How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[morgieb]

This thread showing a disturbing lack of understanding of skill relativism.

 

[marc71178]

Marc, what do you think Bradman would average in the 90s?

99.94

There's absolutely no way you can say he'd do any worse unless you want to write off all the greats who played pre50's as mediocre and of a similar standard to the likes of Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh boy here we go.

thread should've ended here

 

[marc71178]

Getting to insults. Typical.

Stop posting utter drivel then.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do you honestly believe any one could average 100 in a career in the 90s and 2000s? SRT and Lara finished with 53. Can you logically think Bradman was double as good as them?

lmao

He was "double as good" as anyone in the 20 years he played, he was "double as good" as anyone since and he'd be "double as good" as Lara & Tendulkar if he played in the 90s and 2000s

deal with it

you're posting in this thread is probably the worst I've ever seen. Worse than the **** I'd post in a Murali thread imo.

 

[pardus]

I have not sidestepped this question. I have said they would probably average 43-46.



No, even this argument doesn't apply. A player from an early era can get proper training and his standard can be at par with today's era. However, how can he then average double of today's era? If athletes are running 100 metres at 10.5-10.7 seconds, and some one suddenly runs at 10 seconds. That geometrically makes his Bradmanesque. However, if today athletes are running at 9.5, doesn't mean that great athlete will suddenly run at 10% lower today too at 8.8 seconds. He would probably run at 9.35. Similarly Bradman would probably average 65-70. It's not that hard to understand.

I still don't get it. Going by your above analogy, Usain Bolt today is much faster than Carl Lewis was in 1984 but you maintain that Windies team of 84 can still stand up to teams today. So is this analogy of time-based-improvement, applicable only from 1930-1975 in cricket, and frozen after that?

 

[Pratters]

99.94

There's absolutely no way you can say he'd do any worse unless you want to write off all the greats who played pre50's as mediocre and of a similar standard to the likes of Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash.

No. I have explained this earlier.

It's far more difficult to get 99 than 65 in today's era. Maybe Bradman would average 65-70 and maybe batsmen who average 50 80 years back would average 42 or so. That doesn't make them poor players. Some one who averaged 55 would probably still average 45 say which wouldn't make them bad players.

If some one averages 43-47, doesn't mean they are at the level of Hick or Ramprakash.

 

[Adders]

Lol, some of you ****s should go read the Ashes predictions thread and similar. We cant even predict current series performances and outcomes.......yet Pratters and others seem so confident in how a player teleported from the 30's would go kitted up at Lords next week. GTFO seriously.

 

[Pratters]

Stop posting utter drivel then.

I think you are posting drivel. Doesn't mean I am calling you a fool.

 

[marc71178]

No, you haven't explained it, you've made things up with no use of logic and dodged questions that doubt your bull****.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No. I have explained this earlier.

It's far more difficult to get 99 than 65 in today's era. Maybe Bradman would average 65-70 and maybe batsmen who average 50 80 years back would average 42 or so. That doesn't make them poor players. Some one who averaged 55 would probably still average 45 say which wouldn't make them bad players.

This is not an explanation. All you've said is he would average 65 without saying why. I see no reason why any great player from the 40s would've been just as good today if he was given access to today's system and facilities.

 

[Pratters]

I have explained whatever I could. If you guys don't get it, whatever. I am off the thread.

 

[Howe_zat]

[posting from 2050]

I think it quite ridiculous that this 'Tendulkar' could have made 100 international centuries when most pople of the era and today only manage 70 at best. Clearly the standards were lower and this allowed one player to dominate.

Since the standards improve over time I don't think it possible that Tendulkar could have made 100 centuries. I'm pretty confident in saying that he would have made 60-70. So he isn't as good as people think he is.

[/posting from 2050]

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. I have explained this earlier.

It's far more difficult to get 99 than 65 in today's era. Maybe Bradman would average 65-70 and maybe batsmen who average 50 80 years back would average 42 or so. That doesn't make them poor players. Some one who averaged 55 would probably still average 45 say which wouldn't make them bad players.

If some one averages 43-47, doesn't mean they are at the level of Hick or Ramprakash.

I love the audacity to go ahead and randomly predict specific averages players would have in different eras

 

[OverratedSanity]

So Bradman~Tendulkar confirmed then? Nice.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's far more difficult to get 99 than 65 in today's era.

As oppose to in the 1930s, when getting 99 was actually easier than 65.

 

[pardus]

I have not sidestepped this question. I have said they would probably average 43-46.



No, even this argument doesn't apply. A player from an early era can get proper training and his standard can be at par with today's era. However, how can he then average double of today's era? If athletes are running 100 metres at 10.5-10.7 seconds, and some one suddenly runs at 10 seconds. That geometrically makes his Bradmanesque. However, if today athletes are running at 9.5, doesn't mean that great athlete will suddenly run at 10% lower today too at 8.8 seconds. He would probably run at 9.35. Similarly Bradman would probably average 65-70. It's not that hard to understand.

Also, could you clarify my earlier question if Aussies of 75-76 the team that beat the Windies 5-1 (with Lillee, Thommo, Chappell brothers) would stand a chance against today's teams?
This team played cricket 4 decades back. Almost almost exactly in between Bradman's era and current era.
During this time, low altitude 100m running speed record has improved from 10.03s to 9.58s now.

 

[Migara]

What average to do you think SRT/Lara would have had in late 1800s and early 1900s, while playing on uncovered pitches?

Or Kumble or Chandra bowling on one of them? Would have been the utmost terror a batsman could perceive.

 

[Jono]

[posting from 2050]

I think it quite ridiculous that this 'Tendulkar' could have made 100 international centuries when most pople of the era and today only manage 70 at best. Clearly the standards were lower and this allowed one player to dominate.

Since the standards improve over time I don't think it possible that Tendulkar could have made 100 centuries. I'm pretty confident in saying that he would have made 60-70. So he isn't as good as people think he is.

[/posting from 2050]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In 50 years time Phil Taylor will be a myth in the darts world for winning 14 World titles when no one else has managed more than 6.