Ken Gargett Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 yes, i realise fat chance of it ever being the last word but i came across this by chance. World sport context Wisden hailed Bradman as, "the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games".[1] Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport.[237] The top performers in his selected sports are:[238] Athlete Sport Statistic Standard deviations Bradman Cricket Batting average 4.4 Pelé Association football Goals per game 3.7 Ty Cobb Baseball Batting average 3.6 Jack Nicklaus Golf Major titles 3.5 Michael Jordan Basketball Points per game 3.4 The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket".[2] In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.[238] The respective records are .366 and 30.1.[238] When Bradman died, Time allocated a space in its "Milestones" column for an obituary:[239] ... Australian icon considered by many to be the pre-eminent sportsman of all time ... One of Australia's most beloved heroes, he was revered abroad as well. When Nelson Mandelawas released after 27 years in prison, his first question to an Australian visitor was, "Is Sir Donald Bradman still alive?"
coug28 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 What the F is Cricket. Pretty sure it's just croquet without all the different colored balls.
Marker Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 No, I thought it was that thing where you take yarn and knit up booties and hand towels?
Skyfall Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 No, I'm pretty sure it's either a competition on building old wooden catapults or it's when you play golf at night. We may never know.
Jefferson Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Um, I dunno for sure, but I kinda doubt the worlds finest athletes play cricket, for monetary reasons if nothing else. But admittedly, I know nothing about the game.
IcedCanuck Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Never heard of him but Cricket does not interest me either so I know SFA about the sport.
Jefferson Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Nobody said "athlete". It is sportsman. And even though Sir Donald is not well know in the West, it is difficult to find fault in the choice. Um, in your opinion the difference is? I don't know that your clarification makes any real sense.
mk05 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 If NASCAR drivers are considered athletes, I'd say that anything goes. What the F is Cricket. Xoxo I think it's the international argyle sweater expo.
Tino Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 "Cricket is basically baseball on valium." Robin Williams
oliverdst Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I think objective criterias are more reliable than just "I think" but maybe what is missing in this research is the impact of their titles in population. Cricket is the main sport only in few countries (ok, we have india) but I cannot see how cricket could cause a major impact like the other thread about this was talking about. As a matter of fact hockey, cricket, nascar, F1... and all those great sports that cannot be "played" by the majority of the world cannot give to the world the "best athlete" or something like that.
Puros Y Vino Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Final word = Roberto Clemente. Don't make me lock this thread. As for cricket. I've watched several matches and appreciate some of the nuances but it bores me to tears. Thankfully there was plenty of booze to drink whilst watching. Otherwise my eyes would have rolled into the back of my head. Folks who think football(soccer) is boring. You don't know boring until you've watched cricket. The stats you presented Ken are interesting though.
Ken Gargett Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 Yeah..but he couldn't bowl.... he once took six wickets in an eight ball over. not bad. but in general agreed. and shlomo, the west? where does that leave england, australia etc?
Ken Gargett Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 I think objective criterias are more reliable than just "I think" but maybe what is missing in this research is the impact of their titles in population. Cricket is the main sport only in few countries (ok, we have india) but I cannot see how cricket could cause a major impact like the other thread about this was talking about. As a matter of fact hockey, cricket, nascar, F1... and all those great sports that cannot be "played" by the majority of the world cannot give to the world the "best athlete" or something like that. with respect, that is a really silly comment. first, bradman was raised a number of times in that other thread. presumably, what you actually mean is not a major sport in the united states or north america and therefore can't be taken seriously. things actually do happen in other parts of the world. the "majority" as you put it? short of soccer (not a major sport in the US so also presumably to be dismissed?), hard to think of a sport with so many playing/following? if you've ever been to india/pakistan/sri lanka, you'll know how obsessed they are. so a well over a billion to kick off. toss in south africa, west indies, us, england etc etc. much as i love the redskins and american football, in world terms it is a minority sport. it is okay to look beyond your own backyard.
Ken Gargett Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 You know what I meant.... North America.... shlomo, i wasn't feeling the love...
CanuckSARTech Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 What the F is Cricket. Xoxo LOL! No, I thought it was that thing where you take yarn and knit up booties and hand towels? No, I'm pretty sure it's either a competition on building old wooden catapults or it's when you play golf at night. We may never know. "Cricket is basically baseball on valium." Robin Williams Cricket? Isn't that what you feed a pet iguana? Mmmmmm, crunchy.
oliverdst Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 with respect, that is a really silly comment. first, bradman was raised a number of times in that other thread. presumably, what you actually mean is not a major sport in the united states or north america and therefore can't be taken seriously. things actually do happen in other parts of the world. the "majority" as you put it? short of soccer (not a major sport in the US so also presumably to be dismissed?), hard to think of a sport with so many playing/following? if you've ever been to india/pakistan/sri lanka, you'll know how obsessed they are. so a well over a billion to kick off. toss in south africa, west indies, us, england etc etc. much as i love the redskins and american football, in world terms it is a minority sport. it is okay to look beyond your own backyard. You totally misunderstood. Where did I say "what you actually mean is not a major sport in the united states or north america and therefore can't be taken seriously."? Read the criteria of the owner of the other thread. Maybe you will understand. EDIT: The person must have performed at the top of their game and dominated the sport for a considerable time. They must have went to considerable lengths to popularise their respective sport and promote it across the world. Their presence outside of the sport must be respectable and well behaved (so all those who are thinking tiger woods you can forget it) They must be a role model. Their efforts in charitable activities must be very well renowned.
