How much would have Bradman averaged against

[Crookbond]

Going round the wkt with close in fielders is the norm to soften up players especially the tailenders.

Again, it doesn't depend whether you come over, round from the top. A good bowler will find a way to soften up people and that's what Larwood did.

Can you show me who these fast bowlers are that are comparable to the modern day greats ? There cannot be a honest discussion if you are simply going to brazenly keep saying that Larwood and Co were just as fast and lethal as modern day bowlers. I have provided tons of video clips to prove my point but I cant do anything if you keep saying that these clips are insufficient.

What is your definition of modern? You need to first define what is modern and pre-modern quantitatively and why. Few video clips are insufficient to say why these bowlers are not good. You need to "watch" them. I can post few clips of "modern greats" being carted around. Doesn't make them any less great.

Again most of these have got nothing to do with actual batting skills. They may shorten your career but they aren't known to help you survive a really good spell of fast bowling or even spin. This is why such excuses are red herrings a term that you dislike.

There's no measure for batting skills and there exists no universal quantity to measure. Please define a quantity first and then get it approved by everyone then we shall proceed with this discussion.

And just because you have a helmet the fear of a cricket ball doesnt really vanish. And I have got tired of repeating this but Bradman rarely had to contend with short bowling except for the Bodyline series. And again if you think a Larwood is just as lethal as a Shoaib then there can't really be a honest discussion.

I don't know whether Larwood was better than Shoaib or otherwise. I need to watch both of them over a period of time to understand how good they were.

[Sachinism]

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.

Life expectancy was about 60 in them days, but these were supreme athletes

[Sooda]

0

+1

[Crookbond]

+1

0 + 1 = 1 :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Take a guess what it could be ... I mean what is the point of such rhetorical question ? Havent I given you the names of these modern bowlers - time and again - that I am using ? Arent they all mostly from the 80s onwards ?

There's a reason for asking this rhetorical. How did you arrive as 1980 as the magical number is the question.

And you are back to your favorite excuse of "Few video clips" ? Are you trying to imply that these bowlers were bowling pie's ONLY when the footage was being filmed and reverted back to being absolutely lethal fast bowlers when the camera was switched off ? What sort of argument is this ?

Fine. So let me put this in a different way. I will post you a clips of bowlers who haven't played much cricket or you haven't watched them much. You need to tell me how they would perform in the next 10 years or how good they are. If you can successfully guess that with a probability of 1 over all the bowlers I will accept your argument on those videos you posted about a player from the past. If you get it wrong even once, it means there's a probability you've gone wrong on other players too.

Again beg to differ completely ( diametrically opposite understanding of cricket and all that ) ... In a nutshell Batting skills are measured based on how a batsman performs against Quality Bowlers - both fast and spin - on Variety of surfaces home and away and in different formats of the game. The fast bowlers test your reflexes and the spinners test your ability to play a turning ball. Sharp reflexes, good technique and temperament are necessary to succeed against such bowlers.

So, why is it Hobbs, Bradman or their fault that they didn't play the kind of your definition of quality bowling? They played what was on offer and they did pretty good. Now, what would happen if they faced "your definition of quality bowling" (itself a contentious point)? God knows. Neither you nor me, nor anyone in the world can put a finger and say - "This is what will happen". If you can, you're an Oracle. And if you can, you should be able to guess other things too like which played will perform well etc.

So why are you doggedly arguing in Larwood's favor when you don't know the facts and are not willing to accept video footage as evidence ?

I am arguing in Larwood's favor? :blink: I repeat - "There's no way to know how good a player was unless you have watched his career. If you want to know how good his career was, you need to watch him"/

[Crookbond]

You don't need major stats theories here ... simple cricketing sense will do. Harder the pitch lesser will be the score and hence lesser the avg. Marut claims that all uncovered pitches are hard to bat on and I don't see that reflected in the stats.

