Jump to content

A list of some utterly Asinine and Hideous statements made by the Bradman Fanatics


Guest BossBhai

Recommended Posts

Ohh yeah it absolutely does. So that renders you request for bowlers list useless .... and then you talked abt understanding cricket! Because I have watched a lot of cricket and there us plenty of footage available of SRT spanking Donald, Polly, McGrath, Warne, Steyn,MuMu, etc etc. ok, your eyes. and i presume others don't do that in the footage available heres a better way to do H2H : Lara vs SRT when both are playing in the same Test. Here SRT is at a disadvantage given the strong WI bowling. Lara avgs : 37.66 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1934;template=results;type=batting SRT Avgs : 53.78 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=1982;template=results;type=batting ^ Is that a joke? On one hand you are asking for bowlers list and on the other presenting a meaningless piece of stats where both Lara and Ten played in and then further claim it is better! why not just use the career stats, what's all this drama about. you are making a mockery of your own points :hehe: Based on such (dumb) h2h, flower > srt Flower Avg 95 Sachin Avg 76 such h2h are mainly useful when comparing players from the same team ....
Ah ha, you are playing more childish games (and I thought you wanted to discuss like an adult) See my responses in Bold As srtfanatcssuck said "only stats that are relevant that shows SRT in good light" and we keep making and choosing stats as we please even if some of them nullifies some of our own previous arguments .... and this is suppose to be a logical discussion that adults do Thanks :hysterical:
Link to comment
ehh ? There existed no Marshall or Ambrose in Hammonds time. There isnt even a need for Ball-By-Ball data. End of story.
And you need ball by ball for srt vs whoever .... and in its absense, we use your ver of H2H (dumbest piece of stats ever done) :hehe: yes, and a 50 in WI shows raja > hammond :hysterical:
Yeah and your eyes saw Tendulkar being PWNED in Perth 92 thru Centurion 2010 while all others that are going beserk saw something else. Makes sense
well, i never said anyone got pawned .... my assumption is that all the greats batsmen are well 'great'. It is you who suggested taking bowling attacks into account and if we do take that the result are:
	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26


Yeah when interpreted thru a dumb brain like yours it does. What that stat proves is in those matches Flower was better than SRT ... no one disagrees with that.
So that again shows that the H2H stats you presented for Lara vs SRT were useless as they won't show one to be better than the other overall Either you think ppl have horns on their heads or you do ....
Link to comment
the above is supposed to show SRT > Lara But the below: "Based on such (dumb) h2h, flower > srt Flower Avg 95 Sachin Avg 76 such h2h are mainly useful when comparing players from the same team .... " only shows:
Yeah when interpreted thru a dumb brain like yours it does. What that stat proves is in those matches Flower was better than SRT ... no one disagrees with that.
:om:
Link to comment

I skimmed through your lovely posts and as usual there is nothing much in them: My point(s) is simple: 1. If the main argument is that SRT > Bradman based on bowling attacks, then first please show that SRT does well when ATG bowlers are bowling, and since you claim there was NO ATG bowlers in Bradman's time First let's identify some of sachin's peers: take Waugh and Lara for example. Now let's take the 3 best combinations that they faced with 200 runs as min cut off. The record against these 3 combinations should cover most scenarios and tell us what we want to know .... Bowlers: 1. McGrath-Warne 2. Pollock-Donald 3. Wasim-Waqar Since, we are taking these 3 in the opposition, the environment is the same of everyone. whether they get out to them or not, or score against them or others, etc is all constant. Thus:

	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26


Based on the above, are you willing to accept that either Waugh (avg) or Lara (more tests, almost double/triple than others) is better? 2. If the argument is that Raja > Hammond (this point is so :hysterical: ) because he scored a 50 against WI bowlers (Marshall and Ambrose) while Hammond didn't and there is no proof that Hammond would have even scored a 50 then please explain why: a) a 16 yrs old Tendulkar who didn't even play many first class games was able to do well against Pak and NZ. Amongst his first tours. Did the selectors compare bowlers' list before picking Tendulkar? b) why Sobers was able to avg almost twice in tests vs FC. The relatively poor FC avg doesn't give any proof that we would avg almost twice in tests. Until these two points are addressed to, further discussion is moot ....

