If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[Bumper]

The question would be similar to someone asking is xyz>Bradman, based on xyz's performances against x team vs Bradman's in that time. It would be like suggesting: is Hobbs>Bradman based on THIS ..... we know Bradman>Hobbs and similarly we know Lara>MoYo

That means, you got no clue what you are arguing against. I just showed you a league comprising of Pak, WI, Zim, BD in the modern world to illustrate how one batsman could end up an outlier and still not be the greatest ever. Is this so hard to understand ? The fact that Lara > Moyo is pure hindsight because you have the luxury of observing both beyond that "reference league" in question. But if you never had that luxury (and the modern world only comprises of those 4 teams) then using the same outlier theory that you use to claim Bradman's greatness, you should be able to make similar conclusions about Yusuf. Got that ? I encourage you to read this over & over again, until you have had a chance to digest it.

The points that you are making fails to see that the word minnow is a relative term, ignores evolution and tries to assume that today's batsmen performing against today's minnow is similar to batsmen in the past playing against the strongest team of the past Despite our conversations in the past, you seem reluctant to let go of your ridiculous theories

Duh, if you are this thick, you should not be entering these debates at all. Genius, if minnow is a relative term, how can you use such relative metrics to assert that Bradman is the greatest on "absolute" skill level ? If that's not your claim, then what are you arguing here. If that is your claim, you got a contradiction to resolve. Go figure!

[Bumper]

Greatest of all time doesn't meant the sport stops progressing when that person retires.

No body is saying sports dont progress, infact we are claiming to the contrary! Sports progress so much that achievements of yester-years cannot be compared to those of the current on absolute terms. Greatest of all time => player X is the greatest on "absolute" skill level, not relative. If we argue like this, the cavemen who invented fire possess far more superior intellect than Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein

[yoda]

No body is saying sports dont progress, infact we are claiming to the contrary! Sports progress so much that achievements of yester-years cannot be compared to those of the current on absolute terms.

That's fine, some feel you can't compare across era, others feel that can be done based on how they performed wrt their competitors, using other factors to try normalize performances across era. What is laughable however is trying to equate Bradman's performances to current player performances against minnows.

Greatest of all time => player X is the greatest on "absolute" skill level, not relative.

Not really. Rod Laver and Roy Emerson were considered the greatest Tennis players of all time, till Sampras and Federrer came along. Jesse Owens considered the greatest sprinter till Carl Lewis did the 4 golds in 84. Same with Babe Ruth. Times get bettered all the time. Same with speed and athleticism, doesn't mean greatness keeps shifting with those.

If we argue like this, the cavemen who invented fire possess far more superior intellect than Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein

No, that would be like claiming Bradman could hit the ball with more power than Richards. A better question is - which is a greater invention - the fire/wheel or gravity/relativity? I bet you would hear different answers from different people.

[Bumper]

That's fine, some feel you can't compare across era, others feel that can be done based on how they performed wrt their competitors, using other factors to try normalize performances across era. What is laughable however is trying to equate Bradman's performances to current player performances against minnows.

Wrong! I am not trying to compare Bradman's performances of the past with Moyo's against minnows. My exercise is to show how we can draw ridiculous conclusions based on the "outlier" theory if we dont keep perspective of the reference frame. Specifically, in a league comprising of the teams in the 30s/40s Bradman was way ahead of his peers (an outlier) and in the modern world in a league comprising BD, Zim, WI & Pak, Moyo is an outlier as well. But in hindsight (because we have seen Lara, Moyo against other teams), we know Moyo is not the greater batsman. Given this, how can we safely conclude Bradman was the greatest ever based on the fact that he was an outlier of his times ?

Not really. Rod Laver and Roy Emerson were considered the greatest Tennis players of all time, till Sampras and Federrer came along. Jesse Owens considered the greatest sprinter till Carl Lewis did the 4 golds in 84. Same with Babe Ruth. Times get bettered all the time. Same with speed and athleticism, doesn't mean greatness keeps shifting with those.

That's fair. No one will question the claim that Bradman was a great batsman of his era. He was a great of his times. I'll accept that. I only object to claims that he is the greatest ever.

