The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Starfighter]

I do realise, but given how stratospheric his average is it's probably inflated beyond its "genuine" value.

That's an opinion with no support other than your arse.

 

[ataraxia]

That's an opinion with no support other than your arse.

Pretty sure it makes statistical sense, so I believe it extends to the upper thighs too

 

[Starfighter]

Pretty sure it makes statistical sense

No it doesn't.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Pretty sure it makes statistical sense, so I believe it extends to the upper thighs too

'Upper thigh' is a euphemism for arse, so you're agreeing with Starfighter.

 

[ataraxia]

No it doesn't.

Thanks for that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Pretty sure it makes statistical sense, so I believe it extends to the upper thighs too

No, it doesn't. You're basing it purely on the fact that you don't believe he could have been that good, so you're rounding his average down when rounding it up would be equally as viable

 

[Slifer]

If his career were simmed 1000 times, I think his average test average would be around 95 rather than 100.

Man, saying Hobbs, Bradman, and Hutton are of the same general era and thus must be treated the exact same as each other is just weird. Logically, you seem to think that Viv and Younis Khan are of the same general era. Should they therefore be treated equivalently, and Younis Khan rated above Viv due to his superior average? Not unless you're trundler.

Again, the point is for the last time, you can't arbitrarily lower Bradman's average by 20-25% and not do the same for people like Hutton and Hammond who played around the same time is that better??

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Yeh I just don’t understand this. Do you mean if he played in the modern era or what? He WAS a 99 averaging batsman in an era where the other best batsmen averaged 50 with a few averaging a bit more. Same as today

Because he played in the most batting friendly era and before there were true fast bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

Because he played in the most batting friendly era and before there were true fast bowlers.

And he also played on uncovered pitches and with far smaller bats than current players (amongst other factors).


Could swear we’ve had this crap ass circular argument before.

 

[Coronis]

I've actually got his average doing him a disservice:

Standardised Averages - updated 15/8/2019

docs.google.com

Hey this has Hill above Trumper too woo.


But wahhhh stop whinging about Cricinfos stats change and update it so we can all see Smith rocket up.

“This list is so old it has Kohli > Smith”

 

[peterhrt]

Averages in England v Australia Tests when Bradman batted. Qualification 1000 runs. Excludes Oval Test of 1938 when Bradman played but didn't bat.

Bradman 89
Morris 79
Compton 56
Ponsford 56
Sutcliffe 53
Leyland 52
Hammond 46
McCabe 45
Woodfull 42

Selected others with fewer than 1000 runs:

Paynter 98
Barnes 77
Hutton 45 (rises to 1232 runs @ 61 with 1938 Oval Test)

 

[Adorable Asshole]

And he also played on uncovered pitches and with far smaller bats than current players (amongst other factors).


Could swear we’ve had this crap ass circular argument before.

Bradman's record on uncovered pitches are pisspoor compared to other oldies like Headley, Hobbs and Hammond.

Also, he mostly played against one team and only test cricket unlike modern day players who just play too much cricket these days.

That said I still consider Bradman to be the greatest bat by a mile and also the greatest cricketer.

 

[ataraxia]

You know what's a worse argument than my perceived underrating of Sir Braddles? Not adjusting for era. Like, ffs.

 

[Slifer]

You know what's a worse argument than my perceived underrating of Sir Braddles? Not adjusting for era. Like, ffs.

If you're adjusting for era adjust blokes he played against as well. Adjust the likes of Hammond and Hutton.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

If you're adjusting for era adjust blokes he played against as well. Adjust the likes of Hammond and Hutton.

I always called Hammond overrated. As for Hutton he did played against quality bowlers like Lindwall, Miller and Davidson. So not a fair comparison.

 

[Slifer]

I always called Hammond overrated. As for Hutton he did played against quality bowlers like Lindwall, Miller and Davidson. So not a fair comparison.

It is fair because he overlapped with the Don ie they are from similar eras. And Bradman averaged 56 in bodyline where Hammond and Sutcliffe averaged less. Think about that. I'm not saying you can't adjust for eras but what you can't or shouldn't do is adjust for one man by some arbitrary percentage and not do the same for players from his era: Hammond, Hutton, Sutcliffe (Sutcliffe played extensively with Hobbs fwiw).

 

[Adorable Asshole]

It is fair because he overlapped with the Don ie they are from similar eras. And Bradman averaged 56 in bodyline where Hammond and Sutcliffe averaged less. Think about that.

What was Sutcliffe average in that series?

 

[Slifer]

What was Sutcliffe average in that series?

55. But he wasn't facing Bodyline bowling!!

 

[Coronis]

I always called Hammond overrated. As for Hutton he did played against quality bowlers like Lindwall, Miller and Davidson. So not a fair comparison.

I forgot Grimmett and O’Reilly weren’t quality bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

The point being you can down grade Bradman’s average without doing the same to his near contemporaries.

Tbh I meant Kohli but all g.