If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[Bumper]

It adds to the overall quality of the video and viewing experience otherwise why is it used so commonly?

Its used commonly to dissect the finer points of bowling and batting that cannot be experienced in real time. How can this make a Avishkar Salvi a deadly bowler ? LOL!

That's the only point, in fact. How can you say how modern batsmen would have fared against Bodyline when none of them have faced Bodyline? The only time something similar was used by West Indies against India, a batting line up with the likes of Gavaskar, Amarnath, and Viswanath forfeited the test match.

Apples and oranges. So you are telling me that the fearsome WI attack is comparable to what Bradman faced. Sheesh! I have played street cricket too with no helmet (and no bouncer rules). The bodyline is only relevant from the perspective that it offered more stringent competition (something he never faced otherwise) to Bradman .

Because there was an argument being made earlier that all bowlers were trundlers during the old days. The idea is not to show who bowled to Bradman and who did not, but the quality of cricket which you and others are trying to discredit despite each and every expert who has lived through the eras vouching for the quality.

Several flaws in your argument: a) You wanted to picture Lindwall as one of the greatest bowlers of those times and in the process show me that cricket was competitive those days. In reality i saw nothing to suggest that the attacks are even comparable to the modern era. For perspective, see the clip on Michael Holding's spell against Boycott. Its as good as the one Akhtar bowled against the Aussies. No one needs to convince me that Holding was as good as the Donalds and the Akhtars. b) The fact that one of the bowlers in the clip was bowling a decent pace (mind you, several modern bowlers who are very average bowl faster than that) does not mean squat. Several others in the clip were plain trundlers. You dont need experts to vouch for quality. Simple video evidence is good enough for me. I trust my own eyes more than the experts.

You've lost it - you can't even keep track of your own analogy. I'll try to explain again - you said that Bradman cannot be called the greatest because in terms of absolute skills he was inferior to batsmen today (which itself is debatable, but let me tow the line). Now, in terms of absolute skill thousands of people know more Physics than Newton ever did - this is a fact. Newton had no clue about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, things which are taught in undergraduate Physics. So, Newton cannot be called greater than the thousands of people today who are ahead of him in terms of absolute skill in Physics. Clearer?

Who's lost it ? I'll try to explain again. Knowledge is just a claim on a skill, it is how you execute that demonstrates the skill.The several thousand people you refer to, may have more knowledge than Newton, but in terms of demonstrating the skill, Newton has done a waay better job than any of the wannabe modern scientists. I concluded by saying the likes of Einstein who have demonstrated their skill are the ones we should compare with Newton. And subsequently, I even pointed out the Tendulkar vs some avg guy (it could even be Achrekar, SRT's coach) could possess more knowledge on batting but that means nothing if it cannot be demonstrated the way Tendulkar has. Horse dead, yet ?

You brought up the analogy and are now backing away when it's not suiting your agenda?

Nope, not backing away. I pointed out the analogy for perspective and it served the purpose. But you can't deny that unlike science where you can build on someone else's work, in cricket you are on your own.

LOL! Busted what? Making arbitrary sub leagues is myth busting?

LOL, Its arbitrary because it does not suit you ? It may be a hypothetical sub league, but the numbers are real, aren't they ?. I did not manufacture them. It just shows how misplaced the outlier theory could be. If you dont take the context into account you can draw some wild conclusions.

Can you please provide some scientific evidence to back that up?

You are challenging it, why dont you do the "run-around" to disprove this ? LOL! But again, this is for perspective, not materially related to the cricket debate.

So, no modern sport should see outliers? Yet I have quoted multiple instances of such outliers in modern sport in this thread.

I can't speak for other sports, i dont follow many of them. I am just saying being an outlier is next to impossible in cricket, anymore. Skills in cricket have evolved so much and the gap between the best and the average is closing.