No, that would be like claiming Bradman could hit the ball with more power than Richards. A better question is - which is a greater invention - the fire/wheel or gravity/relativity? I bet you would hear different answers from different people.

Again that example is to just point out holes in the outlier theory to claim Universal greatness.

[yoda]

Wrong! I am not trying to compare Bradman's performances of the past with Moyo's against minnows. My exercise is to show how we can draw ridiculous conclusions based on the "outlier" theory if we dont keep perspective of the reference frame. Specifically, in a league comprising of the teams in the 30s/40s Bradman was way ahead of his peers (an outlier) and in the modern world in a league comprising BD, Zim, WI & Pak, Moyo is an outlier as well. But in hindsight (because we have seen Lara, Moyo against other teams), we know Moyo is not the greater batsman. Given this, how can we safely conclude Bradman was the greatest ever based on the fact that he was an outlier of his times ?

There is no league comprising of BD, Zim, WI & Pak. That is a convenient subset you have cherry picked. And even at that, all you have proven is that not everyone bashes mediocre opponents the same way. Some do it better than the others. It doesn't apply to Bradman's case cause his opponents were the best of that time. They may be mediocre by today's standards, but doesn't mean anything. Batting standards were bad, bowling standards were bad, yet one man stood head and shoulders above the rest.

That's fair. No one will question the claim that Bradman was a great batsman of his era. He was a great of his times. I'll accept that. I only object to claims that he is the greatest ever.

The examples I posted were for ATG, not just for their generation.

Again that example is to just point out holes in the outlier theory to claim Universal greatness.

Universal greatness in sports is a common phenomenon. It is not limited just to cricket. Was the bulls team of the 90s the best ever? Were the Yankees of whenever the greatest ever?

[Bumper]

There is no league comprising of BD' date=' Zim, WI & Pak. That is a convenient subset you have cherry picked. And even at that, all you have proven is that not everyone bashes mediocre opponents the same way. Some do it better than the others. It doesn't apply to Bradman's case cause his opponents were the best [b']of that time. They may be mediocre by today's standards, but doesn't mean anything. Batting standards were bad, bowling standards were bad, yet one man stood head and shoulders above the rest.

Wrong again! Its a subset based on hindsight! If WI, BD, Zim were the only teams playing, then WI would be the best team of Moyo's times. (and he averaged over 100 against them against the likes of Ambrose & Walsh, which is no mean feat, mind you!).

And even at that, all you have proven is that not everyone bashes mediocre opponents the same way. Some do it better than the others.

Precisely, which is why the outlier theory is a heap of bull dust!

They may be mediocre by today's standards, but doesn't mean anything. Batting standards were bad, bowling standards were bad, yet one man stood head and shoulders above the rest.

In so many words, you are just saying Bradman was an outlier and hence the greatest, which is what i just ground to dust.

[yoda]

Wrong again! Its a subset based on hindsight! If WI, BD, Zim were the only teams playing, then WI would be the best team of Moyo's times. (and he averaged over 100 against them against the likes of Ambrose & Walsh, which is no mean feat, mind you!). Precisely, which is why the outlier theory is a heap of bull dust! In so many words, you are just saying Bradman was an outlier and hence the greatest, which is what i just ground to dust.

So you are saying the entire greatness of Bradman and your argument lies in whether you could find a cherry picked Moyo Stats? That stat to me is meaningless given that it was cherry picked, is what we sometimes call curve fitting.

[zen]

That means, you got no clue what you are arguing against. I just showed you a league comprising of Pak, WI, Zim, BD in the modern world to illustrate how one batsman could end up an outlier and still not be the greatest ever. Is this so hard to understand ? The fact that Lara > Moyo is pure hindsight because you have the luxury of observing both beyond that "reference league" in question. But if you never had that luxury (and the modern world only comprises of those 4 teams) then using the same outlier theory that you use to claim Bradman's greatness, you should be able to make similar conclusions about Yusuf. Got that ? I encourage you to read this over & over again, until you have had a chance to digest it. Duh, if you are this thick, you should not be entering these debates at all. Genius, if minnow is a relative term, how can you use such relative metrics to assert that Bradman is the greatest on "absolute" skill level ? If that's not your claim, then what are you arguing here. If that is your claim, you got a contradiction to resolve. Go figure!

