If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[The Outsider]

There are only three bowlers in the 10-16 bowling average in test history - 50 wickets cut off. Regardless, his being a statistical outlier has no impact on his comparison with Marshall who still has a bowling average 94% higher than Lohmann. What kind of statistical normalization would show Marshall at a higher level than Lohmann

Arre, the era in which Lohamann played in had a batting average of 10 fewer runs than the modern era! Now do you want me to translate it further what such a thing would imply? :wall:

[The Outsider]

I never told that Tendukar is towering figure in current era the way Bradman or W G Grace were in their eras. IMHO he is best but just by a thin margin. All I say that era of Bradman was far away from current set up and let's not claim that Bradman was definitely better batsman than Sachin or Lara.

You have clearly said earlier that modern competitive sports leave no room for peer dominance. You want me to search for similar posts? Just because Tendulkar was not good enough to dominate his peers does not mean that you demean other competitive sportsmen who have managed to dominate their peers.

[ganeshran]

Arre' date=' the era in which Lohamann played in had a batting average of 10 fewer runs than the modern era! Now do you want me to translate it further what such a thing would imply? :wall:[/quote'] So what factor would you use to equalize the bowling averages in both the eras? The difference in the average batting average of batsmen in both eras?

[Raghav_12]

You have clearly said earlier that modern competitive sports leave no room for peer dominance. You want me to search for similar posts? Just because Tendulkar was not good enough to dominate his peers does not mean that you demean other competitive sportsmen who have managed to dominate their peers.

I didn't say that it's impossible to dominate your peers in competitive field of sport. I told that it's impossible to dominate a competitive field with kind of margins that Bradman did and kept doing for almost three quarter of century. I rememeber when M Johnson had come up with freak performance of 19.32, it was said he has set up a record which is 50 years ahead of time. But we all know that it lasted just 12 years. Anyways, let's focus on that age issue of 40+ being a significant proportion of an athletic sport. I really find that as very strong evidence on the quality of international cricket at that time. Nowadays people are after Dravid and Sachin even after they are scoring prolificly, just because they are a tad slow in field. Then how can a sport afford 38 40+ from a small sample size?

[zen]

:hysterical: @ some of the points being made here

[The Outsider]

So what factor would you use to equalize the bowling averages in both the eras? The difference in the average batting average of batsmen in both eras?

The insularity that bhakti brings along really amazes me! Yaar, here I've done the statsguru numbers for you : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax2=22+Jun+1896;spanmin2=05+Jul+1886;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate An average wicket fell for every 19 runs during Lohmann's time and he averaged 11. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax2=08+Aug+1991;spanmin2=15+Dec+1978;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate An average wicket in Marshall's time fell for 33 and he averaged 20. Please don't tell me you still can't see the difference between Lohmann and Bradman! :wall:

[ganeshran]

The insularity that bhakti brings along really amazes me! Yaar, here I've done the statsguru numbers for you : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax2=22+Jun+1896;spanmin2=05+Jul+1886;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate An average wicket fell for every 19 runs during Lohmann's time and he averaged 11. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax2=08+Aug+1991;spanmin2=15+Dec+1978;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate An average wicket in Marshall's time fell for 33 and he averaged 20. Please don't tell me you still can't see the difference between Lohmann and Bradman! :wall:

I dont know what insularity you are talking about. I just asked what measure you would use to equalize the bowling averages across eras.

[The Outsider]

I dont know what insularity you are talking about. I just asked what measure you would use to equalize the bowling averages across eras.

Why are you making it sound like some profound question. Common sense will tell you that you will use the average run per wicket which fell in that bowler's era and compare it with that particular bowler's average. Unless of course you want to indulge in some new sophistry as is brought in by Tendulkar bhakts in every other thread like the number of "international wickets" that fell.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

So what does that stat tell us? That Lohmann and his contemporary bowlers were TOO good? Or were the batsmen all mediocre in Lohmann's era? Which of the two follows from your post and why?

What follow from my post is neither if you had any logical deduction abilities. What follows from my post is that the average runs scored per wicket were significantly lower in the pre WW-I era due to poor pitches and preparation, which underwent a revamp after cricket resumed post WW-I.

