If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[mishra]

Don't want to get into a long winded discussion since all points have already been made at some stage or the other on this forum, but take Sobers for example. He is not that far off from the Bradman era - debuted a few years after Bradman retired. And there are well documented decent quality videos of him smashing the likes of Lillee and Thompson, something which even Richards could not do on his first outing against them. Hopefully we can all agree that Lillee and Thompson were phhaaasht. And by the way, the same Sobers considers Lindwall and Miller to be the most potent bowling combination he faced, both of whom were Bradman's contemporaries.

Yeah, I have heard stories that Lindwall did managed to send some bowler to the hospital (Bowling bouncer).... I have to do some research....

[zen]

rett, you sir are a complete idiot. Not only you are an idiot, you dont even know you are one. How is Gary Sobers comparable to Mohd Yusuf ? Did they play in the same era ? The league i pointed out (BD, SL, Zim, WI) is for the modern times - ideally it should be from 90s since BD started playing tests. This way we are comparing players who have played more or less against the same opponents (= same bowling attack). If you dont even understand such simple logic, you should stop wasting people's time. And i can't even be bothered to respond to your other post where you have bellowed something about 'whole', 'part', Hobbs, Moyo, blah, blah - that's one of the most unintelligent piece of garbage i have read on this thread. Feel free to understand the context of the debate a bit and kindly put some thought into your posts. Just turning around sitting on the keyboard and hitting the "submit" button won't get you very far.

Yes, I am an idiot for not agreeing with your cherry picking excerice and you are a genius for creating a stimulation of Bradman by showing MoYo e.g. :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

Yeah' date=' I have heard stories that Lindwall did managed to send some bowler to the hospital (Bowling bouncer).... I have to do some research....[/quote'] Your research would be more fruitful on Miller, as he was the one who loved the bouncer. BTW, just glanced through the thread and for : 1. Sourav : Ponting's overall average is without facing Warne and McGrath, Lara's overall average is without facing Ambrose and Walsh etc. So according to your reasoning even overall averages cannot be taken as a barometer? 2. MTC : Good job citing how a lot of cricket experts consider Tendulkar to be better than Lara, Ponting etc. But why do you have such a problem with these same experts when majority of them rank Bradman as much better than anyone? Also, Grimmett and O'Reilly were as good as they come as spinners. 3. Bumper : On an absolute scale, I know more Physics than Newton did in his entire lifetime. Am I a greater Physicist than him? Or was Newton a greater Physicist than me? Or you can't say? Referring to the Einstein, Newton, and fire example you gave.

[8ankitj]

Don't want to get into a long winded discussion since all points have already been made at some stage or the other on this forum, but take Sobers for example. He is not that far off from the Bradman era - debuted a few years after Bradman retired. And there are well documented decent quality videos of him smashing the likes of Lillee and Thompson, something which even Richards could not do on his first outing against them. Hopefully we can all agree that Lillee and Thompson were phhaaasht. And by the way, the same Sobers considers Lindwall and Miller to be the most potent bowling combination he faced, both of whom were Bradman's contemporaries.

Yeah, if you look at that kind of continuity, you see that cricket wasn't exactly third rate in Bradman's time. Those who had the privilege to watch Bradman to Sobers to Viv to Tendulkar have never expressed any such view. Take Richie Benaud for example.

[Bumper]

Shwetabh, I'll just make two comments (have not had a chance to scan all the posts yet): 1) I go by the video footages (of Bradman's era) and the overall experience watching sports over two decades (witnessing how much competition and sports in general have evolved over time). Clearly the outlier theory is misplaced. We cannot compare players in two diff sports (yes, pre-50s cricket was a diff sport for me) and declare someone as greater than the other, esp, when video footages of those years clearly bear out how inferior the sport was back then. 2) As for your comparison of Newton and yourself, the analogy hardly makes any sense. You claim to know more physics than Newton, fair enough (I have no way to know what you know or Newton knew). No disrespect to your physics skills, but what have you done with that knowledge that makes you comparable with Newton ? In cricketing parlance, that's akin to me claiming i know more about batting than Tendulkar does, may be i do, may be i dont, but what have i done with that knowledge ? If we argue along those lines, the caveman who invented fire should be the most intelligent ever. He accomplished that in an era of barbarians, where even civil expressions were millions of years away. Declaring a sportsman of one era as the greatest makes no sense when we hardly have any data other than statistics (against questionable competition) and some account of cricket historians who predominantly originated from two countries. By doing so, we are infact making comparisons of "absolute" skills of players - a grave insult to the modern greats.

