If Sir Donald Bradman was born an Indian

[bulbul]

Coming to topic ' date='Bradman being a australian whom nobody posting against or for has seen has such debates,If he was an indian outsider would have been defending tendulkar and bossbhai Bradman.[/quote'] u remebered OP after 600 posts :hysterical:

[ganeshran]

Would qualify for what? As I said the greats of that era are the likes of Hobbs, Ranji, and Trumper and all averaged significantly more than 35. You have got yourself into the classic ICF rut where your original point has a been disproved but you can't accept it and have now resorted to throwing one loony bin qualification after another. You don't have to attempt so hard to save face, I won't reply to your next post on the topic so you can sleep sound in your supposed victory and have the final word.

Qualify to be equal to gavaskar and better than richards, miandad, gooch, boycott and their likes with a difference of 19 more runs that the average runs/wicket norm in their eras You are throwing in Hobbs, Ranji and trumper whose average runs/wicket ( a normalization measure that you invented) was in the 25-26 range. The measure during Hobbs era was 31.35. I made no point other than saying that any normalization measure to adust averages across eras would result in some or the other wierd conclusion.

[zen]

Qualify to be equal to gavaskar and better than richards, miandad, gooch, boycott and their likes with a difference of 19 more runs that the average runs/wicket norm in their eras You are throwing in Hobbs, Ranji and trumper whose average runs/wicket ( a normalization measure that you invented) was in the 25-26 range. The measure during Hobbs era was 31.35. I made no point other than saying that any normalization measure to adust averages across eras would result in some or the other wierd conclusion.

which is why 56 < 100 and attempts to show otherwise are laughable :winky:

[ravishingravi]

which is why 56 < 100 and attempts to show otherwise are laughable :winky:

Hater!!

[SachDan]

Hater!!

Pseudo-Intellect :bow:

[bulbul]

Pseudo-Intellect :bow:

Hippopotamus :two_thumbs_up:

[zen]

Another year is about to pass and SRT is still isn't the greatest :((

[CG]

Australian research Say tendulkar better than bradman. An economics researcher claims to have found an answer to one of the biggest debates in international cricket by picking Indian icon Sachin Tendulkar as the greatest Test batsman ever over late Australian legend Sir Donald Bradman. Ũriffith University researcher Dr. Nicholas Rohde has used economic theory to compare batsmen from different eras, and says India's Ã*ittle Master', who will pad up against the Aussies at the MCG on Boxing Day, is history's premier willow wielder, reported The Australian. The 38-year-old Tendulkar has a world-record 15,183 runs from 184 Tests at an average of 56.02 since making his debut in 1989. Bradman, on the other hand, played 52 Tests from 1928 to 1948, scoring 6,996 runs at an astonishing average of 99.94. He died in 2001 aged 92. Dr. Rohde said a theoretical analysis puts Tendulkar above Bradman. ŵhe rankings are designed to allow for meaningful comparisons of players with careers of different lengths, Dr. Rohde said. The rankings by the researcher have been created according to a player's career aggregate runs, minus the total number of runs that an average player of that era would accumulate over the same number of innings. Allan Border (seven) and Steve Waugh (nine) are the other Australian batsmen in the top 10. Rahul Dravid (fourth) and Sunil Gavaskar (eighth) are the other Indians in the list. Dr. Rohde said it was possible that Tendulkar and Bradman could swap places many times before the Indian retires as a dip in form would affect his standing.

[8ankitj]

I am stuck on this forum being the founder of it to have to tolerate idiots - you seem to be a smart person. Here is my advice for you - quit this forum because the idiots and imbeciles on this forum will drag you down to their level very soon and you will be confronted with garbage like "time doesn't move"' date=' "I don't know jack about DFFITS, but will keep on arguing on statistical outliers with authority", "India had nuclear weapons 5000 years back" kind of nonsense.[/quote'] Thanks for the advice mate. No extra-ordinarily smart guy, here. Pretty sure the folks who put forward (what I think are) totally stupid arguments for SRT are quite smart themselves too and doing well in whatever they are pursuing. Humans can be biased for lot of different reasons, and it doesn't necessarily relate to their smartness or intelligence IMHO. There are very smart people who deny holocaust and Japanese war crimes, so denying Bradman's greatness is no big deal :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[bulbul]

^ Yep Sachin fanatics are all Silent Saints..wont Insult any posters nor Players...very humble , polite,decent guys :--D

[CSK Fan]

Thanks for the advice mate. No extra-ordinarily smart guy, here. Pretty sure the folks who put forward (what I think are) totally stupid arguments for SRT are quite smart themselves too and doing well in whatever they are pursuing. Humans can be biased for lot of different reasons, and it doesn't necessarily relate to their smartness or intelligence IMHO. There are very smart people who deny holocaust and Japanese war crimes, so denying Bradman's greatness is no big deal :winky:

Since the time you have joined you have been such inane comments, You have not made any contructive posts supporting your argument, instead you have constantly tried to ridicule posts which are contrary to your own. When asked for an explanation for your points you usually give an excuse of not having enough time. You have always tried to pretend to have some sort of moral high ground and condenscing attitude. Is this the way to debate?

[Yoda-esque]

Juvenile discussions...There cannot be any one GOAT.