Link to comment
Nor did I say anything about SRT > BCL or BCL > SRT in this regard ... So the reason why you bought it up in a discussion on RR vs WH is ....... ? No jackass what you are missing is some common sense ... because while comparing bonafide Greats you somehow manged to sneak in Andy Flower. And before you go into another round of stress testing on the smilies understand this : there is not even a need to compare AF vs SRT ... there is some sense in comparing BCL , RTP with SRT. If you think AF even qualifies for a comparison with SRT you have much more serious problems with your brain that you may want to address instead of wasting time on ICF.
noticed a couple of gems: No you did not say that but went further to provide a stats based on some dumb h2h in response to stats where players performance was based on bowling attacks the point was that the h2h stats that you gave is dumb and not Af>SRt or vice versa, that was clearly implied unless you missed it .... And PLEASE respond to the above post (#69) rather than cherry picking this one and pretending you are still in the debate :P
Link to comment
Based on your logic, Poor Gavaskar hasnt played tests in bd and africa so he cannot be rated vs those who did, I guess By your blah blah stuff, you are saying that highest runs, 100s etc doesn't matter .... So thanks If facing and doing well against better bowlers is a criteria then there are better batsmen than SRT .... Why don't you read the list of gems I gv on the previous pg. the points you make hv been made by others and thrown out a long time ago by many. They are not even worth reading, let alone replying to :winky:
Well here you go.If you cant argue just say they are already argued.Chickening out?I understand that feeling which posters like you get. Poor Gavaskar played in AUS WI and ENG.Pitches similar to the fast bouncy pitches of SA. BD?You serious? Please mention those better batsman.I posted a link long time ago,you can do it on SG.Put in a list of the bowlers who avg less than 30 in tests.Thats the Great to good bowlers and see how much Tendulkar avgs.
Link to comment
Well here you go.If you cant argue just say they are already argued.Chickening out?I understand that feeling which posters like you get. Poor Gavaskar played in AUS WI and ENG.Pitches similar to the fast bouncy pitches of SA. BD?You serious? Please mention those better batsman.I posted a link long time ago,you can do it on SG.Put in a list of the bowlers who avg less than 30 in tests.Thats the Great to good bowlers and see how much Tendulkar avgs.
Bhaisahab, this debate is going on for years and folks like you hv made those points before. You bring nothing new to the table and it isn't even exciting to read posts like you write There is a basic common sense that states that a player can only play in the environment that he is presented with. Your point ignores this and I am in no mood to go through the basics with you. May be sometimes later .... PS below are some of the points that folks like you make, let outsider know if you have anything new (point #15, #16, ....) to add:
1. Hammond did not face too many, if any, sub 25 averaging bowlers. Rameez Raja faced the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Bishop, Kapil, McGrath etc. etc. 2. Hammond did not face any super phaasht greater than 88.342 mph bowlers, even if he did - prove it. Rameez not only faced theses in tests, he used to regularly pad up against 3 super phaaashht bowlers in the nets as well. 3. Rameez Raja faced two all time great spinners in Warne and Murali. In One days he might have faced Kumble as well. Hammond did not face any of these bowlers. 4. Hammond never played a test in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Completely untested in the subcontinent. Rameez's elegance shone through specially on these kind of dust bowls. 5. Hammond never faced up to reverse swing - Rameez mastered it and also taught his teammates how to bowl it. 6. Hammond benefited from shoddy fielding standards of his time. Rameez had to contend with one of the best slip cordon in history when he played against Australia and the generally superb fielding of the modern era. 7. Rameez had to constant shuffle between ODIs and tests - Hammond could just concentrate on one format. In fact, Rameez ended up winning the world cup in the shorter format as well proving his importance in both formats. 8. Hammond had the advantage of getting accustomed to conditions being part of longer tours. Rameez had to rush into from one match to another. 9. Less hectic traveling schedule. Rameez was your modern globetrotter. 10. Hammond benefited from the friendly leg before laws. Poor Rameez had to restructure his entire batting to negate getting out leg before so often restricting his often imperious stroke play at times. 11. Rameez opened against the fearsome bowling attacks of his time, Hammond had to hide in the middle order. 