[The Outsider]

Common sense ke peddler' date=' please tell us. Why was average run per wicket so low in Lohmann's era? Was it because Lohmann and friends were too good? Batsmen too poor? And how do we deduce that from stats?[/quote'] Aaankh ke andhe, upar padh lo kya likha hai maine - it's a well documented fact that pitch preparation underwent a major change in the post WW-I era. Par kya farak padta hai, koi buddha chewtiya kaat raha hoga duniya ka - it has nothing to do with the truth, right?

[The Outsider]

So here's your premise 1) Lohmann was not an outlier and his rivals had an equally impressive average. Premise 2) Average runs scored per wicket now is higher than in Lohmann's era. Conclusion: It wasn't Lohamnn's brilliance or poor batsmen, but poor pitches and hence Lohmann not Marshall's equal. This is your understanding of logical conclusions? I get it, it must be the University you attended.

Yeah, let's also hear what your jhandu Law college has to say about things - by the way, what's the average IQ of people who study law in India, 9 or 11?

[zen]

Since many are rehashing the same stuff .... when in the opposition, you have McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

[The Outsider]

We were supposed to believe even Bradman played in an era of uncovered pitches till we saw the video evidence of a very efficient pitch covering apparatus. So excuse me if others aren't falling for that massive **** peddled as "documented history".

Don't blame your ignorance on me. Read about the history of covered pitches and how things have been changing and evolving with regards to that law.

[ganeshran]

Why are you making it sound like some profound question. Common sense will tell you that you will use the average run per wicket which fell in that bowler's era and compare it with that particular bowler's average. Unless of course you want to indulge in some new sophistry as is brought in by Tendulkar bhakts in every other thread like the number of "international wickets" that fell.

How is it sophistry? When a bowler has such brilliant statistics that modern bowlers cannot even hope to achieve them, he should be venerated above every other modern great of the game. I was only interested in the measure that you would use to explain away this 94% difference in averages. Consequently, the batting averages in this era must also be adjusted with the average runs/per wicket right? So a batting average of 48 in the same era (Bobby Abel) where an average wicket fell per 19 runs is far greater than someone like Gavaskar who averaged 49 when an average wicket fell every 33 runs, or viv richards who averaged 48, or for that matter Gooch, Boycott, Lloyd etc

[The Outsider]

:hysterical: (Excuse me but the time for a good old smiley has arrived.)

A ggogle search on laaaaww isshtudents of India gives this.:hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

How is it sophistry? When a bowler has such brilliant statistics that modern bowlers cannot even hope to achieve them, he should be venerated above every other modern great of the game. I was only interested in the measure that you would use to explain away this 94% difference in averages. Consequently, the batting averages in this era must also be adjusted with the average runs/per wicket right? So a batting average of 48 in the same era (Bobby Abel) where an average wicket fell per 19 runs is far greater than someone like Gavaskar who averaged 49 when an average wicket fell every 33 runs, or viv richards who averaged 48, or for that matter Gooch, Boycott, Lloyd etc

And do you think it's for no reason that people like Hobbs, Trumper, Ranji, Rhodes are so highly respected despite having supposedly "mediocre" batting averages?

[desi.boy]

Dont want to derail the thread , but why is Lohmann not treated as a bowling great. He had a spectacular average of 10.75, one of the best strike rates in the world and far better than what any other modern bowler can hope to achieve?

if this current bowler happens to play another 10 tests on pitches of SA and then retire immediately, he would very well end up with 100+ wkts at avg. and SR not too different from his current stats (avg 12 and SR 21), in the days where average wkt probably comes for 35+ runs and SR of 50+ http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/46945.html he could be bradman ka baap of bowling. bradman bakts could then agree that modern batting greats like sachin, lara, dravid etc who have played nearly thrice as many tests, in much harder modern professional era, succeed in different conditions are actually better than bradman

[The Outsider]

Now we're firmly in the Punjabi University territory. More smileys please! :hysterical:

Juniaan kaun si hai aap ki sir jee - sahi batayein to Laaaw padhne waale gundo se dar to lagta tha Panjab University mein.