Jump to content

Bublu Bhuyan

Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    2d 11h 21m 13s

About Bublu Bhuyan

  • Rank
    Prince of Calcutta
  • Birthday 09/27/1986


  • Biography
    Ask me!
  • Location
    Guwahati, Assam
  • Interests
    Cricket, cricket & cricket .... oh, and wrestling as well.
  1. Virat Kohli behaved like a clown in South Africa: Paul Harris

    Don't know whether Kohli behaved like a clown or not, since that's objective. But what's sure is Paul Harris was made to look like a clown in international cricket, his third class bowling average of 38 odd is testament to that.
  2. Manju says,"Can we turn the stump mics down, please?"

    He has always had a man-crush on Imran.
  3. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    What you said about Viv is very much true. His game was based on dominating attacks. But him having just 3 double hundreds in his career can't be justified by that. Sehwag too was a dominating batsman, but he scored much more double and triple hundreds than Viv. Viv is a very, very strong contender for being the second greatest ever after Bradman. It's also true that Sachin having 6 double hundreds in his Test career isn't exactly great returns. But then again, Viv having 3 double hundreds in 121 Tests isn't exactly great either.
  4. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    Looks like a certain troll's post has been deleted, LOL. Ironically, I made my previous post in response to that troll's trolly post.
  5. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    For the sane fans, please ignore troll posts. It leads to nowhere. Besides, never feed a troll. Any posts that has no substance to it instead consists of hate or childish insults or a statement not backed up by logic or facts are not worth replying to. And the more you feed the trolls, the more they will troll. Please refrain yourselves.
  6. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    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.
  7. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    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.
  8. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    Because that list was made in 2000, and Sachin was not even halfway through his career. Apart from Warne, each and every other cricketer of that list finished their respective careers. Also, I was specifically speaking of batsmen, not cricketers. I mentioned that before, didn't I? Let's have a look at those 5 cricketers Bradman - I already said he's the greatest batsman and the greatest cricketer ever Sobers - I have already said no one apart from Bradman comes close to him as a cricketer Hobbs - I mentioned him previously, please have a look. According to me he is a contender of being the second greatest batsman ever. Warne - He was a bowler. And Warne absolutely revolutionized leg spin bowling. Viv - I mentioned him before. Once again, he's a contender of being the second greatest batsmen ever. But most of all, all of those 4 batsmen finished their respective careers long ago. Sachin was just 11 years into his career. Simple. I never discredited those honorable cricketers previously, did I? They deserve the honor.
  9. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    1. Bradman 2. Hobbs/Sobers/Viv/Sachin That's how I see it. But I'm speaking of only batsmen. If we're speaking of cricketers then Bradman and Sobers are much ahead of everyone else. Nobody apart from Bradman is even close to Sobers.
  10. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    Bradman included him in his All Time XI. Not even Viv made it. Why?
  11. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    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 did 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 and under the payroll of the BCCI 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, bar Brian Lara? 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.
  12. The power of alcohol: Tiger runs away from a gutsy student

    Exactly. If he can do something as idiotic like this, who is to say he won't do equally idiotic things in the future? And he won't be lucky everytime.
  13. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    Like I said before, it's easy to simply bring in Sehwag's superior ability to dominate attacks at home more than Sachin. But batting has many other aspects, and many of them are far more important than just the ability to dominate at home. Let's just talk of one such aspect, let's compare Sachin and Sehwag's performances away from Asia Sehwag - 63 (innings); Runs - 2145; 35.36 (ave); 100's - 5 Sachin - 128 (innings); Runs - 6007; 50.9 (ave); 100's - 18 So if we talk about Sehwag's superior ability of dominating attacks at home, why shouldn't we talk of Sachin's ultra superior ability of performing in alien conditions, an abilty which is far more important for a batsman? And mind you, Sachin wasn't a mug at performing at home, he did play aggressively (although nowhere as aggressively as Sehwag), but Sehwag was an absolute mug compared to Sachin in his ability to perform in alien conditions. You see it's easy to bring in a certain aspect of a player's game and claim his superiority over Sachin based solely on that criteria. The thing to remember however is that there are many other far more important aspects where Sachin beats that player black and blue. Quite simple really.
  14. 20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

    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.
  15. Apple closing on 1 trillion market cap !!!

    It's Rs. 1 lakh approx for the iPhone X 256 GB. Quite a big amount, not humongous though.

Guest, sign in to access all features.