I agree that I haven't read the post you are referring to but I know what you are saying and already answered to your most of your points but: * breaking down teams into parts and judging batsmen is laughable because we are judging folks based on the 'whole'. That 'whole' is represented by all the teams at a given time. Which is why Bradman > Hobbs, Lara > MoYo .... based on the 'whole', ppl think srt is an ATG batsman despite his 'relatively' poor record against the "ATG pairs", arguably choking in pressure situation, etc * it is false to imply that one never had the luxury to judge as there were minnows in those days, just like there are minnows now. There is a reason why the 'invincible' is rated as amongst the top 3 teams of all time * to suit your needs, you are manufacturing a situation whereby you are taking two knows: moyo against minnows and moyo against strong teams to suggest that if the strong teams didn't exists then ..... but if those strong teams didn't exist how can you tell that a Lara would not give his best against the current minnows and give a better performance than minnows? You are making a false assumption that MoYo and Lara would perform the same against the minnows in the absence of strong teams. If the strong team(s) didn't exist then a lot of factors change and so do how the batsman play. Take SRT's Ranji perfo for example, it is not eye shattering, but when he played Aus for Mumbai, he hit a gem! Take Sobers too, see his FC record vs international. Are we to assume that Sir Gary Sobers wouldn't have played better if the FC games were the only international games he played? I am sorry to say that your theory is pure BS For the 2nd part, yes, a minnow is a relative term wrt the strong team. There is NO WAY a team like BD has ever had players of the caliber of Hobbs, Hammond, Suitscliffe, Larwood, etc or a strong captain like Jardine! the avg of 100 can be said to be relative too because who knows with today's coaching, training, analysis, professionalism, etc Bradman could have been an even better batsman and averaged even more .... when the likes of Bhajji, Zak, Kumble, Srinath can improve their batting, are you implying that those who excelled in the past wouldn't .... but what the avg shows is 'absolute' As can be seen from the example of SRT and Sobers in FC vs international that skills while performances can be relative, skills can be seen as absolute. if not, a tendulkar wouldn't have been successful at the age of 16 and with proper training and work ethics, he has been able to improve himself over the years. Same goes for the likes of Dravid who work hard on his game .... If you have to come up with such crazy theories to show srt is the greatest then what's the point :dontknow:

[bulbul]

We have to condemn and bring down an entire generation of cricketers for what just to show one guy Invincible... There is no question of Sachins all time greatness...but to make it even better we dont have to bring other peoples down....

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[tothepoint]

Blah, Blah, Blah... Only one problem. You can think whatever you want in your closet. You post your thoughts online, you are gonna invite criticism and ridicule depending on the merit of your posts. If you dont want anyone to crtique your opinions, then why are you posting it here ?

Same goes for you. Being in the closet,posting your thoughts online and all that stuff. I find your logic faulty and biased,as simple as that. Now can you please answer some of the questions I have posted instead of running circles around. Why do you think that the English side of 30s(who have a record of 17-11 against aussies when Bradman played) were the minnows of their time? Shall I elaborate what is the defintion of a minnow? What is so wrong in comparing Bradman to Hobbs,Hutton,Hammond? Then with whom would you like to compare these poor fellows,your logic implies they were as good as Sanjay Manarekar or Ramiz Raza of OUR TIME based on their absolute skill levels? Does that even make sense? According to your LOGIC,latest will always be the greatest. Is that so? Also, who do you think is the greatest ever? MoYo? If not,is it because people compared him with Lara,Sachin,Kallis etc? Why nobody else was as ahead of their times as Bradman was? If anything else,it adds to his aura. Regarding that only piece of information which you have gathered to pin down Bradman,putting things aside like minnow-bashing,I would say yes MoYo was Bradmanesque in those 16 tests against BD,Zim and WI.

