WHY do they say this?

[Burgey]

So are still debating that Federer is the greatest or not? Of course there will be some one who will be better than Fed in the future and the fans will accept that.

Look the idea of not open for debate is bordering on arrogance and little preposterous TBH. I do not care personally who is the best. But you just cannot discount some one who has 99 hundreds and 30K international runs and WC medal just like that

If some one came along and won 29 majors then of course they'd be better than Federer.

Statistically, that's how far ahead of Tendulkar Bradman is (seeing as we seem to be talking numbers).

 

[silentstriker]

Imagine a time when cricket was played only in a few English villages. Now, no one would seriously argue that the dominance of the best player from that time is an indication of how good he was compared to best players from the different eras of 20th century cricket. Why? The reason is the strength of the peer field is not the same as in the periods from the 20th century. So, this argument rests on the roughly equivalent strength of the peer-field of the two eras being compared. So for the 'strength amongst peers' argument to be validly applied in Bradman's case, the question to be answered is whether the field of his peers is of comparable strength to later eras.

You just proved my point. Thanks. My first sentence was how the skillset might be better in real terms but because the game itself has changed, it's not like track where you can compare two players directly. You can only compare to peers, in which case Bradman is so far ahead of everyone that any comparison is pointless.

 

[shankar]

Yeah, guys like Hutton, Hammond, McCabe, Miller...hacks, one and all.

Bowlers weren't much cop either. O'Reilly and Grimmett sound like they belong on a kids cartoon show, ergo they must have been crap.

Save your outrage. I didnt answer that question either way. I just pointed out the hidden assumption that needs to be defended while using the 'best among peers' argument.

 

[shankar]

You just proved my point. Thanks. My first sentence was how the skillset might be better in real terms but because the game itself has changed, it's not like track where you can compare two players directly. You can only compare to peers, in which case Bradman is so far ahead of everyone that any comparison is pointless.

It's difficult to understand what you're saying here. Are you saying comparison pointless because the result is obvious? Or are you saying comparison is pointless because it's not possible?

 

[silentstriker]

Direct comparison is not possible. So you compare them to their peers, in which case, the result is obvious on who is ahead.

 

[GotSpin]

Sorry guys. Forget the invincibles, Bradman doesn't have a World Cup medal

 

[Bun]

Now moving away from my previous tradition in this thread of picking out random posts and making one-line criticisms, I'll try responding to the OP.

When critics are rating Tendulkar above Bradman, I do not think for a second that they're actually spending time mentally tallying up Tendulkar's achievements against the Don's. In 90% of the cases they're either sub-consciously or consciously using the term 'better than Bradman' as a superlative to express their deep appreciation for Tendulkar's achievements (This is usually done after Tendy breaks a big record).

In the same way you say 'Best Movie!' right after you see Toy Story 2 as an immediate reaction even though you did not actually think and weigh it up against say, Pulp Fiction or Godfather and your opinion will most likely drastically change if you were made to do a proper movie-rating exercise in a week.

When Hammond was still playing iirc, Some considered him England's match to Bradman. A famous umpire whose name I cannot remember atm made a multiple page comparison between Hobbs and Bradman in his autobiography. Hutton compared Gavaskar to Bradman when the former was in peak form and even Ponting was compared by some to the Don in his days of international murder and rape. None of these arguments exist atm, So it is only logical that it used as a superlative than an objective answer. I firmly believe that the headline 20 years later will read 'Wunderkid better than Bradman?' and not 'Wunderkid better than Tendulkar?'

Seems like writers have made it a habit of churning out the comparison every month or so, considering the proficiency with which Tendulkar is scaling new records. Obviously people tend to write more about a person when he is at his peak and creating news thereby. There is nothing new in that.

Now coming to the point of "exaggerating" the achievements of current players, let me ask you, isn't the same applicable to old players also? I feel it is even more applicable in their case because the only source of appreciation of cricket back then were such reports alone. No TV so no way to objectively analyse any of the players. Agreed, there were a few gifted writers like Cardus who brightens up even the murkiest of afternoons with his prose but there is no way I am going to believe their accounts were free from the bias that you speak of. And the same "hyping up" of current achievements are applicable in their case too.

