If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[Raghav_12]

Think you've answered your own question there - the method does not choose who is better only identifies to what level a sample is a statistical outlier. Applying to Hammond and Rameez Raja, the only answer you will get is neither are statistical outliers. I am not even bothered or talking about what Bradman's average would have been in the current discussion. Identifying the degree to which a sample is a statistical outlier is not an exercise in prediction. The 3 and 5 data points you are referring to apply to international level batsmen from India playing test cricket at that point in time. If such a simple problem could not be solved with statistics, then the field should be junked. I am saying that one has to be careful and scientific when applying the concepts. I gave you a sample undergraduate stats problem to solve in my previous post. Once you work on it and come up with a solution, you would have answered your above question. Nit picking? Do a simple exercise - plot the number of quality cricketers produced by each test country over the last 30-40 years (the time when cricket has become competitive according to you and some others) and check if you see any positive correlation. If you can't make out from the plot, do a simple regression and get back to me with the correlation coefficient. I'll try to search for the link. You can also try - I've posted the link before on ICF. Squash doesn't qualify and you don't follow Basketball? So, now sport outliers will have to be identified based on which sport Raghav follows or considers worthy of qualification. Just a small point about squash - Tendulkar won't be able to last on a squash court for more than 30 minutes. If you want some scientific justification for it, it is one of the most calorie intensive sport and one hour will normally burn 1000 calories.

This is most relevant point you made in this debate which exposes you completely. I am being honest when I say I can't comment on Basketball as I don't follow that. And i don't comment on the things I don't have enough information/knowledge about.

[The Outsider]

This is most relevant point you made in this debate which exposes you completely. I am being honest when I say I can't comment on Basketball as I don't follow that.

Exposes me? Not anymore than you, for disqualifying sports from a discussion on statistical outliers based on your whims and fancies and because the results don't suit your preconceived notions and agendas. Just admit it - if you agree that modern sports leave room for substantial peer dominance the entire edifice of your argument will crumble.

[The Outsider]

Another example of peer dominance in modern sports (not sure if Raghav considers it worthy of qualification or follows it) :

[zen]

In before, I hear that "a few fractions of a second doesn't account for peer dominance" (and thus completely ignoring the dynamics of the sport) :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

If Bradman was Indian who would have played around only 10 tests in 20 years. Would have had to wait a further 4 years for debut and played only 1 test series at home in his whole 20 year carrer. Shows the whole uncompetitivness of world cricket at that time, with only basically 2 teams

[mishra]

^ Its like Canada playing US..... Havent you guys got some world championship in that girly rugby and throw ball cricket... Even i am sure that sport is even more takers then Kirkut palyed during world war

[The Outsider]

you got a Date for this "point in time" for DGB and how you arrived at this date and how it resulted in 20 batsmen and their names ? Ditto for SRT.

No, I don't have a "date in mind". But you can take a sample of date points - if they tend to converge you are good, if they don't then my advised method is not good enough and more sophisticated sampling might have to be used.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

So the numbers that you used - 20 for Bradmans time and 50 for SRT - were just fictitious ?

Educated guesses is how I would like to call them - for actual data refer to someone who has already gone through the exercise and published a peer reviewed paper.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Got a link?

Already posted on this and the earlier ICF before and in direct conversations with you. As if it's going to make a difference? A 37 year old Ricky Ponting bowling at the international level after a decade at 132 kmph will not convince you that Ray Lindwall was not a 125 kmph trundler - fat chance something a comprehensive statistical study would have.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I don't recall any such discussion where you posted a list of players to prove the outliers theory ... the closest you came was here : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1213749&postcount=426 those links contain no such list that you are talking about ... in this thread.

I did try to search around a bit, but could not find the link to the exact article where the relative statistical outlier study was done - maybe you can try to search around as well or else I'll spend some more time after another 15 days or so when I free up a bit looking around for it again. I am sure, though, that Gaurang had posted a link to it on the old ICF and I had replicated it here. No comments on a 37 year old Ponting topping Lindwall's supposed speeds? And anyway the theory of "no peer dominance" in modern times has already been junked, agreed?

[Jersey #10]

If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian, the pakistanis would claim that Afridi is better than Bradman. Then Rett would add Afridi's Batting and bowling averages in all formats to prove the point.

[The Outsider]

Though I know that the esteemed Raghav does not consider a tuccha sport like squash as competition worthy, but I though I'll put up this statistic anyway - Jahangir Khan won 555 international squash matches in row, as early as 25-30 years back if you want to talk about peer dominance. Unfortunately, the best part of Jahangir's dominance are not readily available on video, but just to get an example of what the guy was capable of even when he was declining : vVLFnzWi80k These kind of sports are self selective - one of the reasons why Reinhold Messner is one of the greatest sportsman of all, and yeah he dominated his peers like crazy!

[The Outsider]

As an after thought Jahangir did not think that his dominance on traditional squash was enough, so he also played the "hard ball" American squash for a couple of seasons and kicked everyone's ***** there as well.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I already wasted enough time. I didn't respond because : 1. I didnt see it and I simply don't trust anything other than my own eyes. 2. Bowler X bowling at N mph in 2011 does not mean Bowler Y most certainly did it circa 1940s. This is a logical fallacy and I don't have time arguing with you on this because you do not even have the requisite discipline to discuss this truthfully and honestly based on the evidence we have for Lindwall. You were arguing that the point of impact had already happened when the bat was still in the air and the ball visible in the white background of the batsmans boot. There is simply no point arguing when you are going to be dogged and argue for the sake of it.

Yeah, Ponting is a greater bowler than Lindwall! :two_thumbs_up:

[The Outsider]

I'll respond the remainder of your BS a bit later where you and Raghav or the likes of yours try to take solace in the "fact" that cricket is the only competitive sport. All I can say, is wake up from your Tenbdulkar slumber!