TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's the point, yes
-
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.
What would a modern player need to beat Bradman?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
It depends how you look at it.
Sure Ashwin would have a ridiculous record if he played 80% of his games against the West Indies. Ollie Pope might be literally Bradmanesque if he played 80% of his games against Ireland.
But if they played 80% of their games against Australia it'd be a totally different story. Good teams generally play more Tests, that's just how it goes.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah the assumption is that "Bradman getting to play most of his Tests against England is equivalent to Ashwin playing most against his best opposition"
Which doesn't hold up because you could just as much say it's equivalent to Ashwin playing 80% against his worst opposition. Statistically it's actually more accurate that way. England wasn't Bradman's best opposition.
Now obviously it's a very different environment now and it's not a proper comparison by any stretch, but you can demonstrate clearly that the initial statement doesn't really hold up at all
Which doesn't hold up because you could just as much say it's equivalent to Ashwin playing 80% against his worst opposition. Statistically it's actually more accurate that way. England wasn't Bradman's best opposition.
Now obviously it's a very different environment now and it's not a proper comparison by any stretch, but you can demonstrate clearly that the initial statement doesn't really hold up at all
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah, which means its a reasonable doubt coz its just as likely that England were #2 because there were only 2 teams as it is that England were that good. As a matter of fact, the evidence since that time suggests the former is more likely than the latter.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Well, WI is pretty much one of the worst teams of present day; if you want to compare Ashwin's WI record then do so with Don's record against India or South Africa.....Yeah, which means its a reasonable doubt coz its just as likely that England were #2 because there were only 2 teams as it is that England were that good. As a matter of fact, the evidence since that time suggests the former is more likely than the latter.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I dont have a problem rating Don where everyone does, coz I do the same. But like Athlie said, it is definitely a valid point to bring up. It does not change the fact that he has and always been twice as dominant in his time as the next best of any era and that makes him a league unto himself as a batsman. We only debate #2 here anyways.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah, I understand that. I just brought the fact that comparing Ashwin in WI; currently one of the weakest Test team, to Don vs England, the strongest team before he actually started to dominate is disingenuous when he has played some games against minnows of his time, and really; no one has ever bashed minnows remotely similar to Don.I dont have a problem rating Don where everyone does, coz I do the same. But like Athlie said, it is definitely a valid point to bring up. It does not change the fact that he has and always been twice as dominant in his time as the next best of any era and that makes him a league unto himself as a batsman. We only debate #2 here anyways.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It is, but it supports the opposite contention just as much, if not more so, than that which it was brought up to demonstrate. So it doesn't really serve a purpose other than "here is a other confounding factor that doesn't actually lend weight either way"
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
We sure do.We only debate #2 here anyways.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
My poo is better than your poo.
Coronis
International Coach
Bradman’s poo would still be ATG.
Victor Ian
International Coach
New Thread - ATG Poos. Who was that player that **** his pants onfield and had to run off for rehabilitation?
Didn't Jones lose control of his bum in the 200? That would have to be ATG.
Didn't Jones lose control of his bum in the 200? That would have to be ATG.
Nintendo
Cricketer Of The Year
Renshaw **** himself in india in 2017 didnt he?
Migara
International Coach
We Assume Bradman's Australia and England had standards same as today. This is an assumption. Standards might have been same, better or worse. We may be able to get some idea by peer comparison, looking at player pool and variability of the conditions and pitches played on, but none of these could be quantifies with much certainty. Hence it is open for opinions and subjective descriptions and nit pickings.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
I don't think we are assuming that. We're just noting that by the standards of the day, Bradman was unbelievably ahead of his peers.
Migara
International Coach
This is basically saying Bradman was a massive outlier in his era, so he should be in this era too. But here we make an assumption his peers and modern players are from same player population. That assumption needs to be proved, which is quite difficult because of the reasons I have given.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
How highly do you rate Wally Hammond, George Headley and Herbert Sutcliffe? Either you could think they're among World's top 10-15 batsmen and hence Don is miles ahead of everyone else, or if you think there's open interpretation for like Sachin or Sobers to be better, then they aren't top 100, even probably 200.
Red_Ink_Squid
Global Moderator
I think we're just saying that he was an incredibly massive outlier in his era ...and that's amazing. Gosh, what an outlier!
shortpitched713
International Captain
Don't rate any of those lovely old *****.
Don't really comment anymore at all on pre WWII cricket, honestly.
Except I do think Bradman would definitely be ATG, and probably clearly head and shoulders above Specialist batting peers in any era. I just cannot honestly comment on the numbers, which is a big part of any cricketing discussion.