How much would have Bradman averaged against

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Everything in sporting terms is miles and miles better now then in 30s. Anyone saying different is senile. Yes great in their era yes. But a 30s sportsman actually as good as a modern day sportsman, please dont make me laugh!!!

[msb1991]

Everything in sporting terms is miles and miles better now then in 30s. Anyone saying different is senile. Yes great in their era yes. But a 30s sportsman actually as good as a modern day sportsman, please dont make me laugh!!!

The average sportsman being as good as modern day sportsman is laughable, but how good would a great batsmen from the modern era done in the 1930s, over a long period of time, with teams trying their hardest to get him out?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Jersey #10]

omg bossbhai in the thread...it's about to turn into Sachin vs Bradman or has it already? didn't care enough to read everything

[King Tendulkar]

The average sportsman being as good as modern day sportsman is laughable' date=' but how good would a great batsmen from the modern era done in the 1930s, over a long period of time, with teams trying their hardest to get him out?[/quote'] They would have averaged 250 plus in 30s, maybe never get out. And laughed at the pies being chucked down at them, laughed at the field settings to them and laughed at the unathletic fielding. In fact the biggest danger for any sportsman if transported to the 30s would be laughter at the game they were now playing.

[Blackout_]

Are you so insecure about Tendulkar's standing in the game that you must denigrate Bradman?

[Magneto]

Going by the poll results, it seems that The Outsider's and Miss Warner's understanding and analysis of cricket are pretty much identical. :good:

[akshayxyz]

Are you so insecure about Tendulkar's standing in the game that you must denigrate Bradman?

Going by the number of "XYZ" vs Sachin posts/threads - it has been other way round.

[akshayxyz]

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

:giggle: AFAIK - BB has done major in stats. I am not saying he can't make mistakes, or is the authority in matters relating to stats - but he definitely doesn't need refresher in stats101. Carry on with the discussion.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

Unlikely as the silence suggests .... reasons are not hard to figure out ... and many weeks/months later when this topic pops up again in another thread the same bakwas of "Pitches were harder back then" will be peddled by the same Gentlemen pretending as though they had found some brilliant new piece of information that would seal the case. Can't really have any honest discussion when people argue doggedly for the sake of arguing and the psychology behind such dead-beat arguments are exlained brilliantly in Bumpers posts which go to the root cause of the problem and are two of the best posts on this topic :

Indeed Bossy. These two posts that you quoted here by Bumper are the best I have seen on this topic. Very well explained of how this comparison is formed around a wrong extrapolation logic here. First and foremost, there is not question about the greatness of DB considering the time and era. But his comparison with modern players is overstretched to say the least.

[Crookbond]

Sure, Bumper hits the nail on the head.

You believe that it is possible to do extrapolations like that on a sport that is characterized and impacted by so many extraneous variables ? To me such mathematical analysis may be suitable for book cricket, but not for a real sport.

You can't extrapolate one era to the other, simple as it gets.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

:giggle: AFAIK - BB has done major in stats. I am not saying he can't make mistakes, or is the authority in matters relating to stats - but he definitely doesn't need refresher in stats101. Carry on with the discussion.

Akshay, That's no way to argue. If you think what I post isn't correct, argue scientifically why comparing parameters of distributions makes sense. The diagrams succinctly explain my point, if you want i.e. FWIW, the assumption is that the data is normally distributed. Since, your cheer leading your pal come back to me with a good enough argument rather than posting what one has done a "major" in. If that's the way it goes, I can post mine and override this presumptuous claim. Also, needing a refresher isn't taken to be in the derogatory sense. Don't you ever get back to your basics? I do and no matter how good I am at what I do but I still get back to my basics. I am not arrogant enough to claim I am omniscient.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Pray and let me know what you understood from the graphs I posted. Someone with a major in statistics would surely know what I am alluding to. My first year stat students will rip that claim off of averages being same across decades. Also, can you please give me the data. I will take my time to analyze it and post a detailed response. I already have a hunch of what's happening and how the interpretation of that statistic is wrong.