I did not figure out that Lindwall was a great bowler by watching some crappy videos in which it's barely possible to see the ball. On the contrary you are using it as evidence to compare him with Agarkar.

Like i said, i trust my own eyes more.

For me, the word of people who have actually played with and against him, played across eras, and watched more cricket than all of ICF put together like Benaud and Sobers is good enough to know that Lindwall was one of the greatest bowlers cricket has produced. Benaud, for example, has seen Lillee, Thompson, and a host of other fast bowlers and ranks Lindwall right up there with them both in terms of speed and skill. Sorry, if I trust him more than your "expert analysis" of a video.

Richie Benaud says a lot of things. His famous test XI had so many yesteryear bowlers ahead of the likes of Marshall, Murali, Warne & McGrath. And because Bradman made that complimentary remark about Tendulkar, all the Aussies including Benaud, jumped on the bandwagon too. I take all these opinions (including Bradman's) with a truck load of salt. Wasim Akram lavished praise on Irfan too, as if he were some kind of a prodigy and Imran said Inzi was the greatest player of pace. If you go down that alley, there are plenty of "odd ball" comments that you will find inexplicable.

[Raghav_12]

Oh my' date=' this keeps getting better. [b']Comparing a sport in which batsmen and bowlers are competing against each other directly to sprinting and weightlifting! I don't see 200 points being scored in a game of Basketball by a team yet, so points scored in Basketball has no relevance. :hysterical:

That's what I am saying my friend. Don't say Bradman is greatest because he had an average of 99.94 (though you may still have other valid bases to claim so), because it is not reflection of his batting only, it is also reflection of bowling which he played against. If somebody argues that Bradman was best ever because he had an average of 99.94, then somebody else can make an equally strong argument that bowling attack that Bradman played was worst ever because they allowed somebody to score @99.94. I don't see any logical flaw in that.

[zen]

Sorry, you are late. Been there, done that : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1256682&postcount=52 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

:hysterical: *reading that will make one laugh for 5 mins on the trot*

[The Outsider]

Its used commonly to dissect the finer points of bowling and batting that cannot be experienced in real time. How can this make a Avishkar Salvi a deadly bowler ? LOL!

So, you agree that the finer points of batting and bowling can't be ascertained if the video quality is crappy? I'll tell you how Salvi can be made to look like McGrath - pick 10 great deliveries he has bowled in his life (might have done that much), jazz them up with super slow motions so you can see the seam position, the movement off the deck, and put it up on youtube.

Apples and oranges. So you are telling me that the fearsome WI attack is comparable to what Bradman faced. Sheesh! I have played street cricket too with no helmet (and no bouncer rules). The bodyline is only relevant from the perspective that it offered more stringent competition (something he never faced otherwise) to Bradman .

Let's look at the fearsome attack in the test which was forfeited : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63162.html How much more fearsome is it compared to the attack in Bodyline?

Several flaws in your argument: a) You wanted to picture Lindwall as one of the greatest bowlers of those times and in the process show me that cricket was competitive those days. In reality i saw nothing to suggest that the attacks are even comparable to the modern era. For perspective, see the clip on Michael Holding's spell against Boycott. Its as good as the one Akhtar bowled against the Aussies. No one needs to convince me that Holding was as good as the Donalds and the Akhtars.

That's a flaw in your understanding. I never intended to use crappy videos as any evidence. As I stated in my previous posts the word of people (each and everyone without exception) who saw Lindwall and later bowlers bowl and ranks him in the top bracket is good enough for me. You are free to use crappy video clips of a few minutes to judge players. I am sure there are youtube clips of the best of Agarkar as well.

b) The fact that one of the bowlers in the clip was bowling a decent pace (mind you, several modern bowlers who are very average bowl faster than that) does not mean squat. Several others in the clip were plain trundlers. You dont need experts to vouch for quality. Simple video evidence is good enough for me. I trust my own eyes more than the experts.