12. The sledging that Hammond faced was nothing compared to what Rameez had to endure during his playing days. Huge factor in determining averages and difficulty of conditions. 13. Rameez Raja, on his 12 favorite grounds, averaged 59.05 more than Hammond's career average! 14. Rameez Raja played in an era when wins and losses meant much more than in Hammond's era. With so many handicaps for Rameez, I think in the modern era with batting so much more difficult his average of 31.83 easily surpasses Hammond's 58.45. Keep in mind, Hammond barely averaged 50 against Australia and that 58 is mainly a result of bashing minnows, which unfortunately Rameez never got the opportunity to do - poor guy never even played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/14022.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/42420.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting
Link
Link to comment
Which is why it helps to read what is written carefully once in a while ... because bowling attacks is not the only criteria that was used in the SRT > DGB debate. It is just but one amongs't a whole damn big fking list ( which I aint going to bother re-hashing again ). And here's the big news flash : There is NO just one bleddy batsman today that comes up top in EACH of these categories. Thats the nature of Cricket today. You can continue to shout all you want but it don't matter. So how do we seperate the winner is a totally different debate. But the reason why DGB is exculded from this list is because he has simply NO DATA in his resume to even qualify for a comparison. If you think he does then start looking at Bradman's data to prove your point. Ohh and sorry but imaginary data doesnt count. So moral of the story is don't rely on data of XYZ vs SRT to prove your case ... even if you win the XYZ vs SRT debate all you are proving is that XYZ (and XYZ only) is better than SRT and NOT DGB > SRT. So at this point decide what you want to do. You have 2 choices : 1. XYZ vs SRT or 2. SRT vs DGB.
let's discuss this criteria, you can answer assuming that you will pull something out of the hat to show that srt is the greatest despite the answer to this .... so do you accept based on the stats given that others hv an edge when facing those bowlers? Only things you have been doing of late is: * asking for bowlers list * posting crap videos to show standards were crap then On top of that, you said Raja > Hammond based on Raja scoring a 50 against Marshall, Ambrose and Walsh. So can you tell me what other criteria did you take into account to say Raja > Hammond? And seriously, you said "NO DATA" :hysterical:
Link to comment
So you want to discuss 1. XYZ vs SRT 2. SRT vs DGB Pick one.
As you hv discovered, vs DBG SRT has no "real" chance so why not make yourself competitive by picking someone else :dontknow: First show he is the best test batsman of his generation, then compare him with Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, then sobers, pollock, etc .... and if you can show that he is not only ahead but ahead by a margin (like in his own league), we can consider vs don :--D PS b4 you get into that^, don't forget to answer questions in the last post (#74)
Link to comment
And as you have discovered DGB has no "REAL" chance ( plenty of imaginary ones though ) ... so for starters why don't you come back with a list of Bowlers that DGB faced who were in the league of those faced by SRT and batting abilities in varied conditions as SRT and in different formats of the game to qualify for a comparison. :smokin: Have you decided what you want to discuss as i asked in #72 ?
That list is irrelevant esp in light of how Sachin fared vs his peers against the bowling combinations discussed I answered your question in my last post. First let's see if SRT is in the league of his own than we can think abt vs don .... Now answer my questions or we can close this discussion :--D
Link to comment
That list is irrelevant esp in light of how Sachin fared vs his peers against the bowling combinations discussed I answered your question in my last post. First let's see if SRT is in the league of his own than we can think abt vs don .... Now answer my questions or we can close this discussion :--D
So now your argument is that sachin was not in a league if his own? How does this prove bradman was better than him? Ps only morons go by averages alone for any kind of comparison as there is no brain required to just look at numbers and reach a conclusion Pps - average against a bowler doesn't mean average was caused by the presence of that bowler.
Link to comment
it doesn't matter what YOU think ... LoL ... Nobody cares or rates batsmen based on how badly they beat up modest bowlers like how DGB did. irrelevant and redundant when deciding about pure and absolute batting skills. End of story.
Which is why Sachin isn't in the league of his own :winky: /thread
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...