Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[tooextracool]

the stats aspect referred to by topcat, along with the opinions of those who have played cricket and analyzed cricket for decades (benaud, being the best example), make it quite clear that bradman was, literally, sans pareil.

Let me see if I understand this right. 5 year old Richie Benaud is supposed to pass judgment about the kind of bowlers and pitches that Bradman played on based on the limited footage that he got to see in the 30s? Mate Richie Benaud is old, but he isnt that old that hes seen everything.

 

[tooextracool]

Don't have to be completely devoid of bias to get useful info, though. And you'd obviously base your research on more than one or two blokes. It'd be a combination of articles, collected statistics, interviews, etc. To build a case would take a lot of work.

So you are telling me that a bunch of players who played on certain pitches can conclusively tell you how much easier or more difficult it got by watching from the crowd? Or do you honestly think Benaud is best placed to tell you how much harder it was to face Lance Gibbs and Wes Hall than it is to face Shane Warne and Curtly Ambrose given that he never faced a ball of their bowling? There is no statistic available to measure the flatness of pitches or the relative quality of bowling, hence these variables are generally left out from any equation that is used to statistically compare players from any era. Any analysis that involves such a flawed equation is likely to result in a very low confidence interval for any conclusion drawn.

 

[Top_Cat]

No that's not what I'm telling you.

 

[tooextracool]

Well that is the argument I am making. If you are arguing that Bradman has no statistical peer then that was never in dispute.

 

[hang on]

Let me see if I understand this right. 5 year old Richie Benaud is supposed to pass judgment about the kind of bowlers and pitches that Bradman played on based on the limited footage that he got to see in the 30s? Mate Richie Benaud is old, but he isnt that old that hes seen everything.

u did not understand it right....mate.

at no point am i suggesting that benaud is a panopticon *** methuselah in that he has seen everything. but he did see bradman from 46 onwards - when he would have been a teenager. he played against hutton and compton and the Ws and sobers and other legends of the game ie a large enough crosssection of players to be able to form a very respectable opinion about what cricket was all about at that point in time. also, he has followed cricket from his retirement till now - give or take a few years - in an official capacity as a broadcaster. hence the opinion of someone like him, coupled with the astute use of statistics, can give us a good idea of the relative merits of cricketers....as long as we are capable of keeping our biases aside, to the extent possible....the hardest part in the exercise of judging cricketers!

he has bradman appreciably ahead of all the others. and tendulkar at 2, marginally ahead of the rest - the richards, the sobers, the laras, the chappells, the gavaskars, the pollocks inter alia, if memory serves. i respect his opinion because he, according to me, knows whereof he speaks. and, in this case, i concur with him.

 

[Migara]

Yeah but there's a pretty practical reason for this; Bradman's batting average is > 4 (****ing) standard deviations above the mean for batting averages. In any field, that's going a bit beyond exceptional. > 2 in just about anything you care to name and it's an exceptional result which, whilst is not definitive (statistics, by its nature, doesn't attempt to be definitive), is generally considered to be beyond most measurement error/confidence interval overlap/etc.

Standard deviations are a crude measure but they're one of the first things used in a preliminary data analysis because it's amazing how often they turn out to roughly correspond with the way things are. It's why an IQ of 130 is considered 'genius' (average IQ = 100, std = 15, 2 std's away from 100 = 130). > 4 surely puts Bradman's case beyond just about all doubt regardless of any pitch/bowling quality comparisons and it gets better for him when you take out bowlers, guys who only played a few matches but scored a high average, etc. Be hard-pressed to make a case otherwise and I personally wouldn't even bother. Statistically, Bradman is ridiculous.

Science isn't definitive, sure. But some things are just so suggestive of the truth, you can confidently draw strong conclusions.

The argument look delicious. Imagine there are two samples of A and B, and X and Y are members of that sample. Both A and B has similar means and SDs. X is 4 SD away from mean of X and Y as 2 SD away from mean of B. Now what you have done is to say X is more away from the population sample's mean than Y. But first you have to prove that the A and B are infact representative samples of the population. What I get to know is that cricket data from 1930s and 1990s are not representative samples, because they are different.

Another example take X and Y in exam papers A and B, and follow the same example. You cannot say X > Y unless the papers A and B are of same subject and same standard!

 

[Migara]

You may well be right. It would be nice if he told us.

I said it clearly before. but some guys wanted to have a party with it. Cannot help.

 

[hang on]

is cricket in the 30s so different to now that an absurd sigma from the mean cannot a indicate person's freakish ability/superiority? it's not like it is a completely different, er, ball game.

i believe that the overall standards in the game have increased enough such that the kind of superiority demonstrated by the outliers in those times cannot be replicated now. (the stephen jay gould argument used in baseball transposed to the cricket, as it were). however, allowances still have to be made for a 4 sigma deviation...that's not to say he would have averaged 99 now. but it is reasonable to conclude that he would have been better than the best even now.

 

[Migara]

is cricket in the 30s so different to now that an absurd sigma from the mean cannot a indicate person's freakish ability/superiority? it's not like it is a completely different, er, ball game.

i believe that the overall standards in the game have increased enough such that the kind of superiority demonstrated by the outliers in those times cannot be replicated now. (the stephen jay gould argument used in baseball transposed to the cricket, as it were). however, allowances still have to be made for a 4 sigma deviation...that's not to say he would have averaged 99 now. but it is reasonable to conclude that he would have been better than the best even now.

