WHY do they say this?

[silentstriker]

Even the 100 with better shoes better weight training and better coaching may not prove who was really the fastest. If Owens was given modern techniques he may still be the fastest man in the world

Highly unlikely 'technique' would account for the difference unless he trained with a modern regimen from a young age and even then I'd be a little doubtful, but we're not talking about DNA being transported back and forth and being raised in another era. We're taking the athletes they were and transporting the finished product back and forth.

 

[archie mac]

Finally a sane post.

Because the rest haven't been????????????

If you are trying to say there is no way to say Bradman is not a better batsman then STR then

 

[archie mac]

Highly unlikely 'technique' would account for the difference unless he trained with a modern regimen from a young age and even then I'd be a little doubtful, but we're not talking about DNA being transported back and forth and being raised in another era. We're taking the athletes they were and transporting the finished product back and forth.

My understanding is the times compared to Owen has not improved that much (although I am no expert) so I don't see why at his peak and with say two years modern training he could not improve his times.

 

[silentstriker]

Highly unlikely 'technique' would account for the difference unless he trained with a modern regimen from a young age and even then I'd be a little doubtful, but we're not talking about DNA being transported back and forth and being raised in another era. We're taking the athletes they were and transporting the finished product back and forth.

Especially considered running it in 10.3 seconds as Owens did would not have made the semi finals in 2008. The standards are higher (certainly) due to techniques, nutrition, coaching, equipment but they are also higher because more people in absolute and relative terms have access to sport so athletes who may never have heard of track and field from a third world country now have a much better chance of rising to the top - hence the overall standard lifts.

This has nothing to do with Bradman, as he was like running the heat in 8 seconds where the next fastest was running at 9, but just generally speaking.

My understanding is the times compared to Owen has not improved that much (although I am no expert) so I don't see why at his peak and with say two years modern training he could not improve his times.

Sure he might be able to improve...not by the amount that'd be required to displace Bolt though. 10.3 -> 9.58 (his wr) is a pretty freaking huge difference.

 

[archie mac]

Especially considered running it in 10.3 seconds as Owens did would not have made the semi finals in 2008. The standards are higher (certainly) due to techniques, nutrition, coaching, equipment but they are also higher because more people in absolute and relative terms have access to sport so athletes who may never have heard of track and field from a third world country now have a much better chance of rising to the top - hence the overall standard lifts.

This has nothing to do with Bradman, as he was like running the heat in 8 seconds where the next fastest was running at 9, but just generally speaking.




Sure he might be able to improve...not by the amount that'd be required to displace Bolt though. 10.3 -> 9.58 (his wr) is a pretty freaking huge difference.

Well maybe if Jessie gave up smoking

 

[silentstriker]

Coming back to cricket, looking at the techniques of the older players from footage, the bowling (and the distance of slips/wk too, FWIW), I don't really think the skillset is completely transferrable. It also goes both ways though - I don't think Sehwag would have his ribcage (or his teeth) intact against Larwood & bodyline without modern protection...and even with protection, I don't see the older players scoring as fluently or being able to handle some of the modern requirements. So this whole 'transporting' argument is bunk anyway. The only way you can compare players is by their peers.....and obviously no one thinks there's any argument there.

 

[Borges]

Because the rest haven't been????????????

If you are trying to say there is no way to say Bradman is not a better batsman then STR then

IMHO, quite a few of the the arguments have been extremely silly; from both sides of the divide.

For example, the pressure, longevity, quality of opposition, schoolboy cricket etc.from one side.

The patently absurd "twice as good as" argument from the other.

Was Bradman (52 tests, 6996 runs @99.94, 29 centuries, 0.55 centuries/test) two and a half times as good a batsman as Trumper (48 tests, 3163 runs @39.04, 8 centuries, 0.16 centuries/test)?

Is Warne (145 tests, 708 wickets @25.41, SR 57.4, 4.88 wickets/test) just a marginally better (since we are into the so many times as good as game, let up reduce it to numbers; 1.15 times better bowler) than Kaneria (61 tests, 261 wickets @34.79, SR 87.8, 4.27 wickets/test)?

I would consider either of those assertions silly in the extreme.

 

[Neil Pickup]

IMHO, quite a few of the the arguments have been extremely silly; from both sides of the divide.

For example, the pressure, longevity, quality of opposition, schoolboy cricket etc.from one side.

The patently absurd "twice as good as" argument from the other.

Was Bradman (52 tests, 6996 runs @99.94, 29 centuries, 0.55 centuries/test) two and a half times as good a batsman as Trumper (48 tests, 3163 runs @39.04, 8 centuries, 0.16 centuries/test)?