[CSK Fan]

So you are saying the entire greatness of Bradman and your argument lies in whether you could find a cherry picked Moyo Stats? That stat to me is meaningless given that it was cherry picked, is what we sometimes call curve fitting.

But this cherry picking is very relevant to understand the whole Bradman number. If WI, Zim, Bangla, etc were the only team Moyo was playing he would average beyond imagination. Similarly the standard of cricket was not very high, and Bradman played only 2-3 teams for only 52 matches.

[Raghav_12]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=25;opposition=4;opposition=7;opposition=9;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;team=25;team=4;team=7;team=9;template=results;type=batting

THIS.. This list proves, beyond any doubt, fallcy in the argument of people who declare Bradman greatest ever based on some statistical parameters or on the basis of "gap over second best". It is as simple as that numbers of one paradigm would hold any value in other paradigm only if context has been set properly.

[mishra]

Bradman attempted to be Moyosque ,I would say yes MoYo was Bradmanesque in those 16 tests against BD,Zim and WI. in 1930s

Why a far inferiror quaility non competitive is best... I think those kind of cricketers do exist now too. Its just that no one is cheering for them PS: If I go to a expensive restuarant and order Pulav, I would expect it to be cooked with atleast with Basmati range rice and not in American rice( Even though that American rice may have been sourced from the best breed with best grain sizes)

[tothepoint]

Why a far inferiror quaility non competitive is best... I think those kind of cricketers do exist now too. Its just that no one is cheering for them PS: If I go to a expensive restuarant and order Pulav, I would expect it to be cooked with atleast with Basmati range rice and not in American rice( Even though that American rice may have been sourced from the best breed with best grain sizes)

Mr.Mishra How do you rate Hobbs,Headley,Hutton,Hammond as compared to modern-day batsman? What makes you feel that in 30 years odd cricketers became so much better or for that matter,cricket became so much more popular? Mind you,each generation has its own respective pros and cons but more often than not they cancel each other,how can you completely disregard these factors? And I would suggest you to read this little piece of info on his cricinfo profile :- http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html#profile I for one find it amusing how the lines changes from "beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived " to "batsman of his time" for any other great batsman.

[akshayxyz]

Mr.Mishra How do you rate Hobbs' date=Headley,Hutton,Hammond as compared to modern-day batsman? What makes you feel that in 30 years odd cricketers became so much better or for that matter,cricket became so much more popular? Mind you,each generation has its own respective pros and cons but more often than not they cancel each other,how can you completely disregard these factors? And I would suggest you to read this little piece of info on his cricinfo profile :- http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html#profile I for one find it amusing how the lines changes from "beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived " to "batsman of his time" for any other great batsman.

Such kind of 1-1 correspondence is just not possible, not yet, with the currently available data and statistical methods. Why can't people sit back and enjoy current era, while they can still marvel at some past stuff- both are not mutually exclusive things to do.

[8ankitj]

*Continues to be amazed*

[BeautifulGame]

Is it true that u cant be given out LBW even if u didnt offer a shot as long as the balls hits outside the offstump during Bradman era?

[mishra]

Mr.Mishra How do you rate Hobbs,Headley,Hutton,Hammond as compared to modern-day batsman? What makes you feel that in 30 years odd cricketers became so much better or for that matter,cricket became so much more popular? Mind you,each generation has its own respective pros and cons but more often than not they cancel each other,how can you completely disregard these factors? And I would suggest you to read this little piece of info on his cricinfo profile :- http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html#profile I for one find it amusing how the lines changes from "beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived " to "batsman of his time" for any other great batsman.

Dont you find the contradiction there (cricinfo statement)? I dont rate those batsmen any better then Bradman..... I just dont belive the cricket your so called great played as leisure/hobby activity is anyway comparable to cricket played by professional players. Saying that they played better cricket is just throwng insult on professional players who spend their day in day out in nets and fields attempting to master thier skill.

[mishra]

Is it true that u cant be given out LBW even if u didnt offer a shot as long as the balls hits outside the offstump during Bradman era?

Not sure... But that era, ball has to pitch in line and hit in line to be given lbw. now thsat rule is only applicable for round the wicket bowlers