It's not impossible. It's not even all that difficult to do numerically. The difficulty is in finding normalisation criteria that seems reasonable or that people will agree with. Therein lies the difficulty and considering the blunt-force nature of the raw measures (runs scores, wickets taken, etc.), it would probably raise more questions than answers. Would need some preparatory factor analysis too. Be a brave statistician prepared to stand up to the scrutiny.
What is/are the criteria you're basing the comparison on when almost everything is different in the 2 eras we're talking about? (Asking genuinely).
I think most staticians would say stats are only comparible (in terms of sport) in regards to their own eras.
I fell all "ball" sports are hard to compare.
If we're basing who is the best batsman on how dominant he was over his contemporaries then it's obviously Bradman. But if there were to be a strike or something and only England and Bangladesh were left, Pietersen averaged 120 and the rest of our batsmen flopped, would he be better than Bradman?
Or would he have just cashed in on ****e bowling (Bangaldesh have a couple of decent bowlers. Not Larwood level but Larwood wasn't completely owned by Bradman).
While what you're saying is technically true, the fact that no-one in the history of the game has come close to replicating what Bradman did, either at Test or First Class level, does your argument no favours.
Well essentially I'm arguing against the credability of stats where so many factors are involved.
I love watching old footage of the Don. He was the ****, but I just don't see such a difference which would put him above the other greats I've seen in footage or live.
* He wasn't bad though....
Points tally is irrelevant. I could use Jack Hobbs' career FC runs tally to argue that he's the most statistically dominant cricketer. I'd be wrong to do so.
I'm going to use basketball since it's the US sport that I follow closest and understand best. IIRC, Michael Jordan leads the NBA in points per game. However, to be as statistically dominant over every other NBA player as Bradman is over every other Test batsman, Jordan would have had to have scored something like 45 points per game on average.
In any sport that can measured statistically like that, no sportsman is as far ahead of his peers as Don Bradman.
You'd be right to do so if you're talking about Hobbs in HIS era.
In terms of dominance, Wilt Chamberlain is by far No.1 (in terms of dominance over an era). Jordan being the best of his era is true, though in terms of complete ass-whooping of his contemporaries, it's Wilt for most people.
I'm not a big basketball fan, and don't agree Jordan is the best ever necessarily.
But take Ice Hockey. Gretzky (who is IMO the best in his sport) played a sport where the majority of the top players from his era are on the alltime points list. The 80's to mid 90's was probably the best for Ice Hockey in terms of quality of player per number and he played in that era.
He averaged 1.92pts/game (And he should've retired in1996 which would've made his ratio even more impressive @ 2.1 over a 16 year span!). Crosby, who many think is the closest contender to Gretzky maybe ever, would have to average his BEST single season total for the next 20.5 seasons to be level with him.
Because Lara and Ponting are arguably better then Tendulkar. No one comes close to Bradman.
Lara arguably, though not IMO. Ponting nowhere near either of the 2. I'd take Kallis over Ponting too.
I think you're making everyone laugh, because Bradman is 40 runs better then Tendulkar. You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that anyone, let alone Tendulkar is close to Bradman.
He isn't 40 runs per innings better than Tendulkar even if people say he's better than Tendulkar.
In no footage of Bradman and Tendulkar is there a difference akin to that of the same between Tendulkar and a No.9.
Tendulkar has near perfect tehcnique including footwork 99% as good as the Don. His range of shots were as good, though in terms of innovation for his time, Bradman is way ahead (that's not to say he would always be an innovator. It doesn't work like that. Normally 1 batsmen sets the trend for a folowing generation and they continue it).
Bradman would've destroyed Trueman, Statham and Tyson though and he would've probably destroyed any bowler that's ever played the game - Tendulkar probably wouldn't. He got owned by all of the great seam bowlers and cashed in against the spinners.
I find it hilarious that you are calling others bias.
Nope, he wouldn't have destroyed Trueman and Statham since both were better than Larwood (definitely more consitent) and Larwood wasn't completely owned by Don.
And he certainly wouldn't have "destroyed" Wasim/Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh, the fearsome foursome mk I and II, the Indian spin quartet, Imran, Hadlee, Donald/Pollock etc. He may very well have destroyed the lesser bowlers but great bowlers give great batsmen problems. And Bradman wasn't God in human form (as much as you'd like to think he was).
Also, Tendulkar never got "owned" by all the great seamers, it was just a great era for seam. They pretty much gave everyone problems. That's the downside of being a revisionist.
No-one has matched Bradman's dominance in another sport. That's what makes him better then any other sportsmen. For someone to replicate Bradman's dominance in cricket, they'd have to play as much cricket as he did and average 10 with the ball or average 60 with the bat and 20 with the ball.
Gretzsky, Ruth, Pele, Chamberlain and Woods were/are all considerably better than their contemporaries actually.
The fact those sports have had more level playing fields in terms of talent is more to do with the lack of a single standout statistical leader.
The media is placed around everywhere in the world these days. Especially on struggling batsman, who are out of form. I suppose batsman who are able to overcome that are equal to Tendulkar?
You don't know India at all man.
India (cricket) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rest of the World.
