Crookbond Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 Sorry but you explained nothing. By merely introducing a stats concept into the discussion doesn't amount to a "Explanation" especially when i countered it and offered a very simplified explanation in post#223. And are you suggesting that Cricinfo has wrong data or made an error in the calculations ? you don't even need to waste time analyzing the CI data just reposnd to the question in post#223. I doubt you will reply but time will tell. It is hard to find good posters interested in a good debate on this site anymore ... it is bleddy teeming with silly kids trolling incessantly. almost every single great poster from the last 5-6 yrs has left the site. I guess this is what the head joker intended the forum to become. Is that why you were teaming up with Lurker and the other suspects in other threads on this topic and doggedly arguing that he had "Exquisite technique" ? In fact in all the time you have been here you have never said anything remotely critical about players from the old era's. And I have given up on creating any serious threads as sooner or later it will be run down by the usual morons. If you argue with facts I will accept them. Don't expect me to simply comply with views that are "politically correct" and devoid of facts. and it is difficult to maintain a normal tone when you are arguing for the sake of arguing even when you know you have no leg to stand on. That thread on Trumper and the one on Hobbs technique are great examples of your style of posting. All the posters that I loved talking to got driven away from this forum.You have no idea about the history and the effort that was put in to attract such quality posters .... it is such a shame that we are now a site made for trolls. I can't be bothered to spend that sort of time and energy again. Infact I deleted a lot of my old contributions. I now post here in a limited manner and in that time I prefer to talk mostly about Tendulkar. Why does that bother you I have no idea. I guess you prefer the posting styles of the various spammers and village idiots that have taken over the site. Yes you are the greatest poster, the greatest mind while all of us are mere mortals. Your contributions are equivalent of Tendulkar's 100x100 and hence, your post are facts but others posts are "arguments sake". You accuse others of aggressive tone when you yourself use one which highlights the narcissistic attitude plaguing the mind. Also, please care to explain how I "team up" to disagree with the very same poster names you put up. Enjoy trawling and proving on ICF that Tendulkar is great when in fact I agree he is. There's not one (not even one) argument you've agreed to make me or anyone else feel comfortable to discuss seriously with you. It's below my dignity to respond to your post s especially when a major in statistics finds it perfectly alright to compare certain distribution parameters while ignoring others and then claims it's a red herring. All the best in life I have nothing against you but the best thing to do is if we can have this conversation on call.
msb1991 Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 I'm undecided on the argument. I have certain tentative views (that Bradman would be not a god-awful, tail-end level batsman in the modern Test game) but other than that go from one side to the other as I consider various arguments. However, I think 'mcenley' has kept his dignity in line of some occasionally rude posting from the anti-Bradman side of the argument.
Marut Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 This question is equivalent to questions such as how fast would a person from 1930s have typed with the computer keyboard today? The answer is he would have failed as it did not have any necessarily training and gained the prerequisites for today's environment. Similarly, Bradman would have failed. Same as asking whether Newton would have understood everything taught in modern college physics? If no, what would be the point in holding him in high esteem? So the proper question to ask is, would a scientist of Newton's genius be able to become a top scientist in today's world. The answer would be yes, because the background under which Newton would be brought up today is not the pre-calculus era in which Newton was born and brought up. Human abilities in terms of physical and mental capabilities have not changed for thousands of years, going by DNA evidence - what matters is the world into which one gets exposed during one's life time. A prehistoric wandering man would have easily adapted to the world today because his brain and body is nearly identical to ours.
Vilander Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Alternatively, take Sachin and put him back in the 1930s. Much smaller and weaker bats with reduced edges, playing on sticky, uncovered wickets against the likes of Larwood and Voce. Send him in at first drop during bodyline with no helmet and inferior padding and tell him he has to average 50+ Theoretically, he'd average 10 and pine for the days of feasting on minnows like Bangladesh. It works both ways, so your argument is completely invalid. Just give it up and admit that 99.94 is significantly better than 55.44, relative to the games each has played. You can only beat what is in front of you, something which India has never really done well (other than against said minnows). Tendulkar is definitly not feeding on minnows, he has a better record against Aus, and no dont bring in the last tour, clearly the indian greats have declined that does not mean they were never good. What are you crapping about India not winning matches, did you have you head inside you butt when india toured aus in 2008? and during cb series ? and alll the india home series' in between ? It is impossible to scientifically prove who is better, its best to leave it at that. But stop with this nonsense about Tendulkar, this thread is about imagining what Don would have done against modern great bowlers. If you wonder Tendulkar's chances during Dons time, you might want to open a thread saying Tendulkar is not all that great if he played along with Don etc. ATM you are like..
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