:facepalm: You absolutely don't need major stat theories but basic understanding of statistics. You plot the means of batting averages across decades. It proves nothing. Plotting of parameters make no sense. Why? The total sample varies, the variance varies which adversely affects the distribution. For what it's worth the variance of averages in the 1930s may be long tail than in the 1990s with the mean of the distribution remaining in and around same. Which means the batsmen in the long tail were superb batsmen than the one not in that tail. Marut is pointing out to exactly the same thing in a non-scientific language. I'm sorry but that statistic makes no sense. Harder the pitch, poor batsmen don't adapt & score poorly but great batsmen adapt & score well. The mean still remains the same. Statistics 101 says there's a probability for this to occur and hence this probability mass can't be ignored.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

It is just something that is common knowledge amongst keen followers of cricket.

I'm sorry I don't agree. But I will would like to throw this up to people around here if they think the same. 1980 still IMHO is a magical number.

I don't have to ... you go find me a slow military medium trundler - such as the equivalent of Bowes - taking 1600+ FC wkts at 17 in our times and we will talk. There aint going to be one ( and Iam not even talking about Test cricket) . Also I have most definitely not seen even 10% of FC cricket post 80s. So you go find a slow bowler like Bowes in the last 20 yrs or so and you can be dead certain that he ain't having that sort of avg over such a long FC career.

The question I posed was on your judgment on how good bowlers were by watching videos. If your judgment is as good, it should be good for any bowler. Since, you haven't seen Bowes bowl you can't make a judgment. If you can, you should make a judgment on any other bowler whom you have seen bowl limitedly. It works both ways.

It is none of their fault. Nobody says that. But to use those achievements and nominate them as the best ever takes a whole lot of imagination and this is where the Bradman fanatics get asked some pointed uncomfortable questions to which you just have no answers and hence your best bet is to hide behind technicalities such as the one that you are making here. There are just hundreds of good batsmen who shined brilliantly in FC cricket but just simply couldn't cut it at the Intl level. It is because of this reason that the chances of Bradman continuing to avg at that rate is a improbable thing.

You just repeatedly keep on saying this and I repeatedly remind you - "I didn't nominate him the best ever". It also takes quite a lot of imagination to extrapolate bowlers whom you haven't seen and pass judgments on them. PS - If you're calling me a Bradman "fanatic", you need to once again tone down. I am not on ad hominem here but things can change pretty quickly. Last time, benefit of the doubt.

Again based on simple cricketing sense. You watch the Larwood clips and you know this guy is nowhere near to the class of modern day all time greats bowlers.

You can't make a judgment on clips. You need to watch a career, a player to make a judgment. I haven't and hence, I'm reserving my judgment to "Can't say". IMHO, that's "cricketing sense". BTW - Can't we just RIP here saying you feel Bradman wouldn't play good today and I feel he would? I'm actually pretty tired of circular discussions and it also seems you do. I don't want to push my opinion on yours and you don't push your on mine. We can agree to disagree.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

There is no sample that is being picked out of a larger population here ... the stats are based on the entire damn population that there is out there. And bad pitches = lower scores is the widely accepted norm for the populations.

I was talking about the entire size of the sample also called the population. The entire population size varies from decade to decade drastically.

As per your claim that poor batsmen don't adapt ... this is applicable to both sets of the population. Unless you are in possession of evidence where in this aspect is applicable to only one set your point does not apply.

Yes, agree which in fact strengthens my point that average of averages makes no sense. The normal distribution will tend to follow at similar means. Since, you need to find out the variance which will give you a sense of how many extra-ordinary and poor batsmen there were across decade and normalize it to the respective sample sizes! You need to plot distributions across decades and draw particular insights from each distribution which will require a hell lot of work. I may take that up some day and do that probably. I appreciate your effort though. Edit - All the distributions in this figure have same mean but different variance.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Just make a list of fast bowlers with sub 25 avg and atleast 100-150 wkts ... it will be mainly populated by bowlers post 80s. common knowledge..

Which means statistics are enough to judge a bowler. If so, also blindly accept Bradman's 99 average as the best. Either you are with stats or not.

I'am purely going by speed. Find a modern bowler of Bowes speed and you can be guaranteed that he wont be anywhere close to his avg.

