'Only Ponting can beat Tendulkar's record'

[The Outsider]

Because the first day of calender would have been 1.1.0001 not 1.1.0000

Where can I find this first calendar? Any links of Wikipedia? See, the simple fact is that time is measured from t=0 in science and after that it is a matter of rescaling to your ADs and BCs. Show me one paper on Physics where time is measured from t=1.

[moumotta]

Where can I find this first calendar? Any links of Wikipedia? See, the simple fact is that time is measured from t=0 in science and after that it is a matter of rescaling to your ADs and BCs. Show me one paper on Physics where time is measured from t=1.

Then why don't we have Day 0 or Month 0.

[The Outsider]

Then why don't we have Day 0 or Month 0.

Who knows? But were you able to find a Physics paper where time starts at t=1?

[Anakin]

Tendulkar is more focussed in creating records hence it'll be difficult for Ponting to even dream of catching up with Tendulkar..

Exactly :hatsoff:

[TumTum]

Then why don't we have Day 0 or Month 0.

Because they are called "1st" "2nd" etc. You can't have a 0th. However time does start at 0, always.

[zen]

Like what many have said, if you are talking about 2000s then its 2000-2009 :winky: 2010s would be from 2010 to 2019. No need to say, this is first year of 2010s :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s

[zen]

No' date=' I don't 'think' the decade started in 2000, the vast majority of the world accepts that it started in 2000, except for some lunatics like you,[b'] who would go to the extent of redefining a calendar as long as Tendulkar comes across better than everyone. It must take some caliber to be of a tool of the level to claim 2000 was part of the 1990s decade.

:giggle:

[zen]

LINK For 2000s, after removing BD and Zim, Tendulkar is not even in the top 5! Comparing with Ponting, here is how they stand: Ponting: 100 matches, 8839 runs @ 57 with 30 hundreds Tendulkar: 78 matches, 5758 runs @ 47 with 15 hundreds If you see the link, the top Indian batsmen like Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag all did better than Tendulkar in the 2000s PS this is what is surprising that in the 2000s hardly anyone felt like comparing Tendulkar w/ Sir Don Bradman despite the factors some of these people use to run down DBG now would have existed then too. Suddenly Tendulkar has a good year in 2010 and we have people pointing fingers at the Don :giggle:

[Roshanrocks]

:fail: :offtopic: :--D :P :giggle:

[moumotta]

Physics or continuity of time have nothing to do with it. The duration from time zero to time 24 hours is Day 1. Similarly the duration from time zero to 365 days is Year 1. Hence the First century begins in year 1 and Twentyfirst century begins in year 2001. You can define a decade to start when ever you want. Ponting had a better average in years 200x but Tendulkar inches past him in the First Decade of the Twenty First Century. :--D

[akshayxyz]

Man, even an unambiguously written wiki article could not cross some retina-left_brain-barriers-! As per definition of a decade - it is just a period of 10 years, with no specified starting date/year/time. 2000-2009 is a decade, 2001-2010 is also a decade, 2004-2013 would also qualify as a decade. By convention - "decade of 1990s" is 1990-1999, "decade of 2000s" is 2000-2009, However, 199th decade is 1991-2000 200th decade is 2001-2010. And picking a 'random' decade to support certain stats is as meaningless as picking any other parameters just to filter out/up certain players. Think again - XYZ player was best from 2001 to 2010, but was not so from 2000 to 2009.. It cant get any dumber.

[yoda]

^^Well a poll is meaningless if the outcome isn't to your liking. A decade is meaningless/random if the outcome isn't to your liking. Is there a recurring theme here? :winky:

[CSK Fan]

Why would anyone with half a brain count time from 1? It's a continuous distribution and should be counted from 0.

first of all, i dont care whether Sachin is behind or in front in which particular period. This is a different discussion My understanding of the way our calendar is used is that it starts with 1. So 1 Ad was the first year. Was there a 0 AD? So even if the time began with 0 year, 1 was completed only after the end of 1 year. if thats the case, wouldnt the decade be over after the first ten years, i.e, 1 to 10 with 10 included? If we are counting 10 AD as the beginning of a new decade wouldn't the first decade have only 9 complete years? In other examples in life, for example money, etc, counting starts with 1 and not zero. So if I have 2 million dollars, my first million will include the millionth dollar and my next million will start with one million and one. I always believed this was how the years were counted too.

[CSK Fan]

LINK For 2000s, after removing BD and Zim, Tendulkar is not even in the top 5! Comparing with Ponting, here is how they stand: Ponting: 100 matches, 8839 runs @ 57 with 30 hundreds Tendulkar: 78 matches, 5758 runs @ 47 with 15 hundreds If you see the link, the top Indian batsmen like Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag all did better than Tendulkar in the 2000s PS this is what is surprising that in the 2000s hardly anyone felt like comparing Tendulkar w/ Sir Don Bradman despite the factors some of these people use to run down DBG now would have existed then too. Suddenly Tendulkar has a good year in 2010 and we have people pointing fingers at the Don :giggle:

there is no doubt Sachin was way below par in 2000s and i dont think anyone will argue. He had some career threatening injuries and a couple of really low years(which Ponting is going through now)

[akshayxyz]

first of all, i dont care whether Sachin is behind or in front in which particular period. This is a different discussion My understanding of the way our calendar is used is that it starts with 1. So 1 Ad was the first year. Was there a 0 AD? So even if the time began with 0 year, 1 was completed only after the end of 1 year. if thats the case, wouldnt the decade be over after the first ten years, i.e, 1 to 10 with 10 included? If we are counting 10 AD as the beginning of a new decade wouldn't the first decade have only 9 complete years? In other examples in life, for example money, etc, counting starts with 1 and not zero. So if I have 2 million dollars, my first million will include the millionth dollar and my next million will start with one million and one. I always believed this was how the years were counted too.

MTC - we don't need to trouble our brain on this one. Just follow the established conventions. Even if you are right, it will take monumental effort to change the established ones :). And, in no way I am suggesting to pick one definition of decade over other. Just that there are two 'forms' of decades - nth and 90s,80s, etc. And I am glad that these two definitions exist otherwise one fan club would have had advantage over the other to pull out yet another meaningless stat ;).

[CSK Fan]

MTC - we don't need to trouble our brain on this one. Just follow the established conventions. Even if you are right, it will take monumental effort to change the established ones :). And, in no way I am suggesting to pick one definition of decade over other. Just that there are two 'forms' of decades - nth and 90s,80s, etc. And I am glad that these two definitions exist otherwise one fan club would have had advantage over the other to pull out yet another meaningless stat ;).

But the question is, it this an established convention? Established by whom? In many newspapers I have seen decades being defined by how I thought it would be so I was really puzzled that everyone didnt think like that! This is what wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade Since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

[DomainK]

MTC - we don't need to trouble our brain on this one. Just follow the established conventions. Even if you are right, it will take monumental effort to change the established ones :). And, in no way I am suggesting to pick one definition of decade over other. Just that there are two 'forms' of decades - nth and 90s,80s, etc. And I am glad that these two definitions exist otherwise one fan club would have had advantage over the other to pull out yet another meaningless stat ;).

But the question is' date=' it this an established convention? Established by whom? In many newspapers ?I have seen decades being defined by how I thought it would be[/quote'] I think MTC is right. I don't think there is much dispute about that.

[virufan]

Mind you it is a moving target.:winky:

[zen]

For those who like to calculate from 1 Jan 2001: Nothing changes much as can be seen from http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;spanmax1=1+Jan+2011;spanmin1=1+Jan+2001;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting After removing BD and Zim, Tendulkar is still behind Ponting and below Indian batsmen like Sehwag and Laxman (in terms of average)! He is on par with Dravid, who has fractionally ahead. Batsman - Avg Sehwag and Ponting - 55 Laxman - 53 Dravid and Tendulkar - 51 :P

[akshayxyz]

But the question is, it this an established convention? Established by whom? In many newspapers I have seen decades being defined by how I thought it would be so I was really puzzled that everyone didnt think like that! This is what wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade Since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

Man...If you read my previous posts, I also gave same link, text.. And I further explained also. As for newspapers - I would give Wikipedia more credibility than newspapers. And why I say that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Decade Let me repeat again - a decade is nothing but a set of ten years. 1990s (1990-1999) is a different group/set than 199th decade(1991-2000)- differing by starting year only. If you or anyone else strongly feel that you have better reasoning, or you have a challenge to existing Wikipedia article - then go ahead, I encourage you to go there - edit it- contribute to the discussion... it does not cost anything.