[mishra]

Sobers Did play one series against Miller Lindwall pair.....Prior to that he had played against England. So it will be interesting to find when exactly he said Lindwall/Miller pair was best and what was the context. Also they both played most games after 1940s Can you give me the source of your claim.... [ame=

Miller - ESPN Legends (PART 2 of 4) - YouTube[/ame] Chk @5 mins. What Bradman himself thought about Miler. He doesnt give any vibe of fearsome fast bowler.

[pensionplan]

Why do Sachin fanatics hate him so much? Now they are saying that people need to forget SRT in due course as they are have been saying about others like Bradman, Sobers, Richards etc by applying the same logic.

[8ankitj]

Why do Sachin fanatics hate him so much? Now they are saying that people need to forget SRT in due course as they are have been saying about others like Bradman' date=' Sobers, Richards etc by applying the same logic.[/quote'] I have half a mind to do a Bayesian analysis on the same issue by doing a poll, but I am too lazy. It would be worth comparing: P(X thinks Tendulkar > Bradman | X thinks Tendulkar is best batsman of last 60 years) P(X thinks Tendulkar > Bradman | X thinks Tendulkar is NOT best batsman of last 60 years) Bet the first quantity will be much bigger than the second one :giggle:

[The Outsider]

Shwetabh, I'll just make two comments (have not had a chance to scan all the posts yet):

Haven't made as many posts as are typical of me on a Bradman and cricket history thread. :D

1) I go by the video footages (of Bradman's era) and the overall experience watching sports over two decades (witnessing how much competition and sports in general have evolved over time). Clearly the outlier theory is misplaced. We cannot compare players in two diff sports (yes, pre-50s cricket was a diff sport for me) and declare someone as greater than the other, esp, when video footages of those years clearly bear out how inferior the sport was back then.

Video footage? You still consider that as some holy grail considering the type of video technology that was available during those times. But even using that crappy video footage I was able to show (using one of the best video software) that Lindwall was bowling quick. Look at this post for an example : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1555591&postcount=755

2) As for your comparison of Newton and yourself, the analogy hardly makes any sense. You claim to know more physics than Newton, fair enough (I have no way to know what you know or Newton knew). No disrespect to your physics skills, but what have you done with that knowledge that makes you comparable with Newton ?

Makes perfect sense since you are comparing on absolute terms. Newton had no clue about Quantum Mechanics, I do. Newton didn't know General or Special Relativity, now these things are taught in undergraduate Physics. It's irrelevant what I have done - what's relevant is that I or any other Physics major knows much more about Physics on an absolute scale than Newton ever did.

In cricketing parlance, that's akin to me claiming i know more about batting than Tendulkar does, may be i do, may be i dont, but what have i done with that knowledge ?

Not just a claim. I can write down the field equations for General Relativity or the Schrodinger equation, was Newton ever able to do that? I can demonstrate that claim rather than your claim about batting which you can't demonstrate.

If we argue along those lines, the caveman who invented fire should be the most intelligent ever. He accomplished that in an era of barbarians, where even civil expressions were millions of years away.

Missing the point again! If the cavemen had understood fire then they would have a legitimate claim - invention by chance is not brilliance. Did they leave any evidence about the atomic structure and interactions leading to the fire?

Declaring a sportsman of one era as the greatest makes no sense when we hardly have any data other than statistics (against questionable competition) and some account of cricket historians who predominantly originated from two countries. By doing so, we are infact making comparisons of "absolute" skills of players - a grave insult to the modern greats.

Going by your competition theory, why has a tiny island of Barbados produced more great cricketers than a country of 1 billion? As I suggested to someone earlier in the thread, do a correlation of the population of a country with the number of good cricketers it has produced and get back to me if you get anything significant at even the 1 sigma level.

