Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Agent Nationaux]

Sobers is rated better than Imran by most and he probably was. However Kyar2 has to start calling Immy a cheat to try and prove his point. Smali is right, Pak would have won the WI series, so Pak umpires weren't the only patriots.

 

[centurymaker]

So, you think if the ATG batsmen of today and 70s and 80s etc were to play during Bradman's time, playing 3-4 tests a year, then they would be averaging a lot more, say 70, or 80? If you don't think this, then you shouldn't be pushing your version either.

P.S. Hammond and Headley were ATG batsmen in that era averaging 60. What would you say their averages would have dropped to? Or do you think that there is a "normal" average of around 55-60 for ATG bats which will always be followed if enough matches are played?

Headley's most probably would've come down. He only played from memory around 20 tests? It's too hard to extrapolate on what his avg roughly might've been because he played so little.

Hammond, on the other hand, played a fair amount and avg'd 58, so his avg does give you a reasonably fair reflection of his ability. If he had played more over his career (like another 40 tests during the span of his career), maybe it would've dropped a few points? Yeah, I do think that a career avg of 50-60 is sort of like the upper limit for batsmen who play enough tests year in year out.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sobers is rated better than Imran by most and he probably was. However Kyar2 has to start calling Immy a cheat to try and prove his point. Smali is right, Pak would have won the WI series, so Pak umpires weren't the only patriots.

Ah.. Fred Goodall...

 

[Ikki]

when did I say the performance always gets worse as someone gets older?

Please read carefully.

"Ponting went from avging 60 to 51 and Dravid likewise.
The point I am making here is that if you avg an extraordinary amount in a extremely comptetitive age where you play all year around, you wouldn't be able to sustain that avg till the end of your career unless you retire early or something... "

60 to 51 is a massive drop, almost equivalent of Bradman going from 100 to 80-85.

You're not looking at the other side of the coin. If getting to 60-51 is likelier/easier when you play more, it is also likelier/easier to go from 51-60 for the same reason.

In the end, Bradman played 20 years of cricket, so it is not like his performances were a flash in the pan.

 

[Coronis]

Headley's most probably would've come down. He only played from memory around 20 tests? It's too hard to extrapolate on what his avg roughly might've been because he played so little.

Hammond, on the other hand, played a fair amount and avg'd 58, so his avg does give you a reasonably fair reflection of his ability. If he had played more over his career (like another 40 tests during the span of his career), maybe it would've dropped a few points? Yeah, I do think that a career avg of 50-60 is sort of like the upper limit for batsmen who play enough tests year in year out.

So if Bradman played as many tests as players do today he'd average 50-60?

 

[centurymaker]

So if Bradman played as many tests as players do today he'd average 50-60?

what the hell?

in his era, probably 85 IMO.

 

[Coronis]

what the hell?

in his era, probably 85 IMO.

Well sorry, you did say 50-60 was the limit for batsmen playing many tests. I just find all these attempts to discredit Bradman as complete and utter ****, sorry if I don't take many of your arguments too seriously.

 

[centurymaker]

You're not looking at the other side of the coin. If getting to 60-51 is likelier/easier when you play more, it is also likelier/easier to go from 51-60 for the same reason.
.

NOPE thats not really possible imo

From:
10000 runs / 200 outs = avg 50

To:
15000 runs / 250 outs = avg 60

So 5000 additional runs over 50 dismissals = avg 100!!!

They'd have to Avg 100 to go from 50 to 60!

 

[centurymaker]

It's just incredibly hard to even sustain a high avg, let alone improve on it!

 

[Coronis]

It's just incredibly hard to even sustain a high avg, let alone improve on it!

Yet Bradman did. It seems like some people can't except that and want to find a way to bring him back to a "mortal" level. The fact is, he was so far ahead of everyone before and after him that he is basically immortal. Nobody will be able to repeat what he did, ever. He was a true one of a kind.

 

[The Sean]

NOPE thats not really possible imo

From:
10000 runs / 200 outs = avg 50

To:
15000 runs / 250 outs = avg 60

So 5000 additional runs over 50 dismissals = avg 100!!!

They'd have to Avg 100 to go from 50 to 60!

You mean like Bradman did?

 

[Satyanash89]

It's just incredibly hard to even sustain a high avg, let alone improve on it!

Except bradman sustained it for 20 years. Why is this so hard to accept?

 

[The Sean]

It's funny - people come along every now and then with some "controversial" theory suggesting Bradman's numbers are somehow hyper-inflated in a way that no other batsman's are and that when you adjust for era, opposition, playing conditions, bowling quality and the number of spanners in a Sidchrome tool kit he's not actually that much better than anyone else. As though no one had though of that kind of analysis before.

