WHY do they say this?

[Migara]

Didn't make a test run in the subcontinent either

Runs in SC flat beds / roads / pancakes only worth 1/10 of that made else where.
And wickets in SC dustbowls / lunar surfaces worth 1/10 that taken else where
And it is no crime for a fast bowler to be crap in SC too.

 

[Burgey]

Hutton, Hammond etc would have averaged close to 80 today. Tiger and Grimett would have averaged 15 with tha ball. Who are McGraths and Muralis and Marshalls? Just ordinary pie chuckers.

O'Reilly and Grimmett at least performed better than average to serviceably against the best opposition of their era. Not that they took 800 wickets, mind.

 

[Top_Cat]

Now consider this mate.

1. Candidate A gets 90 out of 100 for Type X mathematics paper, where his class average is 50 and standard deviation is 10 - In other words A has a Z score of 4.0

2. Candidate B gets 60 out of 100 for Type Y mathematics paper, where class average is 40 and standard deviation is 20. - Z score is 1.0

According to you, there is no comparison of A and B because A is so far ahead. Now consider this scenario. Type A paper is GCE Ordinary level paper. Type B paper is pure mathematics paper of BSc (Maths) degree. Still your point valid?

Becomes an issue of standard then, yes? I'd suggest that the issue of standards for maths papers is far more straightforward than that of batting and bowling in different eras of sport, especially when you consider the less-than-descriptive measures available to us.

 

[Migara]

Becomes an issue of standard then, yes? I'd suggest that the issue of standards for maths papers is far more straightforward than that of batting and bowling in different eras of sport, especially when you consider the less-than-descriptive measures available to us.

Exactly! We have no means to quantify the standard of cricket across various formats, yet alone different eras. Even if we developed a complex, brain exploding, mind numbing equation for it, we'll be left with a huge set of undefined variables for 30s cricket. It is the exact reason why i am not a fan of comparing players of distant eras, directly, or relative to their peers.

 

[Burgey]

That comparison is odious and disingenuous. In fact it's absurd. Bradman played the highest level of cricket at his time. You deign to compare that to school mathematics, while in a typically simplistic and inapt manner just assume the cricket of today is not only invariably superior to that of his era, but to the extent that the Bradman era was nothing more than school cricket.

Appalling.

 

[Burgey]

Exactly! We have no means to quantify the standard of cricket across various formats, yet alone different eras. Even if we developed a complex, brain exploding, mind numbing equation for it, we'll be left with a huge set of undefined variables for 30s cricket. It is the exact reason why i am not a fan of comparing players of distant eras, directly, or relative to their peers.

Yet you're ignorantly assuming the contemporary era is better than the earlier era by such a factor as to render the latter school boy standard. Spare us.

 

[Migara]

O'Reilly and Grimmett at least performed better than average to serviceably against the best opposition of their era. Not that they took 800 wickets, mind.

No one denies that. But what are our evidence to say that they were better / worse / equal to Wanrne / Murali with their skills? What ever evidence we have are very flimsy, so no point in comparing players from such distant era.

 

[GotSpin]

That comparison is odious and disingenuous. In fact it's absurd. Bradman played the highest level of cricket at his time. You deign to compare that to school mathematics, while in a typically simplistic and inapt manner just assume the cricket of today is not only invariably superior to that of his era, but to the extent that the Bradman era was nothing more than school cricket.

Appalling.

Didn't you know cricket in the 30s was played in the village green after a plate of cucumber sandwiches every sunny Sunday afternoon?

 

[Migara]

Yet you're ignorantly assuming the contemporary era is better than the earlier era by such a factor as to render the latter school boy standard. Spare us.

Ha! Ha! You have made the straw man yourself and started shooting at it as well. Where did I say the standard of 30s were inferior today's cricket?

Your statement clearly shows how judgmental and stereotyped you are on the standard of the cricket in 30s.