We all know speed is no measurement of a bowler quality. For all that it's worth, its 50 years since Bowes bowled (till the 80s). It's just so unfair to compare anyone in the 30s to 80s. Training changed, medical facilities changed .. so much changed. Bowes never had environment as a 80s bowler and therefore he probably didn't have the speed. It doesn't make him any less a bowler.

It is for those who think that way and no malice intended and I have changed it to fans. But FWIW you keep arguing exactly like those - doggedly simply for the sake of arguing even when you know that there is no way in the real world that you can keep a straight face defending bowlers from 30s based on the footage if we were face to face . You cant expect a sane discussion when this keeps happening ad-nauseum.

I can say the same thing to you mate. Let me know if you want me to. Your posts contain an aggressive tone. It's ok, I have no issues but if I reply with one you take it personally. I just want to maintain my sanity even against someone who doesn't want to accept even a single argument the other person puts up. It's just a blanket statement, no substance.

Here we go again ... why so ? Is the clip for Bill Bowes a lie ? Arent us Indian fans experts in recognizing a Trundler from

If you can successfully analyze Bowes from an old clip and extrapolate it 80 years later, you should be successfully be able to analyze a modern bowler's clip and extrapolate it to few months. Who are the experts here? ICF ... ha!

Again its not so much as opinion but backing those opinion with credible evidence. Your main evidence here is Technicalities ( such as : so what if everything was pisspoor back in those days there is a possibility that Bradman would still trump ) .. What sort of logic is this ?

According to you a video clip is a credible evidence according to me it's not. All these words - technicalities can very well be said in reverse. A video is a mere technicality. You need to watch a cricketers career to understand his worth and his value. I am just allowing you the space to even argue on those videos, some others may won't even do that and then there's ad hominem. Learn to accept that there's an argument put by the other party and there's a probability it may be true & move on. Putting in your own words - "No prizes for winning debates on an Internet forum".

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[msb1991]

As I said before, the only thing we can be sure of, is that Bradman would not be **** in the modern day in Test cricket, given perhaps some high quality nets before hand.

[Crookbond]

It is not avg of avgs !... it is merely the runs per wkt ( I will call it RPW if the word Avg troubles you) . And again keep in mind that worse the pitch more the wkts hence lesser the RPW.

Holy Lord! If it's RPW plotting variance is even more imperative as now. So, definitely I would like to see distributions plotted. Without that, you are just depicting some parameters of a distribution which won't make any sense. It's Stats 101.

[Crookbond]

Not just stats but a whole truckload of clips to go with it . They tell you what it takes to be Ambrose or a Waz or a Donald. You asked for a definitive way to judge I gave you one. Dont take my word ... go find a bowler of that pace and you will never see a spectacular FC avg such as the 16.76 that Bowes has. Do you agree or not ?

To compare two quantities one needs to have a common barometer. To compare Bowes with current fast bowlers you need to give Bowes the same environment. I don't think you can and hence, they can't be compared.

There are no hard evidences that you put up for me to acknowledge you points. You cant expect me to take probabalistic theories such as "Since we really don't know how Bradman would fare against modern bowlers we cant rule out the possibility that he ,ight succeed " I mean I could easily type the opposite ... then what ?

There are no hard evidences to say Bradman would've failed too. There exists only extrapolation. So, if you type the opposite the sane thing to do is shake hands, say good discussion and agree to disagree. Not to push ones opinions on each other and call names.

The clips - and there is fair number of them not just one or two as you try to make it out to be - give you a very fair idea as to the quality of cricket back then. And without a shadow of doubt it is nowhere near the class of today. There can be no honest discussion if you refuse to accept such an obvious thing.

The problem is "you think" that modern cricket skills greater than cricket skills in the earlier era. It's like saying - "I know the law of gravity when I was 8 years old, I am better than Newton". No, you're not. The modern cricketers inherited a lot of skills from the older ones. Also, there can't be any honest discussion with a man who NEVER accepts any point from another post in his views. FWIW, neither you not me are in a position to declare the ATG. If we were, we wouldn't be discussing this on ICF.

[Crookbond]

As I said before' date=' the only thing we can be sure of, is that Bradman would not be **** in the modern day in Test cricket, given perhaps some high quality nets before hand.[/quote'] :agree: /end of thread