Well, your eyes are not doing a good job if they can't tell you that the video you are watching is so crappy that it's even difficult to make out where the ball is, forget about seeing any movement etc. in it.

Who's lost it ? I'll try to explain again. Knowledge is just a claim on a skill, it is how you execute that demonstrates the skill.The several thousand people you refer to, may have more knowledge than Newton, but in terms of demonstrating the skill, Newton has done a waay better job than any of the wannabe modern scientists. I concluded by saying the likes of Einstein who have demonstrated their skill are the ones we should compare with Newton.

No, it's quantifiable. Any decent undergraduate student of Physics can write down the Schrodinger equation in addition to knowing everything that Newton did. Hence, they are all greater than Newton on an absolute scale and thus Newton cannot be considered a great Physicist.

And subsequently, I even pointed out the Tendulkar vs some avg guy (it could even be Achrekar, SRT's coach) could possess more knowledge on batting but that means nothing if it cannot be demonstrated the way Tendulkar has. Horse dead, yet!

Can the coach execute the skill? An undergraduate in Physics can - he can write down and solve the Schrodinger equation. Newton couldn't.

Nope, not backing away. I pointed out the analogy for perspective and it served the purpose. But you can't deny that unlike science where you can build on someone else's work, in cricket you are on your own.

There is transfer of knowledge even in cricket for example reverse swing, googly, upper cut etc. etc.

LOL, Its arbitrary because it does not suit you ? It may be a hypothetical sub league, but the numbers are real, aren't they ?. I did not manufacture them. It just shows how misplaced the outlier theory could be. If you dont take the context into account you can draw some wild conclusions.

Thank you.

I can't speak for other sports, i dont follow many of them. I am just saying being an outlier is next to impossible in cricket, anymore. Skills in cricket have evolved so much and the gap between the best and the average is closing.

That seems to be the favorite cop out here - "I don't follow other sports". What's there to follow in knowing that the likes of Jahangir Khan, Michael Jordan, and Usain Bolt are outliers in modern, competitive sports?

Richie Benaud says a lot of things. His famous test XI had so many yesteryear bowlers ahead of the likes of Marshall, Murali, Warne & McGrath. And because Bradman made that complimentary remark about Tendulkar, all the Aussies including Benaud, jumped on the bandwagon too. I take all these opinions (including Bradman's) with a truck load of salt. Wasim Akram lavished praise on Irfan too, as if he were some kind of a prodigy and Imran said Inzi was the greatest player of pace. If you go down that alley, there are plenty of "odd ball" comments that you will find inexplicable.

It's just not Benaud. As I said, each and every person who has seen Lindwall and subsequent bowlers or played with or against him ranks him in the top league. For everyone to be wrong, they are either all lying or it's a hindu, yahoodi, and amreeki conspiracy. How many other people claimed Inzamam to be the best player of pace? And Australians have been on the Tendulkar "bandwagon" since his first tour there and his innings at Sydney and Perth.

[The Outsider]

That's what I am saying my friend. Don't say Bradman is greatest because he had an average of 99.94 (though you may still have other valid bases to claim so), because it is not reflection of his batting only, it is also reflection of bowling which he played against. If somebody argues that Bradman was best ever because he had an average of 99.94, then somebody else can make an equally strong argument that bowling attack that Bradman played was worst ever because they allowed somebody to score @99.94. I don't see any logical flaw in that.

I have never used 99.94 as the only argument. The logical flaw is that why Bradman was the only one who could take advantage of the supposedly worst ever attack, when people who have watched his contemporaries and later players vouch for the quality of his contemporaries like Headley, Hammond, Hutton. The only option is that they are all lying or it's a hindoo, yahoodi, and amreeki conspiracy as I wrote above. What are the chances of that? Slim to none.

[zen]

:hysterical: Now that makes me jealous. Should have joined ICF long time back. How I wish I could turn back time!