[Bumper]

Haven't made as many posts as are typical of me on a Bradman and cricket history thread. :D Video footage? You still consider that as some holy grail considering the type of video technology that was available during those times. But even using that crappy video footage I was able to show (using one of the best video software) that Lindwall was bowling quick. Look at this post for an example : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1555591&postcount=755

Almost all video footages of Bradman reeks of inferior bowling quality. An isolated clip can make even a Manoj Prabhakar look deadly. Not sure what technology has to do with mediocrity. Modern technology cannot make Avishkar Salvi look like a deadly bowler. There is a good chance Bradman may have faced some quality competition in the bodyline series and his average halved. That is still too small a sample to judge his batting prowess and more so for the "greatest" ever tag. In general, you need evidence beyond doubt to designate the greatest ever tag. You dont attribute that big a compliment on questionable or practically no evidence. For that matter, even if we take the Lindwall footage seriously, he did not even bowl to Bradman, so at best it can just be used for perspective.

Makes perfect sense since you are comparing on absolute terms. Newton had no clue about Quantum Mechanics, I do. Newton didn't know General or Special Relativity, now these things are taught in undergraduate Physics. It's irrelevant what I have done - what's relevant is that I or any other Physics major knows much more about Physics on an absolute scale than Newton ever did.

Why is what you've done irrelevant ? That's the only relevant point. What have you done to distinguish yourself from Newton even on absolute terms ? Newton has inventions that profoundly impacted mankind. To claim similar greatness, you need to have comparable inventions. The case of Tendulkar or Lara vs Bradman is more comparable to Einstein vs Newton, not you vs Newton.

Not just a claim. I can write down the field equations for General Relativity or the Schrodinger equation, was Newton ever able to do that? I can demonstrate that claim rather than your claim about batting which you can't demonstrate.

Like i said your achievements are the only thing that counts, not knowledge. I can also write a book on batting technique (if that qualifies as demonstration), that does not make me comparable with a Tendulkar.

Missing the point again! If the cavemen had understood fire then they would have a legitimate claim - invention by chance is not brilliance. Did they leave any evidence about the atomic structure and interactions leading to the fire?

So you are saying the cavemen should have invented paper, pen and possibly a printing press to document their invention process ? The point here is the odds the caveman overcame to produce what he produced. He was an outlier of his times. How do you know that he did not put any thinking into generating fire ?

Going by your competition theory, why has a tiny island of Barbados produced more great cricketers than a country of 1 billion? As I suggested to someone earlier in the thread, do a correlation of the population of a country with the number of good cricketers it has produced and get back to me if you get anything significant at even the 1 sigma level.

Where did i say population matters to competition ? Australia with 20M population has produced more competitive cricketers than the entire world combined. I just said, with time cricket has evolved into a totally diff sport than the one Bradman played. PS: I just finished viewing that Lindwall footage. You can't be serious man. Ajit Agarkar would prolly better this guy :-). This footage only confirms what i already believe. Add to that the fact that this supposedly great bowler did not even bowl to Bradman. And did you watch the other trundlers in the footage ? :-)

[zen]

http://www.rolls-roycemotorcars.com/the_company/history/1930/ Some of the arguments are like today's Accord is more advanced than a 1930s RR so even today's Accord is better than an old RR and thus we can rate old RRs :facepalm: Talking about evolution, that 1930s RR to the current production

[The Outsider]

Almost all video footages of Bradman reeks of inferior bowling quality. An isolated clip can make even a Manoj Prabhakar look deadly. Not sure what technology has to do with mediocrity. Modern technology cannot make Avishkar Salvi look like a deadly bowler.

They reek of poor video quality. And yes, modern technology can make Salvi look like a world beater with their super slow motions on a delivery when he finally took a wicket.

There is a good chance Bradman may have faced some quality competition in the bodyline series and his average halved. That is still too small a sample to judge his batting prowess and more so for the "greatest" ever tag.

Tendulkar or anyone post Bradman has never faced Bodyline because it's illegal - it's even a smaller sample.

In general, you need evidence beyond doubt to designate the greatest ever tag. You dont attribute that big a compliment on questionable or practically no evidence. For that matter, even if we take the Lindwall footage seriously, he did not even bowl to Bradman, so at best it can just be used for perspective.

He did - in FC matches, a few admittedly. But that's besides the point, which is that test cricket in that era was not devoid of phhhhasshhht bowlers.

Why is what you've done irrelevant ? That's the only relevant point. What have you done to distinguish yourself from Newton even on absolute terms ? Newton has inventions that profoundly impacted mankind. To claim similar greatness, you need to have comparable inventions. The case of Tendulkar or Lara vs Bradman is more comparable to Einstein vs Newton, not you vs Newton.

