WHY do they say this?

[hang on]

that is a good point, topcat. i think that the question of specialization would also need to be considered...or maybe not. i would imagine that the average harvard undergrad aspirant of today, who is intending to major in the classics, would be able to have a fair stab at the 1899 exam whilst also demonstrating a wider spectrum of competence over a wider or more expanded corpus of knowledge.

 

[centurymaker]

Almost no one would pay a cent to watch Langer bat.

 

[hang on]

Reliance Mobile Best ever Bowling rankings

Only ones to appear during Bradaman era are Bedser 16th, (that was after Bradman retirement IIRC), MW Tate at 45th, Headly verity 49th. The bowlers who had best of the peaks are mostly filled up by post 1970 bowlers.

ICC rankings are done "relative to the peers" assuming that the standard of the cricket played is same. Still there aren't many bowlers from 1920 - 1952 period that had purple patches. In otherwords, could not agree with your theory.

didn't the analyst also take the competence viz peers into account? i seemed to have read that they had but i might be wrong, and it might be another analysis in that blog. some interesting stuff in there, to be sure. btw, it's not 'my' theory - it is the analyst's contention!

 

[Migara]

It swings the other way too, players of years gone by have different skills. Check this out, the entrance exam from Harvard Uni 1869;

http://digg.com/story/r/harvard_s_1899_entrance_exam

I'd wager most candidates these days would fail the test miserably. So, is it easier or harder to get into Harvard today?

Acknowledging the differences/difficulties from one era to the next is only one component of the problem, quantifying those differences is, for mine, that much tougher.

Exactly. The GCE (O/L) Exams of Ceylon had some serious arithmetics but no algebra in 1950s. During our times algebra was the most serious part. No one can argue that one is over other when it comes to standard. But I could tell that to pass the 1950s test, you needed to know your arithmetics a lot. In 1990s, you had to know arithmetics, algebra and geometry alike to pass the test. Very good point, but Bradman fanatics even resist the idea of thinking that 1930s were different.

 

[Top_Cat]

that is a good point, topcat. i think that the question of specialization would also need to be considered...or maybe not. i would imagine that the average harvard undergrad aspirant of today, who is intending to major in the classics, would be able to have a fair stab at the 1899 exam whilst also demonstrating a wider spectrum of competence over a wider or more expanded corpus of knowledge.

Be that as it may, I think we can all agree that in any era, Yuvraj would be a crap Test batter.

 

[hang on]

Be that as it may, I think we can all agree that in any era, Yuvraj would be a crap Test batter.

more importantly, he would not get into harvard!

 

[Furball]

Exactly. The GCE (O/L) Exams of Ceylon had some serious arithmetics but no algebra in 1950s. During our times algebra was the most serious part. No one can argue that one is over other when it comes to standard. But I could tell that to pass the 1950s test, you needed to know your arithmetics a lot. In 1990s, you had to know arithmetics, algebra and geometry alike to pass the test. Very good point, but Bradman fanatics even resist the idea of thinking that 1930s were different.

Of course the 1930s were different. But the 1930s being different didn't stop the best of Bradman's contemporaries (Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, McCabe, Headley etc) from performing to pretty much the same standard as the greats who graced future eras.

 

[hang on]

Of course the 1930s were different. But the 1930s being different didn't stop the best of Bradman's contemporaries (Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, McCabe, Headley etc) from performing to pretty much the same standard as the greats who graced future eras.

did u mean not performing? or have i negated a negation wrongly!

yes, i have. oops.

 

[centurymaker]

Be that as it may, I think we can all agree that in any era, Yuvraj would be a crap Test batter.

NO bouncers though so he might've done ok.

 

[Migara]

Of course the 1930s were different. But the 1930s being different didn't stop the best of Bradman's contemporaries (Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, McCabe, Headley etc) from performing to pretty much the same standard as the greats who graced future eras.

Still the argument is flawed. There are areas that Hobbs, Sutcliffe or Tendulkar have never been tested. Hobbs never played reverse swing, nor experienced doosras, as well as SRT never played bare headed as well as on wet wickets. The ultimate greatness can only be measured from the relative success in each new set of skill batsmen have to achieve. The higher the number of different skills, more likely that a particular batsman is going to fail at one of them.

EDIT: Typo corrected. Odd to see there are such nit pickers.

 

[Furball]

Still the argument is flawed. There are areas that Hobbs, Sutcliffe or Tendulkar have never been tested. Hobbs never played reverse swing, nor experienced doosras, as well as SRT never played bear headed as well as on wet wickets. The ultimate greatness can only be measured from the relative success in each new set of skill batsmen have to achieve. The higher the number of different skills, more likely that a particular batsman is going to fail at one of them.

Sorry, but that's given me a hilarious image in my head

 

[hang on]

one of the myriad manifestations of pressure and expectations, perhaps! or knut?

 

[Bun]

Reliance Mobile Best ever Bowling rankings

Only ones to appear during Bradaman era are Bedser 16th, (that was after Bradman retirement IIRC), MW Tate at 45th, Headly verity 49th. The bowlers who had best of the peaks are mostly filled up by post 1970 bowlers.

ICC rankings are done "relative to the peers" assuming that the standard of the cricket played is same. Still there aren't many bowlers from 1920 - 1952 period that had purple patches. In otherwords, could not agree with your theory.

A good reasonable point.

Although still don't agree with the whole Bradman vs Tendulkar comparison.

 

[Spark]

Almost no one would pay a cent to watch Langer bat.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sorry, but that's given me a hilarious image in my head

/thread.

 

[Neil Pickup]

one of the myriad manifestations of pressure and expectations, perhaps! or knut?

I appreciate that. It did need a little polar bear to appear whilst I was googling for a suitable headpiece for SRT, but I like what you've done there.

 

[benchmark00]

I appreciate that. It did need a little polar bear to appear whilst I was googling for a suitable headpiece for SRT, but I like what you've done there.

Little dead polar bear*

 

[shankar]

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

Thread's really moved on since this post. but anyways: The point is that, for ranking amongst peers to be used as a valid parameter for comparison for players over different eras, one has to first show that the two fields of peers are comparable in strength and variety.

Disclaimers: 1) I have not made any claims here about the peer field strength of Bradman's era. 2) My argument has nothing to do with any claims about Sachin

 

[Spark]

/thread.

 

[vcs]

/thread.

Post of the thread.