WHY do they say this?

[honestbharani]

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

but with cricket, I guess the comparison between any era this side of 1900 comes with its own pros and cons... I mean, whatever challenges one era faced were not there for another era and whatever was easier in one era was more difficult in another era.. The only sane way we can even get down to comparing players from different eras is by assuming that they faced the same amount of challenges even though the challenges themselves may have been different for each of them...

 

[Furball]

but with cricket, I guess the comparison between any era this side of 1900 comes with its own pros and cons... I mean, whatever challenges one era faced were not there for another era and whatever was easier in one era was more difficult in another era.. The only sane way we can even get down to comparing players from different eras is by assuming that they faced the same amount of challenges even though the challenges themselves may have been different for each of them...

The game has changed, but with the exception of Bradman, the statistical achievements of a great player have remained more or less the same since the 1920s.

 

[honestbharani]

That is the amazing part, isn't it? The game has changed/evolved and yet the best batsmen all average in the 50-58 range.. As you say, THAT has not changed at all.. Even in Bradman's time, apart from him, the best guys averaged in that range, didn't they? Really amazing!!! Shows quite definitively that Bradman is simply MUCH better than the next best...

 

[vcs]

The game has changed, but with the exception of Bradman, the statistical achievements of a great player have remained more or less the same since the 1920s.

That is the amazing part, isn't it? The game has changed/evolved and yet the best batsmen all average in the 50-58 range.. As you say, THAT has not changed at all.. Even in Bradman's time, apart from him, the best guys averaged in that range, didn't they? Really amazing!!! Shows quite definitively that Bradman is simply MUCH better than the next best...

Essentially, the balance between bat and ball has remained largely the same across eras... except when Bradman batted.

 

[smash84]

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.

Top notch post this Harvard entrance test for 1899.

Essentially, the balance between bat and ball has remained largely the same across eras... except when Bradman batted.

I think this is what will earn you CP points in a Harvard Business School class. To present the issue in such a way that it yields insight.

 

[vcs]

Top notch post this Harvard entrance test for 1899.



I think this is what will earn you CP points in a Harvard Business School class. To present the issue in such a way that it yields insight.

Restating someone else's point in fancy-sounding bull**** words? Yep, sounds about right for a Business School class..

 

[smash84]

Restating someone else's point in fancy-sounding bull**** words? Yep, sounds about right for a Business School class..

Indeed

 

[Blaze 18]

/thread.

 

[shankar]

but with cricket, I guess the comparison between any era this side of 1900 comes with its own pros and cons... I mean, whatever challenges one era faced were not there for another era and whatever was easier in one era was more difficult in another era.. The only sane way we can even get down to comparing players from different eras is by assuming that they faced the same amount of challenges even though the challenges themselves may have been different for each of them...

My point is that this assumption needs to be made explicit and defended.

 

[smash84]

wow.......50 pages and counting on Bradman vs Tendulkar debate

 

[hang on]

pretty good average and total runs, eh?!

 

[Borges]

Woo, this thread is going on and on and on, isn't it.

Is the number of straw-men that have been set up by posters in this thread (so that they could take free pot shots at them) some kind of Bradmanesque record for cricket web posting?

 

[keeper]

If only straw-men were of the same quality as those of previous eras, eh Borges?

 

[Borges]

If only straw-men were of the same quality as those of previous eras, eh Borges?

Ha ha, good one.

This thread desperately needs an injection of humour. Or it needs to be be closed.

Let's have a vote and settle this once and for all: All those who would rather say 'Tendulkaresque' rather than 'Bradmanesque', please raise your hands.

 

[GIMH]

Also, raise your hands if you're a bit dim

 

[fredfertang]

Can't see a problem with naming an adjective after Sachin - what will it mean though?

 

[Bun]

Can't see a problem with naming an adjective after Sachin - what will it mean though?

mediocre? Is that what you're looking for?

 

[fredfertang]

If you started a poll about it I can't see that proving a popular option

 

[Bun]

.................

 

[fredfertang]

.................

probably a shrewd edit tbh, though I know what you mean