Is Warne (145 tests, 708 wickets @25.41, SR 57.4, 4.88 wickets/test) just a marginally better (since we are into the so many times as good as game, let up reduce it to numbers; 1.15 times better bowler) than Kaneria (61 tests, 261 wickets @34.79, SR 87.8, 4.27 wickets/test)?

I would consider either of those assertions silly in the extreme.

As would I. However neither of those assertions were being made.

(i) Bradman and Trumper were not contemporaries
(ii) You have used wickets/test with the two spinners and average with the batters

What does that add to the discussion?

 

[archie mac]

IMHO, quite a few of the the arguments have been extremely silly; from both sides of the divide.

For example, the pressure, longevity, quality of opposition, schoolboy cricket etc.from one side.

The patently absurd "twice as good as" argument from the other.

Was Bradman (52 tests, 6996 runs @99.94, 29 centuries, 0.55 centuries/test) two and a half times as good a batsman as Trumper (48 tests, 3163 runs @39.04, 8 centuries, 0.16 centuries/test)?

Is Warne (145 tests, 708 wickets @25.41, SR 57.4, 4.88 wickets/test) just a marginally better (since we are into the so many times as good as game, let up reduce it to numbers; 1.15 times better bowler) than Kaneria (61 tests, 261 wickets @34.79, SR 87.8, 4.27 wickets/test)?

I would consider either of those assertions silly in the extreme.

Much better post

Cardus said Trumper was like an eagle and Bradman like a jet, no doubt which was the more effective but which one would you rather watch? (not an exact quote)

 

[Spark]

It's kind of hard to say how much better a player was other than "a bit", "a lot", or "Bradmanesque" - the old problem of quantifying the unquantifiable.

 

[Borges]

You have used wickets/test with the two spinners and average with the batters

What does that add to the discussion?

Bradman and Trumper played cricket in the same era.

I genuinely believe that wickets per test and strike rate are far more meaningful statistics for bowlers who are match winners. For a batsman, average is a more meaningful statistic than say centuries per test.

Even if I had compared Warne and Kaneria by average, it wouldn't have materially affected the argument; would an offer of Warne 1.36 times better than Kaneria satisfy you?

 

[Teja.]

Bradman and Trumper played cricket in the same era.

Noope. I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Their debuts are 30 years apart. Bradman debuted 15 years after Trumper passed away. Would you say Atherton and Sobers belong to the same era?

 

[Teja.]

Even if I had compared Warne and Kaneria by average, it wouldn't have materially affected the argument; would an offer of Warne 1.36 times better than Kaneria satisfy you?

If they were of similar longevity and had the stats you mentioned, Yes. We're not talking legacies here, simply who was 'better' as in more effective. In effectiveness terms, Someone like Gary Kirsten is much closer to Tendulkar as a batsman than Tendulkar is to Bradman.

 

[Borges]

Cardus said Trumper was like an eagle and Bradman like a jet, no doubt which was the more effective but which one would you rather watch? (not an exact quote)

I also like this from Cardus:

'We can no more get an idea of Trumper's winged batmanship by looking at the averages and statistics than we can find the essential quality of a composition by Mozart by adding up the notes'.

 

[Borges]

If they were of similar longevity and had the stats you mentioned, Yes. We're not talking legacies here, simply who was 'better' as in more effective. In effectiveness terms, Someone like Gary Kirsten is much closer to Tendulkar as a batsman than Tendulkar is to Bradman.

I was not talking legacies or effectiveness here; if I were I would have stated my belief that Bradman's legacy is far bigger than his average.

I was specifically talking about the "twice as good as" argument. And I believe I had made that absolutely clear at the very outset.

 

[archie mac]

I also like this from Cardus:

Classic

Not a big fan on S/R tbh, even less reliable then comparing players of different eras via averages. Bowling to batsman in Australia in the 1920s in matches of unlimited time would seem unfair when batsman can just sit on a bowler.

 

[Borges]

Not a big fan on S/R tbh, even less reliable then comparing players of different eras via averages. Bowling to batsman in Australia in the 1920s in matches of unlimited time would seem unfair when batsman can just sit on a bowler.

Agreed; SR is not relevant at all for matches with unlimited time.

 

[Bun]

Because the rest haven't been????????????

If you are trying to say there is no way to say Bradman is not a better batsman then STR then

There is no sane way of comparing them across more than 60 years and arriving at definitive conclusions.

 

[archie mac]

There is no sane way of comparing them across more than 60 years and arriving at definitive conclusions.

go away

 

[Bun]

go away

Are you the admin of CW?