WHY do they say this?

[Migara]

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.

Earlier when this debate came out I clearly stated that we don't know what were the standards of cricket in 30s, whether it's better, worse or equal, we just don't know. I have produced an example when the "comparison with the peers" falls flat on face. Cricket of 30s may have been of much better standard, or might have been much worse than today, with out knowing about for sure there in on merit in statistical comparisons.

 

[Burgey]

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

Think you spend a fair amount of time beating yourself, tbh.

 

[Teja.]

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

I didn't read through all the posts so the context might escape me but that single one was clearly a technical argument for the standards pov, IMO.

 

[Migara]

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.

Have it your own way, and what ever drivel you post, I'll hold on to my stance. You people just can't even entertain the fact that in Bradman's era the standards could have been lower. For you it's a delusion that it's standards were same. and for you it's an unshakable biblical truth.

 

[Burgey]

Earlier when this debate came out I clearly stated that we don't know what were the standards of cricket in 30s, whether it's better, worse or equal, we just don't know. I have produced an example when the "comparison with the peers" falls flat on face. Cricket of 30s may have been of much better standard, or might have been much worse than today, with out knowing about for sure there in on merit in statistical comparisons.

But how does this deal with players transcending eras? See even Tendulkar has in a sense done this, as did players like Hutton and, to a lesser extent, Bradman.

 

[Migara]

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

 

[Burgey]

Have it your own way, and what ever drivel you post, I'll hold on to my stance. You people just can't even entertain the fact that in Bradman's era the standards could have been lower. For you it's a delusion that it's standards were same. and for you it's an unshakable biblical truth.

No that's not so. I don't take that approach at all. You just seem happy to accept players don't adapt, don't face and overcome challenges as they arise. That's what great players do. It's what makes them great.

Were I taking the approach you say I do, Then I wouldn't factor in the differences, for example, between the 70s, 80s and 90s.

 

[Migara]

But how does this deal with players transcending eras? See even Tendulkar has in a sense done this, as did players like Hutton and, to a lesser extent, Bradman.

I'll try to put this as I can explain.

Players of same era play in a similar standard of game. Similar pitches, similar oppositions, similar weather, similar disease patterns etc. Although every parameter may not become fulfilled, since most parameters are common and equal, can make a meaningful comparison.

Players of different eras play different opposition, different conditions, techniques etc. There are ways to objectively describe the quality of an opposition, but the measures are grossly inadequate. One of the fundamentals of stats is that you have to compare observations under same conditions of render them similar using a statistical method. But the second is a non-option because the data set from 30s is inadequate for the purposes unlike todays.

The above explanation is the technical view that I have on it. But cricketing point of view, I would think if Hutton was raised, and trained in current conditions he would have done well. How well? I don't know how to quantify.

 

[Kylez]

IIRC, Sunil Gavaska twittered " Sachin is the best batsmen ever, even better than Bradman ". It wasn't too long ago either, but I'm fairly sure it was after Sachin scored the first ODI 200 or maybe it was after Sachin's latest haircut.

I think it was Sanz who was asking for an example of an Indian player/writer who claimed that Tendulkar was the best.

 

[Migara]

No that's not so. I don't take that approach at all. You just seem happy to accept players don't adapt, don't face and overcome challenges as they arise. That's what great players do. It's what makes them great.

Were I taking the approach you say I do, Then I wouldn't factor in the differences, for example, between the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Players do adapt, and so are their opponents! We cannot just think that Bradman will average 100 in current set up as well. He might average more, but there are chances that might get destroyed by a certain bowler too.

And 70-00, the standards pretty much had been same IMO. There had been no drastic changes like that of pitches. Helmet, Bouncer law, reverse swing and doosra are the ones I would like to nominate that cricket of 70s 00s differ. IMHO, I's group 80s - 00s in the same bracket.

 

[archie mac]

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.

Please don't encourage him, otherwise another three pages of dross

If you took a 100 cricket experts 99 would tell you Bradman is the best and then would ignore your silly arguments.

Can't understand why I keep arguing. Bradman without a doubt the best batsman ever. My last post in this thread.

Please don't consider this me agreeing with any of your crap

 

[Daemon]

The more obvious something is, the harder it is to prove

 

[silentstriker]

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?

Yes, it is. Because in this case, there is a clear distinction in terms of standards and you can say objectively that you need more knowledge to do well. In cricket, there isn't.

But if you want to be pedantic, you could also argue that the kid (Candidate A) is so far ahead of his class clearly has enough skill and if he had the same knowledge and background as Candidate B, he'd be likely to do better than Candidate B. In fact, that's what usually happens - if that kid was at my high school, being so much ahead of everyone else, he'd be put into some advance placement or college courses while still in high school and on average these kids tend to do much better than the average college kid as well.

So yes, my point stands either way.

 

[gvenkat]

Have it your own way, and what ever drivel you post, I'll hold on to my stance. You people just can't even entertain the fact that in Bradman's era the standards could have been lower. For you it's a delusion that it's standards were same. and for you it's an unshakable biblical truth.

You nailed it right there.

 

[Howe_zat]

The more obvious something is, the harder it is to prove

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

 

[honestbharani]

Top post. An example of a post really adding a different dimension to the discussion.

pretty much what I said in my first post..






Teja, do you also copy answers to your exams from other people like this?







Kiddin, top post mate.

 

[Daemon]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

cbf to have edited then posted that pic

 

[GIMH]

Lol. Coulda woulda shoulda.

Straws are being severely clutched at here. There's no actual legit argument for Tendy being on Bradman's level. FFS I've seen Migara admit that Bradman was the best, he's just trolling as ever.

This discussion is an embarassment, Tendulkar is the best of his generation. That's enough.

 

[James]

Guys, can we please cut out posts where clearing they're having a go at another poster. As we say, challenge the post and not the member.

From a personal point of view on Sachin v Don, I can see where a lot of comparisons come from. A lot of people wonder how anyone could possibly have averaged 99.94 and it blows the mind to even imagine it.

What I've always wondered is what made the Don as great as he was? What did he have that basically every other batsmen since has lacked to some degree?

 

[honestbharani]

Guys, can we please cut out posts where clearing they're having a go at another poster. As we say, challenge the post and not the member.

From a personal point of view on Sachin v Don, I can see where a lot of comparisons come from. A lot of people wonder how anyone could possibly have averaged 99.94 and it blows the mind to even imagine it.

What I've always wondered is what made the Don as great as he was? What did he have that basically every other batsmen since has lacked to some degree?

I would say powers of concentration and self discipline.. Just listening to anecdotes from Bradman himself and from others who have seen him, he was not just incredibly talented but also incredibly single minded and disciplined to harness that talent. In that regard, among the guys I have seen playing, Tendulkar is EASILY the best..