Ken Gargett Posted May 31, 2013 Author Posted May 31, 2013 You totally misunderstood. Where did I say "what you actually mean is not a major sport in the united states or north america and therefore can't be taken seriously."? Read the criteria of the owner of the other thread. Maybe you will understand. EDIT: The person must have performed at the top of their game and dominated the sport for a considerable time. They must have went to considerable lengths to popularise their respective sport and promote it across the world. Their presence outside of the sport must be respectable and well behaved (so all those who are thinking tiger woods you can forget it) They must be a role model. Their efforts in charitable activities must be very well renowned. hang on - your original post went nowhere near the individual. you dismissed the sport. no mention at all of bradman so please do not now dismiss him in a complete revision of your original post. need reminding? "Cricket is the main sport only in few countries (ok, we have india) but I cannot see how cricket could cause a major impact like the other thread about this was talking about. As a matter of fact hockey, cricket, nascar, F1... and all those great sports that cannot be "played" by the majority of the world cannot give to the world the "best athlete" or something like that." your statement, with respect, is one that is so often heard outside the states (and yes, i have lived there so i have seen it from both sides and i know that it is not done maliciously, but it is done), unless of course i have indeed "misunderstood" and you are from greenland and upset we didn't including curling. the criteria? you've brought in those criteria, not me, but have a look at them. again, no disrespect, but the fact that you obviously know nothing about him does not rule him out. The person must have performed at the top of their game and dominated the sport for a considerable time. well he played at the highest international level from '28 to '48. i'm not certain anyone in cricket had played at that level for so long - possibly tendulkar and a few others - and bugger all in other sports. and he dominated the game for his entire career. the rest? They must have went to considerable lengths to popularise their respective sport and promote it across the world. Their presence outside of the sport must be respectable and well behaved (so all those who are thinking tiger woods you can forget it) They must be a role model. Their efforts in charitable activities must be very well renowned. he played in games around the globe including north america in efforts to promote the game everywhere. as well as a career as a stockbroker because cricket certainly didn't pay enough to live upon then, after his cricket career, he worked as an administrator/selector/member of the australian cricket board/delegate/you name it for four decades. not sure he could have done much more and not sure how many others do likewise. who does that today? they simply have far too much money to bother - and these positions were voluntary or a token payment only. he was talked into the 1948 tour of england at a time when he was 40. he had already retired, needing to make a living as cricket alone could not provide that and was on the australian cricket board, had suffered from various illnesses including fibrositis and nearly died earlier and remained quite weak all this time and his daughter had just been born with cerebal palsy. yet after the devastation of WWII and the suffering of the english people for so long, as part of the british empire he felt it his duty to put all of that aside and lead the australians on a tour intended to lift spirits, provide entertainment and create goodwill. so at 40, an age when hardly any other cricketer was near playing, he lead the australians on an arduous 34 match tour of england - playing far more games and grounds to go out amongst the people and entertain as many as he could. they were undefeated for that 34 match tour, something never achieved before or after - even on tours playing far fewer games. what else would you like from the bloke? and he still dominated his sport to a far greater extent than any other. so please explain to me exactly what i "misunderstood"? i stand by my original sentiment. or if you prefer, instead of 'silly' perhaps i should have said 'uninformed. myopic, near racist comment'.
oliverdst Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I was reading your post and thinking "you are right at this point... I am right at this one..." but in the last sentence you wrote "'uninformed. myopic, near racist comment'.". man, there is really no point against that. I live in Brazil, I know what racism is. I will discuss with you with all the respect, like I did, about any other issue, but this one is done.
coblos Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 yes, i realise fat chance of it ever being the last word ..while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. Wilt Chamberlain 1961 - 62 - 50.4 points per game & 27.5 rebounds per game 1962 - 63 - 44.8 points per game & 24.3 rebounds per game Not career stats, but for 2 seasons at least, hard to top Wilt the Stilt 43.0 points per game for a career of 10 years or more? Not impossible, but extremely unlikely it will ever happen.
Ken Gargett Posted May 31, 2013 Author Posted May 31, 2013 I was reading your post and thinking "you are right at this point... I am right at this one..." but in the last sentence you wrote "'uninformed. myopic, near racist comment'.". man, there is really no point against that. I live in Brazil, I know what racism is. I will discuss with you with all the respect, like I did, about any other issue, but this one is done. so i'm to cop the demeaning and condescending crap like 'maybe you will understand' while you state one thing and claim to have said something utterly different. you claim to know about about racism and yet dismiss a billion people from the world's largest democracy with a stroke of your pen? and then claim to have acted with respect? we have a very different definition of respect.
.png.b52dedce481a423e25f71a9cbde9fa07.png)
.png.150eac6a3524add353f958b942f4614a.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now