# Thread: Bradman- status as the greatest batsman ever under threat?

1. Originally Posted by The Sean
Yeah, it makes sense - if you have 141 cricket books and I have only 100, then you have 41% more cricket books than I do.

As you say though, if I wanted to make myself look a little better or your superiority appear somewhat less, I could say that I have 71% as many cricket books as you do.

At the risk of copping a ban for boring the hell out of the rest of the forum, I reckon I'll leave it there.
Putting aside Bradman and Sobers for a minute I still need to understand what is going on mathematically here. This maybe boring to some, but it's actually quite to interesting to me.

What you saying is that there has been a 41% increase in X over Y. However, this increase does not represent the absolute difference between X and Y because it is only a relative increase.

The only way to express the true difference in absolute terms is to set X as the 'Standard' and call it 1. We can now arrive at a 'true' ratio and therefore make a direct comparison between X and Y.

Therefore, if X = 1 and Y = 0.71 (a ratio of 1 : 0.7) then the absolute difference is 0.29 (or 29%). In approximate, but absolute terms, X is a 'third better' than Y.

(And in the case of Bradman and Sobers, it makes 'intuitive sense' to call Bradman a 'third better' than Sobers as this is about what I would expect with respect to the talents and effectiveness of the two batsman)

2. This thread is so, so bad.

3. Originally Posted by fredfertang
You haven't seen the toilet in my house mate
Don't lie Fred we know you still use an outhouse.

4. Originally Posted by Migara
Once again falling in to the trap of relativity... .
Please leave the room. What you have offered has been discredited and you haven't added anything new, let alone interesting.

5. Originally Posted by Viscount Tom
Don't lie Fred we know you still use an outhouse.

Do the English still have the nightsoil man come round each morning? There's no plumbing there is there?

6. Originally Posted by fredfertang
It does amuse me the way this subject polarises opinion,and particularly the way that folk who I assume are essentially intelligent human beings come out with such mindless drivel.

I'll admit to being in the "Bradman" camp, but not because I particularly like him, but because of his dominance over 20 years - yes that's 20 years - and he lost seven good years to the war - - his stats are so far ahead of his peers that it defies logic to compare his dominance with guys whose stats are very similar to at least half a dozen of their contemporaries.

If he played today I think the biggest problem Bradman would have would be with the quality of fielding. Piercing the gaps in the field was one of his great talents, and he'd find that harder, but then he'd have a much better bat, so perhaps that wouldn't matter.

He'd also have had to face more genuinely quick bowlers, and its said he didn't like real pace. But that's a silly argument really, 'cos what he didn't like to do was risk injury. The speed of his reactions and his hand/eye co-ordination were always superlative, so with all the modern protective equipment I reckon he'd have come off best against the quicks, like he did against Larwood in 1930.

And the change he'd have liked most would be covered wickets. His weakness on sticky wickets is overstated, if only because they cut everyone down to size, but it was undoubtedly the major flaw in his CV - he was no Sutcliffe - but he'd never encounter one now, so his biggest problem would be gone.

And don't forget Bradman was adaptable too - the biggest law change in his time was in the lbw law - a whole new aspect of the game opened up once bowlers no longer had to pitch the ball in line to get a decision. Bradman played just about exactly half his career under the old law and half under the new - he was out lbw 16 times pre 1935, and 11 times after, so he sorted that one out without any trouble - the suggestion that he wouldn't have adapted his technique to other changes is just ludicrous.

Agree with the general consensus on this post. I agree the biggest challenge is the std of fielding, a point raised by Norman Gordon the SA pace bowler of the era. If your std is Larwood then the comment abt quick bowling would be true as it would be about Tyson in the 50s or Thommo later on. Bowlers of that speed are rare though and a more representative std would be bowlers of the Statham, Constantine pace in which case they were well represented in the 27-49 era. As per the list of bowlers I mentioned in an earlier post. I didn't mention Eddie Gilbert in that post but will now. He could be likened to Shaun Tait for a modern reference though I think Gilbert the better bowler of the 2 inspite of Tait having played tests. Gilbert could atleast contest a FC match, something beyond Tait.

The sticky wicket issue is a problematic one for me and I have an inkling Bradman used it as an excuse to explain away some of his failures. Late in life he admitted the pitch on which Verity won a test for England wasn't as difficult as he had previously insisted and generously rated it one of the finer bowling exhibitions in ashes tests.

7. Originally Posted by Migara
I must be speaking to a stupid wall. Does not understand the context at all.

Originally Posted by Dan
Look, I'm sick of this - both of you, play the post - not the poster. No problems with the debate itself, but attacking and insulting each other is not on.

Last warning for this thread. Next person who does it is getting infracted and the thread closed.
...

Feels like I'm the one talking to a brick wall here, given this got ignored so quickly. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Page 23 of 23 First ... 13212223