leicsmac

Well, as an example, the average of Steve Smith is 58.61, and his average when you take Tests in England and Aus only is slightly higher (around 60). Perhaps other players would have higher spikes though. It's certainly an interesting thought.

That's fair enough and I can see the points made regarding complexity. If we go that way, however, then IMO three whole argument is redundant and you can only compare within eras, not give a "greatest of all time" anyway. So I guess my viewpoint is that if the argument itself is valid through whatever comparative metric is used, the greatest of all time is Bradman and it isn't even anywhere near close.

... and still no one comes close to his average using matches in Australia and England alone. Of course it's a different game these days in terms of where it's played, but I honestly don't see the debate when his numbers are so far ahead of anyone at any point in history, before or since.

Watching Planet Earth III, the avarice of (some) humans and what it does to natural environments and animals really grinds my gears.

From Wiki, the amount of standard deviations above the average the greatest sportsmen are in some sports. But it's not just how far ahead of the mean he is, it's how far ahead he is of everyone else in the history of the game being played.

Across the Test format, I'd say he would be much better than everyone else, yeah, because if he wasn't, others would have matched or at least come close to his records at some point in history. None have. ODI's and T20's, who knows? That's much more speculative - after all, the man never hit a six in his entire Test career.

Hopefully so. Not nearly so much unhappiness as with VAR, and I daresay much less than there would be if TMO/VAR wasn't there, either. Agreed regarding the differences in the game, but the communication and explanations between the officials in rugby is so much better than in football, for one thing. There's definitely things to learn there. A well-applied technological system reduces human errors in play, and IMO that is something to strive for rather than permitting it out of some rose-tinted idealism of what football "should" be.

Yeah, I think so. There is such a clear and marked statistical difference between Bradman and his peers at the time, and between Bradman and todays batsmen, and so much less of a difference between all other batsmen both of his time and now, that it is a reasonably logical assumption he would have been superlative to everyone else in our era or any era between now and his own.

Learn from the rugby TMO system which works far better and get automated offside in, don't ditch the system entirely.

He's certainly one of the best, that's true. I think though for me the truth will always remain Bradman >>>> lots of truly great batsmen including Kohli, Tendulkar, Lara etc. There's a big second tier of greats but they're always going to be second tier because the Don occupies a space all his own.

In the way that a statistically significant portion of the fanbase think he's the best batsman to ever draw breath, which isn't true (or equal with Tendulkar in that regard, and he's not the greatest either). Sorry for calling out that particular fanbase directly, but I guess I spend too much time browsing cricket comments on the Internet and I do see it regularly.

Kohli is a sensation. The numbers speak for themselves. Not nearly as good as around a billion people think he is, but sensational nevertheless.

Well, there's a reason the home team have won the last three World Cups.

I think there's a choice ahead where it's going to be near-full automation and UBI, or anarchy and/or dystopia as people either rebel against an increasingly unequal system or are crushed by it. Here's hoping it's the former.

Afghanistan have done damn well this Cup. They probably won't beat the Aussies or Saffers to get to the semi finals, but they've certainly made a noise.

You know how everyone has a line they won't cross? Yeah, as tech embracing as I am, here's mine.

Which is a damn shame because I got caught up in the hero worship at first, especially given the success of SpaceX.

Sadly he's a rich and influential techbro, and we know how that plays out.

For some reason the word "cosplay" just set off some really weird ideas about what those guys get up to.

Would agree with this but add the caveat: "and no or inadequate provision is made for that human to find other work at equal pay and/or survive". Buckminster Fuller had it right - automation does have the potential to make life much less drudgery and much more leisurely for lots of human beings. But it really really does come down to how it's applied and the human element of greed and abuse of power.

Yeah, looking at it that way what a lot of people think is inconsequential. Luddism just triggers me too much. That being said, the Chinese government (and by extension their people) likely have influence in this field too, so it isn't just rich private individuals at work on this.

Absolutely this is all true. However, I see too many folks using this as a justification to abandon the advancement of the tech entirely, which would be an equally bad if not worse mistake imo.

The first harvesting machine (and other associated agricultural devices). A landmark that allowed the development of modern civilisation as we know it and made the lives of everyone immeasurably easier. And Internet porn.

I'd rather The Expanse than oblivion tbh (though for me the former leads to the latter in short order anyway), but yeah, fair points all.