[Bumper]

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.

Huh, come again ? Why don't you do that & show me how Salvi can look like a titan ?

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?

Not sure what your point is. I said Bodyline is a relevant data point for me because it offered Bradman more stringent competition, not just because of the lack of bouncer rules and no-helmets. And an isolated test match in which a bunch of weak tailenders hardly known for their batting copped out does not advance your point on Bodyline. If anything, Bodyline only weakens Bradman's case. It halved his average and even if it is accepted as stringent competition, its too small a sample (some 2 tests out of a career of 50+ tests).

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. 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.

The same oldies are saying Bradman is the greatest ever, which is what we are debating. These guys also said Barry Richards who hardly played much test cricket as an all timer. You believe what you want to.

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

Nope, writing down equations is just representation of one's knowledge (transfer of knowledge from brain to paper). Its not demonstration of skill. Demonstration is how you apply those equations to create something useful for mankind. The coach can also write books on batting, but that's not demonstration.

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

In fact this only undermines your argument. Over a period of time, bowlers have learnt a variety of skill to trouble the batsmen. Batsmen may have gotten a bit more aggressive, but batting as an art has not changed fundamentally like bowling has. So modern batsmen's job has only gotten tougher.

Thank you.

LOL, what a cop out! How does that sub league invalidate the theory on outliers ? Projecting Bradman's prowess to modern leagues (and stating that he'd have averaged some 60+) is no different than equating a sub league (comparable to Bradman's times) from the modern era to Bradman's times. And stating that Bradman would have averaged 60+ in the modern era (as opposed to 99) is in itself an admission that modern competition is waay too superior.

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?

Out of the names you threw out, only Jordan played a team sport and therefore more comparable to cricketers. He was a freak and is rated so highly because of what he did in championship games. No one would care about his stats otherwise. And the odds that Jordan faced is very very comparable to the one seen in modern basketball. So not sure, your comparison makes sense.

[The Outsider]

Huh, come again ? Why don't you do that & show me how Salvi can look like a titan ?

You can check out examples of the best of Agarkar videos on youtube on how to accomplish that. Check this out: 7aRIxoQ7ZmE&feature=fvst

Not sure what your point is.

The point is that the bowlers in that line up were pretty much the same level as Bradman faced during Bodyline - there is no Marshall, Roberts, Garner there. Yet, Bradman averaged close to 60 and India forfeited the test.

I said Bodyline is a relevant data point for me because it offered Bradman more stringent competition, not just because of the lack of bouncer rules and no-helmets.

And I gave you an example of how Bodyline was much more than "competition" as you keep trying to tout.

And an isolated test match in which a bunch of weak tailenders hardly known for their batting copped out does not advance your point on Bodyline.

Huh? Gavaskar, Amarnath, Viswanath, Vengsarkar are tail enders? And before you comment on the runs scored by Gavaskar and Gaekwad in the first innings, the Bodyline barrage started at 200/1.

If anything, Bodyline only weakens Bradman's case. It halved his average and even if it is accepted as stringent competition, its too small a sample (some 2 tests out of a career of 50+ tests).

That half is still better than any modern day batsman's average despite the fact that Bodyline was much more than "competition" and has been illegal.

The same oldies are saying Bradman is the greatest ever, which is what we are debating. These guys also said Barry Richards who hardly played much test cricket as an all timer. You believe what you want to.

So all are lying?

Nope, writing down equations is just representation of one's knowledge (transfer of knowledge from brain to paper). Its not demonstration of skill. Demonstration is how you apply those equations to create something useful for mankind. The coach can also write books on batting, but that's not demonstration.

Einstein did not conduct any experiments on Special or General Relativity to prove it - he just wrote down the same equations thousands of people can write today.

In fact this only undermines your argument. Over a period of time, bowlers have learnt a variety of skill to trouble the batsmen. Batsmen may have gotten a bit more aggressive, but batting as an art has not changed fundamentally like bowling has. So modern batsmen's job has only gotten tougher.

If that were the case bowling averages would have gone down in the teens because cricket is a game in which bowlers are competing with batsmen directly and if according to your theory one skill ste has sky rocketed while the other is stagnant, the entire dynamics of the game would have changed.

LOL, what a cop out! How does that sub league invalidate the theory on outliers ? Projecting Bradman's prowess to modern leagues (and stating that he'd have averaged some 60+) is no different than equating a sub league (comparable to Bradman's times) from the modern era to Bradman's times.

It's very different - think about it.

And stating that Bradman would have averaged 60+ in the modern era (as opposed to 99) is in itself an admission that modern competition is waay too superior.

Where have I said competition has not increased at all? Point is he still would have been by far the best today.

Out of the names you threw out, only Jordan played a team sport and therefore more comparable to cricketers. He was a freak and is rated so highly because of what he did in championship games. No one would care about his stats otherwise. And the odds that Jordan faced is very very comparable to the one seen in modern basketball. So not sure, your comparison makes sense.

Thanks for proving my point that statistical outliers are possible in modern team sports, so it completely kills you argument that we don't see statistical outliers due to increased competition in cricket. If you are good enough, you would still be a statistical outlier. Still waiting on why so much competition in India has not even produced as many great cricketers as Jamaica.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --