Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    133d 3h 33m 22s

Posts posted by putrevus

  1. 10 minutes ago, MechEng said:

    Dravid is a superior batsman and slip fielder than Kohli no doubt, but the responsibilities Kohli is undertaking is crazy, he is the captain in all 3 formats in internationals and also the captain of RCB team. Dravid starting peaking in late twenties and early thirties and Kohli is already talking about burnout being 29 does tells us something.

    I don't think Dravid is superior batsman than Kohli.Better slip fielder yes but Kohli is already in top two overall batsman from India.Only Sachin is ahead . Kohli has awful record in England , Dravid was equally awful in 1999-2000 series in Australia. His record in SL and  SA is not that great either. 

  2. 2 minutes ago, MechEng said:

    Zak paaji was injured so they needed another left arm quick to add variety to the attack, Sreesanth swinging it away and Unadkutter nipping the ball back in. 

    But there is something called talent and ability. This guy has none of those as he showcased them so wonderfully then and still doing it.Don't know how the hell IPL teams have paid such a ransom to him either.


    On 3/10/2018 at 12:25 PM, prinzo said:

    He made a good 50 today against Australia. He is south africa greatest batsmen. Nevermind Graeme Pollock. I am so glad he got the highest individual score 300 plus against England. 

    How is he South Africa greatest batsman, Is he better than AB or Kallis?? I don't think so. He is among the top 5 five.

  4. 4 minutes ago, Vilander said:

    how do you say that ? he seems good enough based on what he has done so far, Tests i dont know never seen him play FC an 21 wickets in three seasons means he is not really a bowler who can be banked on, but batting looks solid. may be he has bowled better last season and need 1-2 seasons to prove he belongs, then a shot ? 29 ish could go on a a 3-4 years if he is successful, you never know.

    I hope I am wrong but as a test prospect I don't see him making it.Well he is going to get his chances in Odis and T20s where he can show his talent may be he is late bloomer as you said.

  5. 1 minute ago, Vilander said:

    not convinced that Chennai is that flat a wicket it takes spin for sure but its a true pitch and has always had test matches played in it Nagpur a times can be flat, Rajkot is a ODi ground if i am not wrong. Generally Indian wickets are flat dustbowls i dont think there is much variance in between them to call some flat and some sporting, ofcourse the traditional new green wickets are good the freshly laid eden dharamshala till last season, mohali a few years back but those are against the norm of flat indian wickets.


    Not sure about vijay shankars batting seriously or bowling may be he needs a couple of more seasons in domestic i agree, but just curious what did pandya do in domestics before getting a test call up ?

    He is 27 if he needs more maturing then he will never be international class.Pandya I feel got a test cap based on his bowling speed and I still don't think he is good enough to no 6 long term.


    Pandya has been given a gift which very few people get it, it is totally up to him to sustain it.I don't think he will last long as I just don't see enough batting ability especially against fast bowlers to last longer.

  6. 8 minutes ago, Vilander said:

    is the rest of the country spitting mambas ? and even if Chennai is extremely flat does his bowling average get a benefit then ?

    Rest of country may not be spitting mambas but Chennai, Nagpur and Rajkot are few pitches which are just flat and they are nightmare for bowlers.His highest FC  score is 111 which is very low for a guy who will have to bat in top six that too playing in Chennai.


    We could give his bowling average a benefit but he has taken just 21 FC wickets in five season what benefit of doubt you want to give to it.


    I am talking about test team not odis or t20s. You don't give test caps based on what he has shown so far.

  7. On 10/13/2017 at 10:42 AM, maniac said:

    Exactly doesn't need to...a genuine no 5 who can bowl a few overs like Watson is what we need him to be...we already have Pandya so we can accommodate both

    You are underestimating how good a bowler Watson was,moreover Watson the batsman other than his plonking front foot issue was very good and under achieved  as a batsman.


    I have never seen Shankar bat but if he is anywhere close to Watson, he should be in the team ASAP.

  8. On 3/13/2018 at 11:39 PM, Bublu Bhuyan said:

    Big hundreds or marathon innings in Test cricket is defined by 150+ knocks. Guess which batsman has the most 150+ knocks in test cricket history? Sure, he does not have the most double hundreds or any triple hundreds, I'll have to agree. But then again, Viv Richards has no triple centuries either, and he has just 3 double hundreds compared to Sachin's 6 double hundreds.

    Many argue this about this Richards including his own team's fast bowlers."he was never after stats and all he cared was winning so he never chased any records".


    Richards as a test batsman I would not put him as greatest.He had one of the greatest year statistically in 1976 but he never reached that heights again.


    But what differentiated Richards with his peers is his SR.Sachin on other hand played two hundred tests and has 6 double hundreds which is a very poor return for batsman who is in conversation of being greatest of all time. 

  9. 1 hour ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

    Like I said before, I don't consider him the undisputed best batsman ever. However, I do believe that he has a strong claim of being the  second greatest batsman ever. Sobers, Viv and Hobbs too have equally strong claims of being the second greatest batsman ever. There are guys like George Headley and Graeme Pollock who have enormous peer appreciation and are considered among the best. Unfortunately they played very little international cricket and hence (in my opinion) don't qualify.

    Like I said before also in many posts before, Tendulkar in my book is a great batsmen but never was head and shoulders above his peers as many made him out to be.


    He also never translated his enormous talent he had into match winning contributions for his team as he should have done it.One of main reasons for that is he never got to learn art of scoring big hundreds as he was blooded too young.

  10. 11 minutes ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

    Of course Sachin fans will have bias for him and will rate him as the greatest. Just like Pakistani fans have a bias for Imran Khan and consider him the greatest all rounder ever, even though the entire cricketing fraternity considers Garry Sobers as the one and only greatest.


    Why do Sachin fans consider him the greatest? Because the cricketing fraternity considers him as one of the very best ever. It's not like the rest of the world doesn't consider him one, yet the Sachin fans keep insisting.


    Why do you think he made Bradman's XI, Benaud's XI, WISDEN's XI, Cricinfo's XI? Why couldn't Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Sangakkara, etc make it to those teams? Were they compiled by Sachin fans? David Gower compiled his list of 50 greatest cricketers and he placed Sachin at #3, just behind Bradman and Sobers. Why? You've got to think about it, why does he keep receiving unrepresented applauds from the cricketing fraternity? Why does Richie Benaud consider him the greatest batsman he has ever seen since the time of Bradman? Why exactly? The only thing you might say is that they're all sell outs who made those lists, like a lot of Pakistanis do.


    It would have been a completely different matter if he had merely numbers by his side with no more applaud than the rest of the greats, but he leaves the rest of the greats bar Sobers, Viv and Bradman into dust when it comes to peer reputation. One is not born with that, you have to earn it. Why couldn't the rest of the greats earn even 10% of the peer reputation/respect that he did? What prevented them? When a player receives such universal acclaim, of course his die hard fans will claim him to be the greatest.


    At the same time no one is asking you to follow suit. You have the liberty to have your own opinion, but you can't really force your opinion down other people's neck. You see there's simply no point in name calling and hurling childish insults at others.

    He made all those XI's because he was great that is never point of debate.The debate is all about if he was the greatest, no one claimed Ponting, Kallis, or Sanga as greatest of all time.Lara some have argued and made case about him being greatest.


    Sachin is definitely one of the greats of this game but he simply is not the greatest. I never said you asked me to follow your suit.I am just offering my two cents on your argument.Is it the point of any forum, offering different views and presenting different perspectives.


    Who said rest of the greats did not earn 10% his reputation. People fear of backlash of massive Indian fan base and BCCI if they keep sachin out of any all time XIs too that is one of the main reasons in my opinion he is featured in most people's XI.


    Bradman just said Sachin played like him but it is most often construed as Bradman saying Sachin was as good as him.

  11. 11 hours ago, prinzo said:

    How is David Warner not.suspend aswel for.acting like.a thug.  He had to he held back

     The ICC is a bunch of two faced people.  

    Icc is never hard on players from Australia or England especially if they are white and that is just how it has operated in past and unfortunately it is still operating like that even now.


    Broad, Anderson, Warner and Stokes are serial offenders but never get any punishment.

  12. 5 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

    If you were expecting Sachin to dominate like Sehwag or Gilchrist did, the problem lies with you. Sehwag and Gilchrist are known for them dominating attacks. A player doesnot necessarily have to score at an SR of 90+ in a year in order for him to be termed an aggresive or dominating batsman. Just an example, we all know Lara was known as someone who loved dominating bowlers. What's his career SR in Tests? It's 60, which is not even close to Sehwag or Gilchrist's SR. Why exactly was he known as an aggressive batsman with an urge to dominate attacks in that case? Same with Hayden, he had an SR of 60 odd. Why was he known to be an aggressive batsman? Sachin had an SR of 86+ in ODI cricket throughout the 90s. The only other batsman in that era with a better SR was Jayasuriya who had an SR of 89 back then, although he was terribly inconsistent. An SR of 70 was very respectable back then. That's why he was known to be a dominating/aggressive batsman. It's obviously a different case in Tests, he was the mainstay in the batting department and he could not cut loose like a maniac in that format, but most of all the format didn't require him to cut loose. Yet he played plenty of innings with an SR of more than 60 or 70. Now you'll tell me that an SR of 60 odd can't be termed as aggressive one. Why exactly were Lara and Hayden termed aggressive batsman in that case?


    No, he did not dominate at home like Sehwag did, but then again no one apart from Gilchirst in history did so either. But most of all, does anyone claim that he dominated like Sehwag at home? Most rational cricket fans would prefer a complete batsman with a respectable strike rate who can score in all conditions and at all places rather than someone like Sehwag who would tonk bowlers in favorable conditions at home while become a walking wicket in alien conditions. Sehwag is someone one would have if the batting line up already has stalwarts who are good enough to take the team to a respectable score in case the hit and miss Sehwag goes missing. No one with a brain would consider Sehwag in a brittle line up because he is not someone the team can depend on to score runs particularly in alien conditions.


    As for your second part, a player doesn't necessarily have score over 500 runs in a series to be the MVP in that series, he can be so even by scoring 499 runs. Yes, Sachin didn't score 500 or more runs in a series. But more so, why do we keep hearing that from some people? Because that's one factor they can knock on him. Basically they all keep looking for holes in him, the moment they find even a marginal one, they jump to rooftops and keep screaming about it for the others to take notice. A player can be the MVP of a series when he performs better than the rest of his team mates, not necessarily if he scores 500 odd runs or takes 30 odd wickets in the series.

    No one said Sehwag was better than Sachin nor no claimed Sehwag was the All time greatest batsmen. Like other very good batsmen of his Era Sehwag has his flaws too.


    Sachin is only batsmen whom his fans in particular argue as ATG batsman and many of those rate him higher than Don Bradman.That is problem  and that is point of debate.Sachin in any book does not fit profile of greatest batsmen of all time.


    He was great batsman who never had dominating run like many of his peers or past great batsmen.But he was very consistent without being dominating and he was technically very good so he could adapt in all conditions.I would rate him as technically most adaptable batsman of all time.Sachin had very long career ( we can argue whether it needed to that long but that topic is for another time) and that longevity is his greatest achievement.It shows how great he was in terms of adapting to changing needs of modern day cricket.



  13. When did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks away from Asia? Also when did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks in Asia as much as Sehwag did? All I said is that Sachin did dominate attacks in the 90's, something Kallis couldn't do in his entire career. What about Sehwag being a walking wicket most of the times outside Asia? So if Sehwag holds an advantage over Sachin of being being better in Asia (mind you Sachin was brilliant as well), Sachin holds the advantage of being awesome away from Asia (something Sehwag fails miserably in).
    It's hilarious seeing people bringing in multiple factors from multiple players and comparing all of them with a single player i.e Sachin. Sehwag's dominance, Ponting's team victories, Kallis's and Sangakkara's superior overall average, Dravid's slightly better average away from Asia (although he was a big time flop in SA, and wasn't anything special in Aus) ...... and then compare all of them to a single player :))

    Ok Sachin didn’t dominate away from him , whom did he dominate at Home like Sehwag.Other than his 155 and him dominating Warne who did Sachin dominate at home.

    Sachin was a dominant force in Odis that too in Asia especially in 1998 and 1999.Sachin never dominated any test series away or home as evidenced by his lack of 500 plus in a single series or scoring hundreds in both innings.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. 14 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

    For example, how good Sehwag was against spinners. What about his miserable performance outside Asia where he doesn't even hold a candle to Sachin? Sangakkara's average ... well how about his average away from Asia? Kallis's consistency .... well how about his horrible strike rate and the fact that he never, ever was able to dominate attacks like Sachin did?

    Sehwag is never mentioned as All time best .He does not have his fans fighting when someone points his flaws.Sehwag in full flow against spinners is not just good but he was in my book the best against spinners.He is the best Indian batsman in Asia , unlike any other Indian batsmen he has excellent record in Pakistan and Srilanka.His unbeaten 201 is one of the best knocks by any Indian batsmen.


    He was pathetic against fast bowlers away from Asia.He would agree with that assessment also.What attacks has Sachin dominated away from India, I have never seen Sachin dominate like Sehwag did in Asia.Did Sachin dominate any attack like Sehwag did in Asia if yes where, I would love to know it.

  15. 2 minutes ago, The Dark Horse said:

    Tell me why Raina, Yuvi etc failed and now Rohit is failing in tests.


    What has that got to do with Badri not getting chances. The three you mentioned are/were proven odi performers who performed in big stages in odis so naturally will get more chances as they are in public eye more. To overcome that a player like Badri has to be Bradmanesque which he was not so he got limited chances. 


    Rohit has FC average better than Badri and his test record in India is very good too.

Guest, sign in to access all features.