Thanks for proving my point! I have gone past the Bumper of old by making him self destruct! :D What distinguishes Newton from me is not the fact that I can write down the field equations of General Relativity, but the stature and mind boggling achievements he made despite knowing less than me in a different era. Now honestly translate the same analogy in terms of Bradman?

Like i said your achievements are the only thing that counts, not knowledge. I can also write a book on batting technique (if that qualifies as demonstration), that does not make me comparable with a Tendulkar.

You finally got it - achievements count and Tendulkar or any other batsman from the modern era has not achieved anything remotely similar to Bradman compared to his competition.

So you are saying the cavemen should have invented paper, pen and possibly a printing press to document their invention process ? The point here is the odds the caveman overcame to produce what he produced. He was an outlier of his times. How do you know that he did not put any thinking into generating fire ?

Odds? Man, keep rubbing stones on each other and they will give a spark some day.

Where did i say population matters to competition ? Australia with 20M population has produced more competitive cricketers than the entire world combined. I just said, with time cricket has evolved into a totally diff sport than the one Bradman played.

So what determines competition? Lot of people were saying competition increased because the population of cricket following junta has increased. Why do you think competition has increased and what effect has it had on the quality of cricket?

PS: I just finished viewing that Lindwall footage. You can't be serious man. Ajit Agarkar would prolly better this guy :-). This footage only confirms what i already believe. Add to that the fact that this supposedly great bowler did not even bowl to Bradman. And did you watch the other trundlers in the footage ? :-)

So, you agree Lindwall was phaaasht which was the only point of the exercise - Aaag was 135-145? As for their respective quality it's adequately shown in their bowling averages.

[tatters]

Bradman had to face many good bowlers. People focus on Larwood and he's not the only one that could bowl very fast. It's very difficult to compare between the massively different eras. It's not like comparing Pele from the 70s with Messi. You're comparing someone from the 20s/30s with 90s/00s. The game was completely different. In the game Bradman played, bravery was a much more important skill than it is now. To be able to face truly quick bowlers without a helmet like Bradman and Sir Viv did is difficult in itself. On the other hand, where Tendulkar has the clear advantage is the difference in quality and variety of opposition he faced. When you're facing the same team time and time again, things become easier each time. Out of the 51 tests Bradman played, 35 were against England. I'm sure those 35 would've been testing. But they are only one opponent. What wouldn't have been testing were the other 16 tests against India, West Indies etc. who had just cobbled inexperienced, village teams together. Furthermore, the massively underrated aspect of cricket has changed dramatically...fielding. These days, players are proper athletes, cover a lot of ground and aren't willing to let a single run go; pulling out a dive to stop a 4. It was not the case in those days. People talk about Bradman having played only a year less than Tendulkar but longevity isn't just about years; the physical toll of playing over 100 Tests and 923874923874872934 ODIs shouldn't be written off. It has taken remarkable dedication for Tendulkar to still be playing cricket today. So I think the question of who is better - if it is possible to make such a claim - rests on what you value more: bravery and consistency vs a uniform opponent, or longevity and quality vs. varied opponents. Being as objective as I can, if pushed to make a call, I would pick Tendulkar.

[punjabi_khota]

Dhyan Chand= India's Bradman.

[Bumper]

They reek of poor video quality. And yes, modern technology can make Salvi look like a world beater with their super slow motions on a delivery when he finally took a wicket.

Slow motion can make the bowler look phhast and deadly ?

Tendulkar or anyone post Bradman has never faced Bodyline because it's illegal - it's even a smaller sample.

The point is not whether bodyline is legal or illegal. Its about Bradman's showing in possibly the only competitive cricket that may be comparable to the degree of difficulty faced by modern batsmen pitting against the likes of Akhtar, Ambrose, Donald & co.

He did - in FC matches, a few admittedly. But that's besides the point, which is that test cricket in that era was not devoid of phhhhasshhht bowlers.

Mohammad Sami was phaast, so your point is ? :--DThere is nothing in that video to suggest Lindwall was lethal. Infact why focus on one bowler who did not even bowl to Bradman in test cricket. What about the other mediocre trundlers in the clip ?

Thanks for proving my point! I have gone past the Bumper of old by making him self destruct! :D What distinguishes Newton from me is not the fact that I can write down the field equations of General Relativity, but the stature and mind boggling achievements he made despite knowing less than me in a different era. Now honestly translate the same analogy in terms of Bradman?