Right, this brings us to the thick of the discussion. The problem we face is that we cannot quantify the change of standards from 30s to now. And this is the very point it makes comparison of batsmen of different eras resulting in little meaning. What we have to identify is that 4 SD deviations of sample A will not be the exact that much in sample B. It could be even half of that. How much Bradman will be ahead of current batsmen is only guesswork IMHO. It's only our "gut" feelings say that he must be ahead of everybody. How much ahead, is just speculative. If it can be quantified some how, we have to be prepared to accept if it ranks Bradman behind the current lot.

 

[GotSpin]

Old suspects on the usual crusade against Bradman because *giggles* he played before modern times. *yawn* thread

 

[Migara]

Old suspects on the usual crusade against Bradman because *giggles* he played before modern times. *yawn* thread

Bradman is the God brigade.

 

[Blaze 18]

What unreasonable point is Migara making ? He basically seems to be saying that Bradman is the best batsman, but there is no way of knowing for certain if he'd average the same in today's day and age. He adds that he'd still likely be ahead of his peers (i.e, better than the best batsman today), but maybe not by as big a margin.

This vindicates the point I made earlier - some people think Bradman is beyond criticism and scrutiny. He is the greatest cricketer ever - few dispute that - but someone trying to point out that he may not average as much today isn't necessarily trolling, or on a hate crusade, or a fanboy, or whatever. It is a valid opinion and has to be respected, even if one doesn't agree with it.

 

[Ikki]

Migara, please. Bradman is so far ahead that gauging the standard is simply not much of a concern. Strictly speaking, we can't gauge the standard or the difficulty of play on a match by match basis...that doesn't mean we forgo comparison even amongst contemporaries.

Each generation of batsmen has come and gone and whilst the best have almost invariably averaged in the 50s, one guy averaged almost 100 and no one has come close. Cricketers throughout history have been contemporaries of one another; with generations of players overlapping. If the standard that allowed Bradman to average 100 fell so much that he'd, let's say, average 70 (which is a 30 point drop!!!) that standard would be visible - meaning that it would be undeniable and people would comment on it. Heck, batting averages between the 90s and the 00s are only about 3 points in difference and we can discern the difference - nevermind explaining the difference of 30!

There is simply no argument to him being far and away the greatest batsman of all time. Criticisms of his record, or indeed questioning the standards of the time, are a waste of time because at best they could explain a few points on his batting average, not 30...not even 10.

This vindicates the point I made earlier - some people think Bradman is beyond criticism and scrutiny. He is the greatest cricketer ever - few dispute that - but someone trying to point out that he may not average as much today isn't necessarily trolling, or on a hate crusade, or a fanboy, or whatever. It is a valid opinion and has to be respected, even if one doesn't agree with it.

The problem is that in itself is a weak argument. The "possibility" of different standards exist but who can say whether it was harder or easier? The theory itself is based on guesswork and more to the point...who can actually calculate that; to come close to a figure that could represent what he may average now? It's not ludicrous to say that Bradman may have averaged less nowadays than before...but it is when you start throwing around figures of him averaging 70 or even 80. These are 20-30 point drops. You need a far better theory than one resting on the mere possibility of a drop in standards.

 

[Blaze 18]

You may see it as a weak argument, the other person may see it as perfectly reasonable. See, it is not about whether or not it is a weak or a flawed argument; it is about respecting another person's opinion. Argue against the points put forward in a reasonable manner like Top Cat did, that is fine; the problem starts when people start acting like Bradman cannot be criticized (strictly speaking, he isn't even being criticized). Having thousands and thousands of posts to your name doesn't, in my opinion, entitle you to ridicule someone, or give you the right to call them haters. I am agnostic, I don't believe in God. Does that mean I should start insulting every theist out there ? No, that isn't how it works. If every person had the same viewpoint, a cricket forum wouldn't be needed.

This isn't targeted at anyone in particular by the way, just a general thought.

 

[Ikki]

But it's not only a weak argument, it's a useless argument. If Bradman averaged 10 less (meaning 90), his feats would mean just as much as they do now and he would still be in front by such a margin that the distinction between eras would be like arguing if white uniforms or colours are better in ODIs.

Every era will have some advantages and some disadvantages, with respect to other eras. That includes the eras of Sobers, Tendulkar, Hutton and, yes, Bradman. It's not so much Bradman that it demeans but everyone else like Hobbs, Hammond, etc. If Bradman -10 is the reality, then the others are no match for the likes of Graeme Smith, Chanderpaul, etc in terms of averages...which seems quite silly.

Again, if someone were to merely mention that there may be a difference in eras...fine. But IIRC Migara once said Bradman would average something like 70 - a 30 point drop. That is nonsensical - or rather, he didn't put up an explanation that could come close to justifying that opinion.

 

[Teja.]

I don't see how it's remotely relevant whether Bradman's technique and abilities would have him averaging 29 or 199 in the present age tbh.

To quote the Prince of Eww,

A batsman's job - or responsibility if you like - is to find a technique that optimises his scoring in his own era; not develop a technique that'd work in any era at the expense of maximum output in current conditions just to satisfy people who wish to compare him with former players.

 

[Howe_zat]

+1 to Teja. Main reaon I've stayed out of this is that I don't find it relevant when discussing a player's worth. Batsmen don't as a rule, time travel.

 

[four_or_six]

+1 to Teja. Main reaon I've stayed out of this is that I don't find it relevant when discussing a player's worth. Batsmen don't as a rule, time travel.

I bet Watto can time travel. He's hella-cool.

 

[GIMH]

He can but he gets stuck in the 50s a lot

 

[Fusion]

He can but he gets stuck in the 50s a lot