The problem when making the comparisons is that there are too many variables. We're talking about a guy who batted without helmets, in an era of lighter bats, against possibly worse bowlers, playing only a tiny number of test nations, in only a handful of test nations. No one for sure knows how fast those bowlers were bowling, or how good they were, or how much they turned the ball or how accurate they were because all accounts of this are either biased or inaccurate as the technology back then was simply not available.
Dispute this, tbh. The whole biased/inaccurate line of thinking applies really only to us punters. An 'expert' in the area will offer technical insight to a topic that us punters can't. I know former Test players often say things which are somewhat dodgy but it's usually when they venture outside of their area of expertise. Get a Test player from way back when to comment on a technical basis about these sorts of topic and you'll gain valuable insight and context no data collected could ever achieve.
Science is done routinely in this manner because, whilst numerical data is great if collected/analysed correctly, if the available measures are fuzzy, the likelihood of false conclusions is pretty high. Probably higher than the collective thoughts of experts from the time and relying on dodgy numbers to the exclusion of all other sources of information is, in my experience, the far more egregious error. An
individual has fallibilities/biases, sure, but if you were to collect info from many individuals, you'd find a lot of those biases tend to smooth out. You just have to be realistic about the level of conclusions you can draw. A similar level of scepticism must be applied to numerical data, though.
The sheer amount of numerical data available these days on just about any topic you care to name has seemingly afforded it an air of infallibility and devalued other types of information. Anyone who subscribes to this could not be more wrong about a) the limitations of numerical data and analysis and b) the value gained from other types of info.
There is also no possible way to conclusively state whether pitches were flatter back then or not.
Fair but you can make defensible conclusions with certain caveats. What I'm saying is there's no
need to be 100% about it to get a point across and there's a risk of paralysis by analysis.
It is possible to make an argument that, using statistics on a relative basis, Bradman is superior to every cricketer to play the game. However, there is no conclusive argument that states that Bradman would dominate the world of cricket today as he did in the 30s much like there isn't really a conclusive argument that Dinosaurs would rule the world if Jurassic Park happened.
Depends on your definition of 'conclusive'. Absolutely
no science is conclusive to the exclusion of all other possibilities so demanding that level of proof would be pointless. There are going to be uncertainties to take into account, as it routine in any science.
)