Plenty of Indian batsman have debutted in this teens, less then a handful of Australians have debuted in their teens. Debutting at a younger age proves nothing but a countries optomisim. Ponting could've debuted for Australia when he was 15, when he was hooking 90mph bouncers off the bowling machine for fun, but that doesn't make him no Bradman.
No Indian batsman has had the amount of pressure placed upon him as Tendulkar has. Have you purposely had your eyes shut for all your cricket watching life?
What does Ponting playing against a bowling machine have to do with him against real life bowlers?
Sure it gets you used to line, length and speed but not the subtleties a bowler has.
[quote[Tendulkar wasn't carrying the hopes of the Indians, he wasn't under any pressure as a teenager, it wasn't until he become a star in the mid 90's where the pressure started to rise. I've seen Tendulkar bat as a teenager and he was no master and played some shocking shots. I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that Tendulkar is close to Bradman, then perfection is needed and Tendulkar just doesn't have that.[/quote]
It was in 1990 actually where he scored 119* @ Old Trafford as a 17 year old. Pretty young to carry the future of your team.
A failure for Tendulkar is averaging in the 20s, whilst a failure for Bradman is averaging 1 or 2 runs more then Tendulkar's career average. Are you aware that when Bradman was in his 60s, he had a net session with the Australian team at the time, with no protective gear on and he smashed them to all parts? I doubt Tendulkar will be doing the same when his in his 60s.
I was aware, and I somewhat doubt they were going all out against a legend of the game and a man in his 60's. Could you imagine English bowlers going all-out against Boycott or even Gower?
It's called respect, they can take being smashed in a net session over injuring a legend and looking like a ****.
Bradman in his peak would not smash Brett Lee's fastest and most accurate deliveries. That's just common sense. You need a great eye to smash an express paceman and Bradman had poor eyesight. I don't think anyone would or could "smash" a guy bowling high 90's on a decent bowling wicket. That's nothing to do with talent, but human limitations. It's like expecting Woods to make a chip with an insane and inpredictable wind or Federer to hit a volley when it hits the net straight infront of him.
I'm biased? I'm Australian and I've admitted that Tendulkar is a better batsman then Ponting, but assuming you are Indian, you think Tendulkar is better then Bradman? Typical Indian bias and trying to turn the truth the wrong way.
You haven't said Tendulkar is outright better than Ponting (even though he obviously is). Everytime you sort of admit it, you follow it up with something akin to the first quote in this post.
I've seen them both play, they both hit the ball better then anyone else in this era. There is a certain class that holds them above all from the rest of the era and not much seperates Ponting & Tendulkar, but none of them compare to Bradman. Not even close.
Na. Sachin still (at 36) hits it better than everyone else but in terms of striking there are many batsmen better than Ponting- Pietersen & Sehwag being way above in that respect and many others- even Ian Bell who on form strike the ball more cleaner than "Punter2 could wish to do.
So you think that the Indians bowlers are better then Donald & Pollock?
No, I think they're worse which is why Ponting's 20 against them is shoddy in comparison to Tendulkar's 39 against SA.
Kumble is an all-time great but that's it.
What's history got to do with anything? It's about how good the team was at the present. So if a team with allot of history has a poor attack, you rate the runs against them higher then you would with a team with no history, but a quality attack?
Because England, India, Australia and West Indies are benchmark tours. Nowadays people talk about South Africa but they are a "new" team so to speak.
Also, England never had "great" attacks against Bradman. There were generally 1 very good bowler, 1 good and a few crap. He never cashed in on Larwood in 32/33, but the other bowlers.
One more thing about this comment.
If I was to state that Matthew Hayden was a better batsman than Viv Richards, because Hayden had a higher average, then your comment about stats not being comparible cross-era would be valid. (Using the first example that came to mind, this is not meant to be a dig in any way at Hayden.)
However, Bradman doesn't average a few runs more than other greats who batted in less batsman friendly eras. Bradman's career accomplishments at both Test and First Class level, which I've highlighted above, are so far in front of anyone else in the history of the game that there's absolutely no convincing argument to be made against Bradman being far and away the greatest batsman of all time.
Ok, so who's innings was best:
Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe or Bradman's 102* against us in 1932?
Look at it purely statistically (like you have the Don's stats).
* I realise maintaining an average is a hell of alot harder than a single innings but statistically the Hayden innings in 3.73 times better than Bradman's.
It says nothing about who they faced, what type of fields they faced, the wicket, the quality of bowler etc.
Surely you at least understand what I'm saying to say in regards to not being able to compare cross era?
Consistency was actually one of Larwood's main virtues and he made important contributions in 1926 and 1928/29 (note that taking into account 32/33 as well that whenever Larwood bowled well England won) - In 1930 he had a couple of injury problems and, apparently, some serious dental issues which the dental technology of the day had trouble sorting out - that said his overall figures for the season were pretty much up to his usual standard - his real problem was Bradman was too good for him that year
Consistency?
He had 1 good series followed by 1 bad series until his retirement.
It wasn't just Bradman to blame for Larwood's bad averages in previous Ashes series pre-32/33.
Better than Sachin at least!
When the opposite could not be more true.
