• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sir Don Bradman - Is it fair to rate him above batsmen of other eras?

Status
Not open for further replies.
karan316

karan316

State Vice-Captain
Xuhaib said:
Karan just say it loudly Sachin > Bradman and then we can just close this poor excuse of a thread.
Click to expand...
M trying to prove that you can not compare between the players of different eras.
I don't think Sachin is the greatest or X is better than Y, because I find it disrespectful to compare between legends, I would rather admire them and learn something from them instead of passing some judgement on them.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
karan316 said:
I would rather want people to talk with some facts or prove my points wrong rather than just talking about stories of that time.

These are the top 10 bowlers faced by the batsman based on the ICC ratings

Bradman (Average Rating 669) -
Tate: 853, Verity: 853, Voce: 739, Larwood: 720, Gubby Allen: 685, Bedser: 640, Bowes: 639, Farnes: 527, Geary: 522, Wright: 513

Hammond (Average Rating 595) -
O'Reilly: 899, Ironmonger: 849, Grimett: 841, Vincent: 679, Constantine: 622, Wall: 594, Fleetwood-Smith: 455, McCormick: 433, Morkel: 322, Dalton: 251

Hobbs (Average Rating 687) -
Grimmett: 901, Whitty: 805, Gregory: 744, Mailey: 695, Cotter: 691, Blanckenberg: 670, Noble: 666, Faulkner: 639, Armstrong: 566, Macartney: 490

Viv (Average Rating 831) -
Botham: 909, Hadlee: 904, Lillee: 866, Imran: 863, Lawson: 844, Kapil: 820, Thomson: 806, McDermott: 791, Willis: 782, Hogg: 721

Inzi (Average Rating 855) -
Murali: 915, McGrath: 914, Ambrose: 912, Pollock: 909, Warne: 905, Ntini: 856, Kumble: 822, Hoggard: 776, Walsh: 773, Streak: 762

Sachin (Average Rating 856) -
Murali: 908, Pollock: 907, McGrath: 907, Donald: 878, Ntini: 863, Clark: 860, Akthar: 824, warne: 820, Gillespie: 802, Lee: 795

The best bowling faced by Bradman and his peers were significantly inferior to the best bowlers faced by batsmen since the 1970's.
Click to expand...
How does "slightly inferior" account for an average twice as good?

Mate, seriously. Come on. If you are asserting something, you need to persuade people. I understand what you're setting about doing, and while unquestionably Navjot Singh Sidhu is a far better player than Bradman because there's video of him, I just don't think you're quite getting there in terms of the submissions you're making.

See, if you put A as something in support of your argument, but it's not right; then put B in support of it, and it's not right either, you don't get anywhere by adding A and B together.

And, ftr, I think as far as this thread goes, the attachment should apply (which in no way suggests he isn't a fine player).
 

Attachments

weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
karan316 said:
The best bowling faced by Bradman and his peers were significantly inferior to the best bowlers faced by batsmen since the 1970's.
Click to expand...
The methodology of your analysis is statistically wrong. Let's assume Tendulkar faced 5 times (?) the number of bowlers that Bradman faced. So, you are comparing 10 best from a larger population to 10 best from a smaller population - which itself is a LOLBAD comparison.

It is like saying that 10 richest people in India are richer on average than 10 richest people in Australia. Therefore, an average Indian man is richer than an average Australian man.

Poor effort..(even without bothering about how peak ratings of bowlers are at all relevant in this case)
 
Last edited:
nick-o

nick-o

State 12th Man
karan316 said:
I would rather want people to talk with some facts or prove my points wrong instead of just talking about stories of that time.

These are the top 10 bowlers faced by the batsman based on the ICC ratings

Bradman (Average Rating 669) -
Tate: 853, Verity: 853, Voce: 739, Larwood: 720, Gubby Allen: 685, Bedser: 640, Bowes: 639, Farnes: 527, Geary: 522, Wright: 513

Hammond (Average Rating 595) -
O'Reilly: 899, Ironmonger: 849, Grimett: 841, Vincent: 679, Constantine: 622, Wall: 594, Fleetwood-Smith: 455, McCormick: 433, Morkel: 322, Dalton: 251

Hobbs (Average Rating 687) -
Grimmett: 901, Whitty: 805, Gregory: 744, Mailey: 695, Cotter: 691, Blanckenberg: 670, Noble: 666, Faulkner: 639, Armstrong: 566, Macartney: 490

Viv (Average Rating 831) -
Botham: 909, Hadlee: 904, Lillee: 866, Imran: 863, Lawson: 844, Kapil: 820, Thomson: 806, McDermott: 791, Willis: 782, Hogg: 721

Inzi (Average Rating 855) -
Murali: 915, McGrath: 914, Ambrose: 912, Pollock: 909, Warne: 905, Ntini: 856, Kumble: 822, Hoggard: 776, Walsh: 773, Streak: 762

Sachin (Average Rating 856) -
Murali: 908, Pollock: 907, McGrath: 907, Donald: 878, Ntini: 863, Clark: 860, Akthar: 824, warne: 820, Gillespie: 802, Lee: 795

The best bowling faced by Bradman and his peers were significantly inferior to the best bowlers faced by batsmen since the 1970's.
Click to expand...

Gloriously dishonest use of the ICC rankings here

Just FYR, the batsmen you've listed here, ordered by peak ICC ranking:

1. 961 DG Bradman
2. 945 L Hutton
3. 945 JB Hobbs

6. 938 IVA Richards



26, 898 SR Tendulkar



49. 870 Inzamam-ul-Haq



And yet you try to use these ICC rankings as evidence to support your contention that Tendulkar is better than Bradman

Wow
 
karan316

karan316

State Vice-Captain
nick-o said:
Gloriously dishonest use of the ICC rankings here

Just FYR, the batsmen you've listed here, ordered by peak ICC ranking:

1. 961 DG Bradman
Click to expand...

Bradman - 961 - against 1 good team and 3 minnows in an unprofessional era
.
 
Last edited:
weldone

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
For your information, ICC peak ratings take opposition quality into consideration.

And regarding unprofessionalism, in those days cricketers played twice as much FC cricket compared to the cricketers of today. Of course, if professionalism means earning more money and acting in more 'Revital jio ji bhar ke' commercials then you are right. If it means devoting more time and energy to cricket, then you are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top