Naah, I think you are conveniently twisting the argument here. This is like comparing me, Mohd Yusuf & then observing Yusuf as the superior achiever and based on that declaring Yusuf as the greatest ever. Yeah, relative to you, Newton may have achieved more. But relative to Einstein, Edison & others, it's not a slam dunk. Why do so many in the scientific community still believe Einstein is the greatest scientist ? Regardless science and cricket are not apples to apples. In science you build on each other's work. So one could logically argue that Newton is the greatest scientist. In cricket you depend on your own skills, what other cricketers achieved counts for nothing to you - a key difference.

You finally got it - achievements count and Tendulkar or any other batsman from the modern era has not achieved anything remotely similar to Bradman compared to his competition.

Once again, a very convenient twist. How did you conclude that Tendulkar achieved any less than Bradman ? I have already busted the myth about how being an outlier is not tantamount to a bigger achiever.

Odds? Man, keep rubbing stones on each other and they will give a spark some day.

The caveman prolly had the intelligence of a gorilla. With that kinda brain cells, learning how to produce fire and then learning how to use it productively is no mean achievement. How many gorillas know how to produce fire and use them constructively ?

So what determines competition? Lot of people were saying competition increased because the population of cricket following junta has increased. Why do you think competition has increased and what effect has it had on the quality of cricket?

Sports just evolve with time. There are many factors: many more (than before) take up sport early on in their lives, they have access to coaching, superior gear etc. With so many taking up the sport, ultimately it comes down to survival of the fittest. As for cricket, the same effect applies. So many kids play the sport from a very young age at a competitive level (and the limited spots with large rewards, further increases competition). Sooner or later the "survival of the fittest" kicks in and the only way you survive is by learning some new skills.

So, you agree Lindwall was phaaasht which was the only point of the exercise - Aaag was 135-145? As for their respective quality it's adequately shown in their bowling averages.

You agree that Mohd Sami was phaaasht ? And what would be the point of proving to me that Lindwall was able to bowl at a lesser pace than Sami ? I won't even embarrass you by asking how did you figure out from naked eye he was bowling 145 and more importantly, how did you deduce based on a handful of deliveries that Lindwall bowled like this for a major part of his career.:--D

[pensionplan]

Once again, a very convenient twist. How did you conclude that Tendulkar achieved any less than Bradman ?

Are you kidding me one has an average of 100 and another an average of 55 or so and you ask how one has achieved less than the other. Great.

[Bumper]

Are you kidding me one has an average of 100 and another an average of 55 or so and you ask how one has achieved less than the other. Great.

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 Mohd Yusuf has achieved more than Lara ?

[pensionplan]

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 Mohd Yusuf has achieved more than Lara ?

Yeah the filtering and all that. Besides Yousuf is not a bad player and I am sure when certain filtering criteria are applied he does truimph Lara in certain situations and your statsheet that you attached proves that. We should not read more into it excepting marvel at what a nice modern tool like Statguru has to offer.

[bulbul]

Sobers Did play one series against Miller Lindwall pair.....Prior to that he had played against England. So it will be interesting to find when exactly he said Lindwall/Miller pair was best and what was the context. Also they both played most games after 1940s Can you give me the source of your claim....

Chk @5 mins. What Bradman himself thought about Miler. He doesnt give any vibe of fearsome fast bowler.

why should Bradman give any vibe of fearsomeness about Miller...Bradman is superior batsman so he may not feel miller is phast...

[zen]

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 Mohd Yusuf has achieved more than Lara ?

^ that's the dumbest piece of argument that I hv seen on this thread .... in real world you would be laughed out of a room :haha: ..... Why? As I said the below to someone: "I can tell you that wouldn't have happened .... because if you take some teams out of equaltion, how the players approach the teams changes too It like saying if this forum was the only place to discuss and rate cricket (whether online or offline), Boss bhai's views would rated highly by everyone in the world. But the truth is that if that were the case, we would have not just the folks who post here but also reputed writers, cricketers, etc come and post here and rate cricketers. Many of these guys simply don't come here because this is not be all and end all place. And thus we cannot assume that if it were the one, those posting on cricket here (current forumers) would automatically become respected authorities on cricket. We cannot pretend that would happen. This is how the dynamics change and which is something your theory fails to take into account :winky: "