understand others' perspectives - all discussion boards would have been non-existent.

1. Test avg is the main parameter to judge a batsman. For some Tendulkar fanboys, test avg stopped being the main parameter since Tendulker cannot compete based on that.

Not just for Sachin - I will explain some other time - why average (in case of cricket) is potentially erroneous parameter to judge a batsman and then compare with others'. I hope someone has already explored the angle I am thinking, I will research and present some other time. Hint - average (arithmetic mean) is good indicator of sample set in normal distribution and it may not be in many other type of distributions. If you wish to explore yourself, feel free to do a bit of reading on mean,median, normal distribution, interpretation of outliers - it is not that boring. Also think about why not-outs should be handled differently than they way they are - from the perspective of outliers. You will say - not-outs are handled similarly for everyone - well it can have different extent of effect on different individuals' averages. As I said, I will see if someone has already devised a model to take care of that.

2. No one in the history of the game has achieved a test avg of 100 after 50 tests. Next best is in 50s (min 50 tests). 3. To put that avg of 100 into perspective, we look at Bradman's peers, who were AT greats in their own right. And you admitted that Hammond would be amongst the top 10 in any era. You expect AT greats to adjust to any era, which is why they are AT greats. Bradman is 40 points higher than these AT greats. These AT greats like Hammond, who according to you would be in top 10 of any era, faced the same kind of bowling that Bradman faced.

You forced me to guess. And from what I have read about Hammond - w/o blindly bringing/escalating him down/up, I just guessed. that is it.

To illustrate, lets assume we have these brands in the following periods: 1930s-1950s - Mercedes and BMW 1990s-today - Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Lexus, Infiniti and Acura. Let's also say that we had Bugatti in 1930s-1950s and it was much better than Mercedes and BMW. So the popular belief is that Bugatti is the best car ever made. That is based upon it being better than Mercedes and BMW of that era. The status Mercedes and BMW of that era is the same as the status of Mercedes and BMW in this era. Just because other brands sprang out in "1990s-today" period and give more competition to Mercedes and BMW, it doesn't mean that the brand that people buy the most today is the best ever. Nor does it mean that Mercedes and BMW of that era weren't good cars. They were amongst the best that was available according to the technology (environment) of that time.

Popular belief is just popular belief, highly subjective (e.g. Rajnikanth vs Amitabh). You need to specify the parameters of comparison as objectively as possible. Otherwise be prepared for endless debates. Besides, I fail to see the analogy with the game of cricket - except for the part - Buggati 'dominated' it's peers on popular belief.

The point that Tendulkar fanboy make is that Mercedes of today is better than Mercedes of past. And since it competes with more brands today and probably does slightly better, it is even better than Bugatti of 1930s-1950s. The deviation b/w Bugatti and Mercedes/BMW of past means little. You only have to look at the videos. If today's Mercedes were to be taken back to 1930s, it would be better than 1930s cars. And if 1930s Mercedes were to be brought in today, it will not compete with today's cars. ..... The reality is that Mercedes of today is the product of evolution. A 2011 Mercedes would never exist is 1930s. In 1930s all cars would be like what 1930s cars were! A Mercedes can never be made on 1930s specs today, it will be made as per today's specs (and thus the importance of understanding evolution and why most feel that AT greats of past would adjust today) If we judge batsmen based on pure evolution, then the next one will always be better. And thus today's Mercedes will go on and smoke 1930s Mercedes is not even a point because, as I said, greatness is not based on evolution but how you managed to do in the environment that you were presented with. If evolution is a factor then the best car is the one that is yet to come out. Which is why people would gladly pay millions for the 1930s Bugatti, whose value wouldn't depreciate even today. And thus, many believe Bradman is the greatest. I have tried to simplify as much as I could. As I said you have to read everything to understand what's being implied. I would imagine, some would pick a few lines and comment on that w/o understanding what's being said. But not understanding things properly is the hallmark of many of the Tendulkar fanboys :icflove:

I do not want to comment on (taking Mercedes back to 1930s) - as I am neither a Sachin's fanboy nor Bradman's. And I do not subscribe to the time-travel crap. About people gladly paying millions for Bugatti - its a combination of popular belief, demand, supply, antique value and host of other parameters. That is economics and I do not see the analogy with rating sports persons. "If evolution is a factor then the best car is the one that is yet to come out". - Until "best" is not defined clearly enough - there will always be debates due to differences of perception. In context of cricket - if you apply evolutionary theory - its more complex than we can predict - every aspect can evolve - fielding, bowling, batting. It is difficult to predict the rates of evolutions of each aspect and how each affect averages and other stats. So - we can just wait and watch, and we will have different topics to discuss in future. Ideal would be to see someone achieve Bradman-esque deviation and then I would try to defend Bradman (I have read some great reviews about him - not just 99.94...e.g. this section onwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman#Troubled_war_years).

[akshayxyz]

So do I take it that you don't agree with what he said? Neither did I, which is why I asked him to perform that exercise so that he could find that out practically (because if he based his opinion on videos then he didn't get the answer spot on) You responded to my point on exercise (which was designed to help him see what he could not) which was made at a point you don't agree with. But you still had it in you to suggest that what I suggested was absurd, great :hehe: TF logic

I have no problem with what you dream/believe. But so far, I do see problems with your logical reasoning. keep working on it.

[zen]

We have to go by avg (widely accepted parameter in tests) until you finish your research. And then ofc, we have to see if ICC agrees with you .... Until then what you think is irrelevant .... I am not here to draw exact parallels but give examples so that a point can be simplified and thus the essence of what I am trying to say is understood. I can use examples of say plants but what would be its use if people fail to see the essence of the point being made The problem lies because you are probably not used to seeing the bigger picture. Once you limit yourself to a particular tool to evaluate something, it can become difficult to get out of it.

I have no problem with what you dream/believe. But so far, I do see problems with your logical reasoning. keep working on it.

I know it can be difficult to understand the simple concept of learning by doing :winky:

[akshayxyz]

We have to go by avg (widely accepted parameter in tests) until you finish your research. And then ofc, we have to see if ICC agrees with you .... Until then what you think is irrelevant .... I am not here to draw exact parallels but give examples so that a point can be simplified and thus the essence of what I am trying to say is understood. I can use examples of say plants but what would be its use if people fail to see the essence of the point being made The problem lies because you are probably not used to seeing the bigger picture. Once you limit yourself to a particular tool to evaluate something, it can become difficult to get out of it. I know it can be difficult to understand the simple concept of learning by doing :winky:

If you fail to see how it (bolded part) applies to you more than you suggest it does to me ( I am at least trying to explore various possible interpretations of average, outliers, 99.94 and 4.3 std deviation), then that tells the bigger picture about your attitude towards learning and your relative close-mindedness. And that also explains your overuse of smileys and personal remarks (not this post, but there are handful of such examples). Side note: One reason why average is widely accepted, as its easiest metric to calculate and most convenient to update when new value is added to the sample. Once again I would encourage you to do a bit of reading on how outliers affect mean, median, mode and other related statistical parameters. If science/math had evolved based on popular belief, Earth still would have been center of Solar System, by popular belief.

[zen]

Btw, Talking abt combining tests and ODI numbers, so is Sehwag who avgs 50 odd in tests and 30 odd in ODIs equal to Bevan, who probably has the opposite numbers?