msb1991 Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Sorry, are the Bradman is **** brigade ignoring me because they cannot address my points or have my posts genuinely been missed?
fuub Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 lots of people using sprints to look at evolution of sports science/training but for all the specialised training, steroids, diet etc olympics 100m sprint 1936: jesse owens 10.3seconds olympics 100m sprint 2008: usain bolt 9.69seconds and bolt is an absolute freak.
The Outsider Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 If uncovered wickets were as treacherous as projected, then how come so many players well past their 40's were able to play international test cricket? Would not such treacherous wicket need much sharper reflexes? People on this forum may accuse me of using this age argument way too often. However, I think this is one irrefutable evidence on poor quality of cricket we had in bradman's era, wickets may be covered or uncovered. So, you would agree that test cricket sucked in the 70s and 80s based on the fact that more 40+ year old players were involved during that time than today?
The Outsider Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 Interesting. I didn't know that. You are right. SRT only has 6 doubles vs Don's 12. But wait if you add up his 194* and ODI 200, he has 8. but for argument sake lets tkae 6. In how many attempts? Can we have a fair double century to innings ratio for Tendulkar and Bradman - we'll never see that stat on a fanatical board. What about the current fielding standard. Do you think that all of sudden Jonty's and Mark Waughs and Azhar would start dropping Dollies when Don comes over to bat??. You missed the point, but Tendulkar bhakts are prone to doing so - once Lara got going he would score a big one, Tendulkar had remarkable consistency. Combine the two into one batsman and you get Bradman. CHeck out the # of 250+ scored in test cricket in different eras. See if any of that addup with what you are saying. 30s 12 50s 9 60s 5 70s 8 80s 4 90s 12 2k 30 Wonder how come there are so many people with ability to score 250+ runs in this era and still none of them managed to get even the avg of 60? Here is what I think. Long innings are only possible on a flat track with pathetic bowling on the other side. Human brain cannot focus for that long when conditions are very trying. You know that, dont you? To support my point check out an interesting era of 80s, when Marshal, holding, Andy, Imran, Kapil, Handlee were playing not many doubles were scored. Barely 4. Not sure what your point is - how many double hundreds are left if we remove Bradman and Tendulkar? An out of sample comparison if we are going to juggle stats, at least? And anyways, Tendulkar did not bat in the time when it was toughest to score big runs according to you, so the conclusion is both Tendulkar and Bradman bashed minnows and Bradman did it better, am I right? I dont think long innings can be a measure here. Tendulkar has score 7 international doubles and if you add that 194* then 8 and Lara has made 9. So not much of a difference in their abilities. Just scoring 400 and 375 does not make him so much better that with this same ability he could become Bradmanesque. That is totally unimaginable. And same thing about SRT, if had couple of 350+ with whatever consistency that you claim he has better than Lara and that would have made him Bradmanesqueonly in terms of avg I mean. All other factors that have changed over the period of last 3 decades like team strengths, other batsmen supporting the team, opposition, fielding, pitch and conditions, amount of cricket, money etc etc makes it humanly impossible to sustain anything beyond 50s. Let alone 99, I would say even 60-65 would be impossible to sustain for more than 20-30 test. Yeah, I've heard this a billion times - whichever record Tendulkar has not been able to achieve cannot be a measure like scoring in World Cup Finals, scoring 500 runs in a series, scoring two centuries in a test, scoring a triple hundred, and whatever he has achieved becomes the barometer for greatness. Maal kahin aur becho yaar.
Sooda Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 You may be joking with this post, I cannot tell, but you have raised some often raised points so I will look into them... Batting has not moved on like sprinting or the manufacture of cars. There have not been an array of shots invented since the 1930s which have revolutioned the effectiveness of the best batsmen. Jeff Thomson is certainly no slower than Brett Lee - cricket has not moved on like other games and is still reliant upon natural technique moreso than almost all other sports. And remember, I used an example there of quick bowling, where technique has been scrutinized a lot by various sports scientists and biomechanists and still we do not have bowlers who make Thomson look slow. Batting has had no such heavy scrutiny, not since the 1970s and not since the 1930s. Things such as good footwork, chuck downs and bowling machines mean we have a great number of competent batsmen, just as we have a greater number of 140kph bowlers, but does not change the top batsmen nor the all-time quick bowlers. You noting that you are better than Bradman really sums up the absurdity of such an argument. It is a bit of a straw man but it implies some sort of genetic advancement in the game of cricket; that raw talent is somehow better than it was in the 1930s whereas I'd argue that it is the same. The difference is perhaps how talent is honed through quality competition or coaching (of which I assume you have none, but correct me if I am wrong) and that is an argument worth looking at. One in which you say you are better than Bradman is absurd! The argument that he'd average 10 is absurd. 10 is the average someone could attain with little natural talent and just professional coaching and years around Test cricket. It implies a state of affairs where a tailender from the 1930s could enter professional modern coaching for a few years and come back to his time, better than Bradman. Of course, that is absurd. Sorry' date= are the Bradman is **** brigade ignoring me because they cannot address my points or have my posts genuinely been missed? Whattay fine post msb. No joke it is a good point... No one ignores you brah Im sure it is a genuine miss :icflove: I have said something similar in the distant past. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1018815&postcount=1155 well two years ago anyway, gives you an idea of how long this debate has been going round in circles I think thats the point Outsider made- I dont know if he did 'hint' that Bradders would be the best- point is WE JUST DONT KNOW, so that will be a pretty futile discussion. There are two ways of looking at your 'if they played tomorrow' argument... If were talking about inherent talent and ability here, Bradman clearly had that in spades , he was born with it. If he was born in say 1975 and underwent the much improved coaching, fitness techniques etc that living in this era brings with it and honed that talent- then who's to say that he wouldnt be the greatest. OTOH transposing a 20 something yr old Bradman from 1930-something in a time machine and asking to start his career a few weeks ago vs NZ (and I actually think he might not do too badly versus the crappy bowlers on pattas there are today), or better yet doing that in the 1980s and asking him to start his career in THAT Aus side against WI pacers and all... well time brings with it progress in every field and in human ability. He's not going to have had the huge advantages that batsmen in the 80's and 90's had (whilst developing i.e) so he would not have the same kind of success. (Whilst were being fantasmagorical, we could say that he'd be so dazzled by modern technology and unnerved by the time jump itself that personally he'd be affected, have a nervous breakdown and not be able to play cricket at all .) The only way to decide this 'greatest' debate IS to compare with peers, competitors and in the context of their times as Outsider rightly states Id like to see if he played Lindwall and Miller in domestic cricket- he was a bit old when they emerged- but it would be interesting to see how he fared agaisnt them. I have read of him hammering O Reilly and Grimmet in local Aus matches around in his youth. Those bowlers were probably better than most test attacks he played against. And No I personally have not seen him bat on footage or otherwise, but in come cases we have to go by what we read, as sadly I wasnt around in the 1930's. :P
Sachinism Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 If I get the tone of your reply' date=' I sense that you claim that Bradman had much much better technique than his peers. So whatever technique that the best batsman needed back then he had it. Let me tell you this. [b']I read one article back then about his foot work and technique. He was so better with that he would manage to change is footwork twice after the ball is released and adjust to the length of the ball second time. So what I got out of that article that others could barely manage to get some foot work by judging it with whatever way they could but Bradman had ability to adjust as well. Does that tell you something. One thing I liked about Brado was that he used to practice with 1 stump to improve his ability to middle the ball. :hatsoff: some commitment for that time and era there. Are you serious? I take it you've never seen any modern player change their footwork after the ball is bowled? - Maybe its time to actually start watching cricket :P
Crookbond Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 Sorry' date= are the Bradman is **** brigade ignoring me because they cannot address my points or have my posts genuinely been missed? I didn't miss the MSB's of your post. Obviously fantastic points brought to the table.
Crookbond Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 Central Limit Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
msb1991 Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 See my post # 87 .... usually you don't reply to those who respond to you ... which is why you don't get that many responses (i think) No. Your post is the exception. I was replying to all replies. Hence why my posts were littered with quotes from other posters. As for a clip of one bowler who doesn't look great, that honestly proves nothing. So what if the average standard of bowling was lower back then - it is not as if the top bowlers in Bradman's day were the one's who had his number - unless you wish to go with the line of argument that there were no bowlers in the 1930s who would be any good these days, something I will highly doubt. He scored at an astonishing average regardless of opposition.
Raghav_12 Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 So' date=' you would agree that test cricket sucked in the 70s and 80s based on the fact that more 40+ year old players were involved during that time than today?[/quote'] So you think that so many middle/old aged people playing international test cricket is not an indicator of poor quality of cricket of that era and cricket could have afforded all these grand daddy's while maintaining supreme standards of athletism? In between, 80's saw just 5 such players while number of such players in 30's was 27, that too on a much smaller sample size with few matches being played.
msb1991 Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 So what ? well can you tell me how Bill Bowes manged that kind of avg ? His first class avg is a eye popping 16.76 over a small matter of 1600+ wkts ... Not even Marshall' date=' Ambrose , Steyn ,Donald, Waz etc have that sort of avg and these guys were rally fast. Does this not sound fishy for someone like you who is into fast bowling ?[/quote'] I'm not going to write off a bowler after one delivery. He was possibly a slow-medium cutter bowler, the type who thrived on the pitches of the time. Okay. I will accept that no bowlers from the 1930s would make the cut today. I do not believe it, but I will accept it. When, between the 1930s-1940s and 1970s did bowling standards drastically improve? Would Bradman have floundered in the 1950s or the 1960s, when I'm sure you'd accept that the standard of the top cricketers was good! As I said, we cannot be sure if Bradman would dominate today, but I am entirely sure he would not be ****. It implies a state of affairs where a batsman, over 10 years can go from dominating to being dominated due to improvements in bowling, this is ludicrous. Only slightly less ludicrous over 20 years - the length of a career - do you see my argument? I have no ideological position, I form my position because of the arguments I have mentioned seem the most convincing to me, I hope you accept that.
Crookbond Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 You are saying this explains why the averages for the decades in question are all close by and has got nothing to do with pitches being Treacherous ? Yes. You are just plotting the means. Statistics 101 says you need to compare distributions not parameters.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now