WHY do they say this?

[keeper]

Regarding standards, what a load of nonsense.

Maths and other exams are clearly much easier than when I took them.

 

[Spark]

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..

Lara? One doesn't make the number of mind-bogglingly large scores he had without having rare powers of concentration.

Odd call this will seem but Cook's powers of concentration are particularly striking.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara?

well.. Lara was prone to being disappointed by things that his team mates did. Sachin didn't even let the match fixing saga get to him.. I mean, when batting, sure Lara was easily at Sachin's level, if not better, in tests but overall in the way they handled their careers, I think Sachin is better.

 

[hang on]

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

while i would like this to be the case, the point of the whole thread is why respectable journos and analysts - hughes and hussein - are coming up with such claims at the risk of really undermining their own credibility. hughes is one of the senior cricket correspondents of one of the most respected cricket covering papers in the world. and hussein is certainly one of the better commentators and analysts around.

in terms of what really constitutes the modern era -- that is an interesting question, indeed. where does one draw the line. the 50s? the 30s? the 70s?

btw, while looking for the decade by decade stats on cricinfo yesterday, i came across some analyses on the best batsmen of all time that was done about a couple of years ago. bradman it was at the top of the tree, obviously, but there was a statement in there that caught my attention: bradman played bowlers who were (statistically, as calculated by their criteria and parameters...didn't really go through the methodology) in no way inferior to those played by tendulkar and lara. in fact, they were possibly even superior. it did mention that hammond actually feasted on really weak attacks, on average, in particular the kiwis and the saffers.

 

[centurymaker]

Lara? One doesn't make the number of mind-bogglingly large scores he had without having rare powers of concentration.

Odd call this will seem but Cook's powers of concentration are particularly striking.

Trott.

 

[Spark]

Yeah him too, obviously.

 

[Teja.]

Cook.

Trott.

Gambhir

/end discussion.

 

[hang on]

chanderpaul wants to have a word with some of you!

 

[Furball]

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?

Surely a better comparison would be to compare Test cricket to a pure mathematics paper, which is of a varying degree of difficulty over the years.

Despite the changes in the course, how it's taught etc, it remains a very difficult paper, with few students achieving a mark of over 50. Despite all the changes, most gifted students in the past 100 years have tended to score between 50 and 60 on the paper.

Then all of a sudden one student comes along and scores 100. Your conclusion is either:

That the student who scored 100 sat the test when the paper was absurdly easy - bear in mind that this conclusion degrades the value of everyone who took that test's results, who have had similar marks to everyone else in all eras who have sat the test.

The student in question is an absolute genius, by far the cleverest student you've ever seen.

 

[hang on]

that is a very good analogy, indeed. but one possible flaw in it could be how much the subject matter has changed, or rather, expanded. for example, those taking the exam in the days of say 'bourbaki' would have been responsible for a smaller body of knowledge compared to, say, a wiles or a witten. wouljd those bourbaki chaps have what it takes, in terms of intellect, to do well in today's exams. almost surely, but with the right training. transplanted across decades and just plonked into one of the exams in princeton or cambridge 'today', i'd wager they'd struggle.

assuming that is what the transporting or transplanting across decades argument is all about, that is. if not.....sorry for the waste of time!

 

[honestbharani]

that is a very good analogy, indeed. but one possible flaw in it could be how much the subject matter has changed, or rather, expanded. for example, those taking the exam in the days of say 'bourbaki' would have been responsible for a smaller body of knowledge compared to, say, a wiles or a witten. wouljd those bourbaki chaps have what it takes, in terms of intellect, to do well in today's exams. almost surely, but with the right training. transplanted across decades and just plonked into one of the exams in princeton or cambridge 'today', i'd wager they'd struggle.

assuming that is what the transporting or transplanting across decades argument is all about, that is. if not.....sorry for the waste of time!

Is the maths genius of today better than a Srinivasa Ramanujam? Or a physics genius of today better than Newton? It is that kind of question, isn't it?

 

[Top_Cat]

It swings the other way too, players of years gone by have different skills. Check this out, the entrance exam from Harvard Uni 1869;

http://digg.com/story/r/harvard_s_1899_entrance_exam

I'd wager most candidates these days would fail the test miserably. So, is it easier or harder to get into Harvard today?

Acknowledging the differences/difficulties from one era to the next is only one component of the problem, quantifying those differences is, for mine, that much tougher.

 

[Furball]

Would any of the Tendulkar fan boys consider Justin Langer to be a better batsman that Don Bradman? After all, Langer scored more runs at international and First Class level over a roughly equal career span.

If not, why not?

 

[Top_Cat]

I would but only because he'd be in with a good chance of kicking anyone's arse who disagreed. Hard ****, is Langer.

 

[Spark]

Gun player but seriously creeps me out whenever he does a radio stint. Sounds like he's about to join a cult.

 

[Migara]

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

The green bird syndrome, or the fallacy of repetition.

Bradman is the best batsman to an extent even suggesting that he played a cricket of different standard is blasphemy and will be dealt under law in the future. Bradman may be God / Allah, so cannot be scrutinized.

Apalling to say the least.

 

[Migara]

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

More unshakable it is despite of evidence, more it resembles a delusion.

 

[Furball]

The green bird syndrome, or the fallacy of repetition.

Bradman is the best batsman to an extent even suggesting that he played a cricket of different standard is blasphemy and will be dealt under law in the future. Bradman may be God / Allah, so cannot be scrutinized.

Apalling to say the least.

You've done this before. No-one is arguing that.

 

[Migara]

bradman played bowlers who were (statistically, as calculated by their criteria and parameters...didn't really go through the methodology) in no way inferior to those played by tendulkar and lara. in fact, they were possibly even superior.

Reliance Mobile Best ever Bowling rankings

Only ones to appear during Bradaman era are Bedser 16th, (that was after Bradman retirement IIRC), MW Tate at 45th, Headly verity 49th. The bowlers who had best of the peaks are mostly filled up by post 1970 bowlers.

ICC rankings are done "relative to the peers" assuming that the standard of the cricket played is same. Still there aren't many bowlers from 1920 - 1952 period that had purple patches. In otherwords, could not agree with your theory.

 

[Migara]

You've done this before. No-one is arguing that.

Keep on nit picking. No one countered my arguments until now. Nit picking is an evidence when people have nothing to offer with intellectual regards.