The truth is, people (in both official and unofficial capacities) have been conducting studies along these lines for years - adjusting for all those factors and more - and the one thing that remains consistent through all of them is the end result, which is always that Bradman is absolutely miles ahead of any other batsman in Test history.

I personally think Bradman is the greatest cricketer - and, statistically, possibly the greatest sportsman - of all time. However, I can see the case for Sobers or Grace or Imran for example and if someone wants to extol their abilities and achievements to argue for them that's fine and I'll respect that. But don't just invent reasons to speculatively reduce Bradman's average (but conveniently no one else's) and then judge him on that, because you think his actual average is too high and can't possibly be true.

 

[centurymaker]

You mean like Bradman did?

Yeah :P

or they'd have to avg like at least 80, but over greater "additional" runs.

 

[centurymaker]

Except bradman sustained it for 20 years. Why is this so hard to accept?

70 outs, 80 innings. come on.

I am not saying his avg would drop to 50-60. It'd be around 85 IMO (in his era).

Where is PEWS when I need him ?

 

[centurymaker]

It's funny - people come along every now and then with some "controversial" theory suggesting Bradman's numbers are somehow hyper-inflated in a way that no other batsman's are and that when you adjust for era, opposition, playing conditions, bowling quality and the number of spanners in a Sidchrome tool kit he's not actually that much better than anyone else. As though no one had though of that kind of analysis before.

The truth is, people (in both official and unofficial capacities) have been conducting studies along these lines for years - adjusting for all those factors and more - and the one thing that remains consistent through all of them is the end result, which is always that Bradman is absolutely miles ahead of any other batsman in Test history.

I personally think Bradman is the greatest cricketer - and, statistically, possibly the greatest sportsman - of all time. However, I can see the case for Sobers or Grace or Imran for example and if someone wants to extol their abilities and achievements to argue for them that's fine and I'll respect that. But don't just invent reasons to speculatively reduce Bradman's average (but conveniently no one else's) and then judge him on that, because you think his actual average is too high and can't possibly be true.

I am not even bringing in eras here. If I did, I'd get shot down
(do you really believe that Marshall, Imran khan, Garner, Botham, Holding, Roberts, Dev, Hadlee,and co would've allowed him to avg 100 in 100 tests in their intimidating era?)

I'm only adjusting Bradman's avg because of his innings sample size.

I voted for Bradman btw :P (like more than 1 day ago)

 

[Coronis]

I am not even bringing in eras here. If I did, I'd get shot down
(do you really believe that Marshall, Imran khan, Garner, Botham, Holding, Roberts, Dev, Hadlee,and co would've allowed him to avg 100 in 100 tests in their intimidating era?)

I'm only adjusting Bradman's avg because of his innings sample size.

I voted for Bradman btw :P (like more than 1 day ago)

You don't allow Bradman to average 100. He averages 100 because nobody can control his scoring.

 

[harsh.ag]

You don't allow Bradman to average 100. He averages 100 because nobody can control his scoring.

Bam!

This is going in my sig.

 

[Ikki]

NOPE thats not really possible imo

From:
10000 runs / 200 outs = avg 50

To:
15000 runs / 250 outs = avg 60

So 5000 additional runs over 50 dismissals = avg 100!!!

They'd have to Avg 100 to go from 50 to 60!

Or, if you were to average 40; you wouldn't need to make 1 run in the next 50 dismissals = avg. 0.00. So, frankly, it is easy as piss to hold your average better than the 20% differential (+ or -) because you could get consecutive ducks for 49 innings and score 1 run in your 50th and beat the above. Meaning, it makes losing 10 points of your average far less likely/more difficult than averaging 100 - hence, it is more beneficial.

Anyway, outs don't technically matter if you're talking about playing more. Two players could play the same exact number of innings and have a different amount of outs, and different averages.

Ultimately, it isn't a case of Bradman averaging 100 over a few matches per year and then refusing to play in years where there were 10+ matches played - because, that is the only legitimate gripe I think you could have and that isn't what happened. He only played a handful of matches per year, on average, for 20 years. He consistently kept it near or over 100 for that whole time.

 

[kyear2]

Sobers is rated better than Imran by most and he probably was. However Kyar2 has to start calling Immy a cheat to try and prove his point. Smali is right, Pak would have won the WI series, so Pak umpires weren't the only patriots.

Din't intend to intimate that Imran was responsible for the umpiring and to his credit did what he could to address it. With regard to not being the only team with "patriots", N.Z were particularily bad and supposedly some of the Aussie home umpiring in the '70's was not known for their partiality. And yes they were those decisions in 88 vs Pakistan.