You should try searching for the post where it was said that Tendulkar faces 'sledging' and Bradman didn't (something along that lines) :giggle:

[pensionplan]

If somebody argues that Bradman was best ever because he had an average of 99.94' date=' then somebody else can make an equally strong argument that bowling attack that [/quote']Yes that is true. That somebody else has to be a delusional fanatic of an individual player and we have plenty of those here.

[pensionplan]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1256682&postcount=52 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

I have those bookmarked now. Rare gems.

[pensionplan]

And by the way keeping Bradman aside Tendulkar now averages around 54 in Tests(excluding minnows) lesser than Sobers. As a real SRT fan I would want him to fix that in the upcoming series and overtake the great Sobers's batting average of 58 or so.

[ravishingravi]

Sorry, you are late. Been there, done that : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1256682&postcount=52 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1257243&postcount=57

:cantstop: Legendary stuff. Boy!! these Srt fanatics are like religious zealots. They will come with any kind of narrative to keep their religion alive. More power to them.

[bulbul]

That's what I am saying my friend. Don't say Bradman is greatest because he had an average of 99.94 (though you may still have other valid bases to claim so), because it is not reflection of his batting only, it is also reflection of bowling which he played against. If somebody argues that Bradman was best ever because he had an average of 99.94, then somebody else can make an equally strong argument that bowling attack that Bradman played was worst ever because they allowed somebody to score @99.94. I don't see any logical flaw in that.

then u should also have reflected that why they didint allow others croo avg of 100.. I guess that where human evoultion theory comes out..Bradman is evolved slightly better than his peers....after bradman evolutioon stopped and only started gaining momentum after 1989 its going to be peaked some where around 2010/11/12 i guess..

[Raghav_12]

I have never used 99.94 as the only argument. The logical flaw is that why Bradman was the only one who could take advantage of the supposedly worst ever attack, when people who have watched his contemporaries and later players vouch for the quality of his contemporaries like Headley, Hammond, Hutton. The only option is that they are all lying or it's a hindoo, yahoodi, and amreeki conspiracy as I wrote above. What are the chances of that? Slim to none.

Most relevant point in this debate.

[Raghav_12]

I have never used 99.94 as the only argument. The logical flaw is that why Bradman was the only one who could take advantage of the supposedly worst ever attack, when people who have watched his contemporaries and later players vouch for the quality of his contemporaries like Headley, Hammond, Hutton. The only option is that they are all lying or it's a hindoo, yahoodi, and amreeki conspiracy as I wrote above. What are the chances of that? Slim to none.

But here problem is, if you take that 99.94 thing out then all you are left with are those video clippings of Bradman which Bossbhai keeps posting on any given, and not given, opportunity and those clippings don't to anything to corroborate the argument of Bradman being greatest ever. Okay, you also have some eye witness account from country of Brdaman or country that ruled Bradman's country. They do have credibility with respect to Bradman's position in that era but not when you compare him with today's era.

[8ankitj]

Let's take out 99.94 average, and to make it a level playing field take out all of Tendulkar's cricketing career. Or something stupid like that. I don't understand what one means by taking out 99.94 honestly. It's not something that comes in isolation. It's not like one performance in one match that can be kept aside. It's outcome of a ridiculous rate of run-scoring over a 20 year career, an outcome of the fact that Bradman scored a hundred once every 2.75 innings, or every second test match, an outcome of the fact that he has more double hundreds than anyone including those who have played twice or thrice as many tests, an outcome of the fact that not in one series in his career he averaged below 55, an outcome of the fact that not in one test series he failed to score a century.

[Raghav_12]

Let's take out 99.94 average, and to make it a level playing field take out all of Tendulkar's cricketing career. Or something stupid like that. I don't understand what one means by taking out 99.94 honestly. It's not something that comes in isolation. It's not like one performance in one match that can be kept aside. It's outcome of a ridiculous rate of run-scoring over a 20 year career, an outcome of the fact that Bradman scored a hundred once every 2.75 innings, or every second test match, an outcome of the fact that he has more double hundreds than anyone including those who have played twice or thrice as many tests, an outcome of the fact that not in one series in his career he averaged below 55, an outcome of the fact that not in one test series he failed to score a century.