And Bradman has no reason to be insulated from this.

Hammond was compared to Bradman those days because Bradman was without doubt the greatest player back then. If you see now, any new kid on the block in India, is not compared to Bradman but to Tendulkar, as soon as he has broken some record or something. I am pretty sure a wunderkid 20 years from now will be compared more to Tendulkar than Bradman, as it's more relevant to compare players career diff in decades than centuries. Let me ask you, when Mendis came along, there was so much of hype and hoopla, but I can't recollect him being compared to Barnes or Lohmann, regardless of the fact that the latter two have unbelievable (Bradmanly) records?

There is a certain amount of romanticism associated with players of that age. The wordsmiths (I'd prefer to call them artists) have a big role in that imho.

BTW nicely constructed post for a teenager. Do you write articles for CW?

 

[vcs]

Now moving away from my previous tradition in this thread of picking out random posts and making one-line criticisms, I'll try responding to the OP.

When critics are rating Tendulkar above Bradman, I do not think for a second that they're actually spending time mentally tallying up Tendulkar's achievements against the Don's. In 90% of the cases they're either sub-consciously or consciously using the term 'better than Bradman' as a superlative to express their deep appreciation for Tendulkar's achievements (This is usually done after Tendy breaks a big record).

In the same way you say 'Best Movie!' right after you see Toy Story 2 as an immediate reaction even though you did not actually think and weigh it up against say, Pulp Fiction or Godfather and your opinion will most likely drastically change if you were made to do a proper movie-rating exercise in a week.

When Hammond was still playing iirc, Some considered him England's match to Bradman. A famous umpire whose name I cannot remember atm made a multiple page comparison between Hobbs and Bradman in his autobiography. Hutton compared Gavaskar to Bradman when the former was in peak form and even Ponting was compared by some to the Don in his days of international murder and rape. None of these arguments exist atm, So it is only logical that it used as a superlative than an objective answer. I firmly believe that the headline 20 years later will read 'Wunderkid better than Bradman?' and not 'Wunderkid better than Tendulkar?'

Top post. An example of a post really adding a different dimension to the discussion.

 

[Bun]

Sorry guys. Forget the invincibles, Bradman doesn't have a World Cup medal

Didn't make a test run in the subcontinent either

 

[GotSpin]

And Bradman has no reason to be insulated from this.

Hammond was compared to Bradman those days because Bradman was without doubt the greatest player back then. If you see now, any new kid on the block in India, is not compared to Bradman but to Tendulkar, as soon as he has broken some record or something. I am pretty sure a wunderkid 20 years from now will be compared more to Tendulkar than Bradman, as it's more relevant to compare players career diff in decades than centuries. Let me ask you, when Mendis came along, there was so much of hype and hoopla, but I can't recollect him being compared to Barnes or Lohmann, regardless of the fact that the latter two have unbelievable (Bradmanly) records?

There is a certain amount of romanticism associated with players of that age. The wordsmiths (I'd prefer to call them artists) have a big role in that imho.

BTW nicely constructed post for a teenager. Do you write articles for CW?

The man averaged 99.94? What more do you want him to do? Score a triple century in a day...

That's because India is obsessed with Tendulkar more so than anyone else. New players in Australia get compared to Bradman, not Ponting or Tendulkar.

I like the quote in my signature regarding this argument anyway from AM

 

[Bun]

The man averaged 99.94? What more do you want him to do? Score a triple century in a day...

That's because India is obsessed with Tendulkar more so than anyone else. New players in Australia get compared to Bradman, not Ponting or Tendulkar.

I like the quote in my signature regarding this argument anyway from AM

Without doubt there is little more one can expect with such a record. Nobody was suggesting his record was deficient, not in a serious manner anyway.

But it still isnt relevant for a comparison with a player of the modern era. Not anymore than say a Lohmann vs Murali. The game has evolved ans changed so much in the intervening period. Its impossible to quantify the effect of these changes and to adjust their records with any degree of objectivity.