 

[Burgey]

No one denies that. But what are our evidence to say that they were better / worse / equal to Wanrne / Murali with their skills? What ever evidence we have are very flimsy, so no point in comparing players from such distant era.

But that's exactly what you did in comparing the earlier era to school standard mathematics, isn't it?

 

[Top_Cat]

Exactly! We have no means to quantify the standard of cricket across various formats, yet alone different eras. Even if we developed a complex, brain exploding, mind numbing equation for it, we'll be left with a huge set of undefined variables for 30s cricket. It is the exact reason why i am not a fan of comparing players of distant eras, directly, or relative to their peers.

That just makes it difficult, surely? I don't think it's impossible and I generally agree it's tough to do in conversation but if you were to apply suitable assumptions/caveats to the data and add in a pinch of prior/post distributions (a la Bayes rule), don't see why it wouldn't possible to squeeze quite a bit of extra insight in comparing blokes from different eras. If we can model climate, we can model sports.

If I had the time, I'd love to have a crack at a mixed-model analysis.

But then, what's the point? I'd hazard a guess that the results for who the best are would fall largely into line with what we already get from the opinions/insight/analysis from current/former players. There might be some surprises and it'd be a better method for actually putting people into categories but I don't think it'd add much to the debate as to who's at the very top.

 

[Migara]

That comparison is odious and disingenuous. In fact it's absurd. Bradman played the highest level of cricket at his time. You deign to compare that to school mathematics, while in a typically simplistic and inapt manner just assume the cricket of today is not only invariably superior to that of his era, but to the extent that the Bradman era was nothing more than school cricket.

Appalling.

Once again you are beating your own straw man. Be my guest!

 

[GotSpin]

Ha! Ha! You have made the straw man yourself and started shooting at it as well. Where did I say the standard of 30s were inferior today's cricket?

Your statement clearly shows how judgmental and stereotyped you are on the standard of the cricket in 30s.

Even a fool could tell you have little respect for cricket in the 30s

 

[Migara]

But that's exactly what you did in comparing the earlier era to school standard mathematics, isn't it?

Can you go back to the post and read it SLOWLY. That was used to counter a technical point made by SS.

 

[Burgey]

Ha! Ha! You have made the straw man yourself and started shooting at it as well. Where did I say the standard of 30s were inferior today's cricket?

Your statement clearly shows how judgmental and stereotyped you are on the standard of the cricket in 30s.

So what were you saying then? Your post was a direct response to SS saying Bradman was miles ahead of his contemporaries, whereas Tendulkar isn't. You then state what if one is school yard standard and one is far, far greater. It's plain what you were saying, particularly on the context of your obvious series of trolling posts around the same time.

 

[Migara]

Even a fool could tell you have little respect for cricket in the 30s

Ya, I see the fools.

 

[Teja.]

While I disagree thoroughly with Migara here, I think people are picking out a non-existent flaw in his argument and repeatedly beating on it. He used the exam example as a means to say standards are different. Nowhere did he say which one was inferior/superior in his post.

 

[Spark]

So what were you saying then? Your post was a direct response to SS saying Bradman was miles ahead of his contemporaries, whereas Tendulkar isn't. You then state what if one is school yard standard and one is far, far greater. It's plain what you were saying, particularly on the context of your obvious series of trolling posts around the same time.

I thought he was more pointing out that you have to take relative standards wrt to peers with a grain of salt

 

[Burgey]

Can you go back to the post and read it SLOWLY. That was used to counter a technical point made by SS.

No. Once is usually more than enough, frankly. Don't try and paint it in another light mate, it's laughable to do so now. The whole tone of your series of posts was disparaging to the cricket of the earlier era.

 

[Burgey]

While I disagree thoroughly with Migara here, I think people are picking out a non-existent flaw in his argument and repeatedly beating on it. He used the exam example as a means to say standards are different. Nowhere did he say which one was inferior/superior in his post.

Plainly we see it differently. He's posted nothing but disparaging comments about cricket from the earlier era.