You totally missing the point. See exchanges that me and Outsider had in some posts above and then put things in context. It was in response of Outy's comment that he doesn't base Bradman's greatness only on 99.94. For bolded part, yes it doesn't come in isolation. Batting average is not a measure of batting prowess only. It is product of batting prowess, bowling standards, fielding standards, bowling conditions, batting conditions. If you read through the few posts those were posted just before the post you made, you will realize what is being discussed here.

[Raghav_12]

While we are at it, I came across an interesting article in an Australian Newspaper, published today only. Gold Coast academic says Sachin Tendulkar the greatest batsman ever http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/gold-coast-academic-says-sachin-tendulkar-the-greatest-batsman-ever/story-fn67w6pa-1226228707201

INDIA'S little master Sachin Tendulkar, not Sir Donald Bradman, is the greatest Test batsman who ever lived, a Gold Coast academic claims. India's little master Sachin Tendulkar, not Sir Donald Bradman, is the greatest Test batsman who ever lived, a Gold Coast academic claims. A brave assertion, but one Griffith University researcher Dr Nicholas Rohde says he can prove with statistics. Rohde says by applying economic principles to batting performance, he has been able to rank players back through time. "People are welcome to disagree and there would be other statistical ways of looking at it which would give you different results," he told AAP. Rohde said his obsession with cricket led him to the idea of coming up with a ranking system, even if it did mean trying to marry sport with economics. "No ranking system is definitive so it's halfway between being serious and a bit of fun," he said. "I don't see it as entirely trivial, but it isn't an indisputable result either; it's somewhere in the middle. "My feeling is that devotion to Don Bradman probably robbed India of a national icon a little bit. And if you wanted my personal opinion on who was the better of the two, Bradman or Tendulkar, I would say that it was perhaps too close to call." To work out who should be regarded as the best of all time, Rohde took the total number of runs a batsman has scored in his entire career, and subtracted the number of runs that an average player of the same era would have scored if they'd played the same number of innings. He constantly updates the figures and calculates new ranking tables. "Bradman has been number one until recently, but Tendulkar for the time being is just a little tiny bit ahead. "No ranking system is definitive and people are always free to disagree, although I do feel it's a fairly sensible and intuitive way to rank the players." But he said if he could time travel and had the choice of watching Bradman or Tendulkar play a Test, he would go for Bradman every time

[8ankitj]

LOL at the study. The two are ranked very tightly together, despite the study not accounting for the difference in number of matches. Tendulkar has played thrice as many matches for heaven's sake. This study must be the best one however. Countless others that put Bradman are top are nothing but statistical jugglery. :ohmy:

[mishra]

LOL at the study. The two are ranked very tightly together, despite the study not accounting for the difference in number of matches. Tendulkar has played thrice as many matches for heaven's sake. This study must be the best one however. Countless others that put Bradman are top are nothing but statistical jugglery. :ohmy:

I have given you open challenge in post 411.... Assuming you are true to your claim of statitics expert please explain that... Where Murali stands in ATG list and Wisden ratings and why?

[Gambit]

Those who swear by Wisden rankings should know that they rated Tendulkar as the 2nd best Test AND 2nd best ODI batsman ever. Just saying.

[8ankitj]

I have given you open challenge in post 411.... Assuming you are true to your claim of statitics expert please explain that... Where Murali stands in ATG list and Wisden ratings and why?

I am sorry, I did not understand your question there. If you are talking about the overall rankings, I agree with the Wisden's assessment of rating Murali as the greatest bowler, but I wouldn't quibble if anyone rates another great bowler as the best given that the difference between Murali and second best wasn't as huge IIRC.