Have a good sunday btw.

 

[Teja.]

Top post. An example of a post really adding a different dimension to the discussion.

Thanks mate.

BTW nicely constructed post for a teenager. Do you write articles for CW?

Thanks. Haha, nope. I don't rate my English tbh.

 

[GotSpin]

Without doubt there is little more one can expect with such a record. Nobody was suggesting his record was deficient, not in a serious manner anyway.

But it still isnt relevant for a comparison with a player of the modern era. Not anymore than say a Lohmann vs Murali. The game has evolved ans changed so much in the intervening period. Its impossible to quantify the effect of these changes and to adjust their records with any degree of objectivity.

Have a good sunday btw.

I agree with this.

But I think the reverse is also applicable. How would modern players have done in previous eras? I don't necessarily think the game has changed in a way that the greats of the past wouldn't have achieved similar success today. I mentioned it before, but successful cricketers have certain attributes that in my opinion could generally transcend time.

 

[Sanz]

The man averaged 99.94? What more do you want him to do? Score a triple century in a day...

That's because India is obsessed with Tendulkar more so than anyone else. New players in Australia get compared to Bradman, not Ponting or Tendulkar.

I like the quote in my signature regarding this argument anyway from AM

Why would Bradman be insulted with that ? Didn't he himself say that Tendulkar played like him ?

And as much as you like to accuse Indians of Tendulkar's obsession, majority of such comparisons have been made by people who are not Indians. For example, four people named in the OP who have made such claim were Simon Huge, Nasser Hussein, Richard Hadlee and Colin Croft. None of these gentlemen are Indians.

It would be nice to see an article/statement by any Indian cricketer/writer who claims that Tendulkar is better than Sir Don.

 

[Migara]

While I agree that comparing players across eras is a largely fruitless exercise, are you seriously implying that cricket of Bradman's era (leaving aside, for the moment, that this is a 20-year period) was of a similar standard to today's school cricket?

Well, that was meant as an example. Not to be taken literally.

 

[Migara]

Compare them against their contemporaries, Bradman twice as good, STR not. Simple

Not that simple. Player A averages 100 in cricket competition X where the normal average is 20. Player B averages 40 in competition Y where normal average is 25. A looks umpteen times better than B, (Z scores taken if, you want to speak technically), but such arguments will be only valid if X and Y are drawn out of same population. That is standard of competitions X and Y should be similar to compare with such stats.

 

[archie mac]

The man averaged 99.94? What more do you want him to do? Score a triple century in a day...

subtle I like it

 

[Migara]

Yeah, guys like Hutton, Hammond, McCabe, Miller...hacks, one and all.

Bowlers weren't much cop either. O'Reilly and Grimmett sound like they belong on a kids cartoon show, ergo they must have been crap.

Hutton, Hammond etc would have averaged close to 80 today. Tiger and Grimett would have averaged 15 with tha ball. Who are McGraths and Muralis and Marshalls? Just ordinary pie chuckers.

 

[Migara]

Now Tendy and Bradman played almost 40 years apart and things changed so much. Strauss and Anwar more or less played during the same Era? Not? In fact Anwar retired one year before Strauss made his debut. So sarcasm aside you can still compare those two.

Some grumpy old men are challenged when inquired about super-egoic high horses. Don't mind mate.

 

[Migara]

Direct comparison is not possible. So you compare them to their peers, in which case, the result is obvious on who is ahead.

Now consider this mate.

1. Candidate A gets 90 out of 100 for Type X mathematics paper, where his class average is 50 and standard deviation is 10 - In other words A has a Z score of 4.0

2. Candidate B gets 60 out of 100 for Type Y mathematics paper, where class average is 40 and standard deviation is 20. - Z score is 1.0

According to you, there is no comparison of A and B because A is so far ahead. Now consider this scenario. Type A paper is GCE Ordinary level paper. Type B paper is pure mathematics paper of BSc (Maths) degree. Still your point valid?