zen Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 You said the other day that you started watching during the 1996 WC but don't remember matches in the 90s. :hmmm: Appears as if you hv me confused with someone else Anyways, what's the issue here?
adi B Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 thomas odoyo nd heath streak are the best all rounders this universe will ever witness ... handsdown :giggle:
The Outsider Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 koi gustaakhi ho gayi hai to maafi de do pracharya mahoday, humein nahi pata tha noble prize aapke kar kamlon se baanta jaata hai. Waise clarify kar deta hoon... when I say "cross era comparison does not make sense" - it is my polite way of saying, that such a study is beyond the auqat of most of the enlightenment-ki-torch bearers, esp likes of rettards with proven 2 paise ka background/credibility. Okay, so can you say *something* about who was the better all rounder between Sobers and Tendulkar without resorting to the complicated simulations that you keep referring to? Once you've answered that question, try to answer if we can say *something* about Bradman and Tendulkar. If it has Hammond/Hutton and Tendulkar, yeah I would agree we need the sophisticated simulations you are talking about.
akshayxyz Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Okay, so can you say *something* about who was the better all rounder between Sobers and Tendulkar without resorting to the complicated simulations that you keep referring to? jabardasti ka sawal, I don't need to answer this. Once you've answered that question, try to answer if we can say *something* about Bradman and Tendulkar. If it has Hammond/Hutton and Tendulkar, yeah I would agree we need the sophisticated simulations you are talking about. Don't know why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. My stand on DGB vs SRT (or any batsmen across eras) is clear - both would have been great in any era, but who would have outperformed other by how much margin - is not as trivial as calculating # of standard deviations (that too of just one metric - avg) from mean of their era and simply finding similar dot on the population distribution of other era. You want to end your investigation and pass verdict right there, while I can clearly see there lot more remaining to be explored. Whatever you/I think does not make other any more/less right/wrong. But how you treat others (esp who do not agree with you) is a reasonable indicator of maturity and even your own level of expertise (in any field).
the don Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 only at an indian forum can a comparison between the mighty khan and kapil dev be taken seriously ,kapil devs record is more comparable to abdul razzaq who mind you at his peak was a good 15 kmph quicker than the dave.
adi B Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 only at an indian forum can a comparison between the mighty khan and kapil dev be taken seriously ' date='kapil devs record is more comparable to abdul razzaq who mind you at his peak was a good 15 kmph quicker than the dave.[/quote'] are u mad or on a high? u need rest
The Outsider Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 jabardasti ka sawal, I don't need to answer this. You don't need to answer it and you will choose not to because each option will make an utter fool out of you: 1. You admit that Sobers *was* a better all rounder than Tendulkar, thereby admitting that cross era comparisons do not always require sophisticated computer simulations when the gulf between the players is huge as is the case with Bradman and everyone else. 2. You tout the line that Tendulkar is indeed a better all rounder than Sobers and book yourself in Lunatics Anonymous with the organization's president, BossBhai, providing you with a warm welcome. 3. You say that you need sophisticated computer simulations to decide if Sobers was a better all rounder than Tendulkar.
akshayxyz Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You don't need to answer it and you will choose not to because each option will make an utter fool out of you: 1. You admit that Sobers *was* a better all rounder than Tendulkar, thereby admitting that cross era comparisons do not always require sophisticated computer simulations when the gulf between the players is huge as is the case with Bradman and everyone else. 2. You tout the line that Tendulkar is indeed a better all rounder than Sobers and book yourself in Lunatics Anonymous with the organization's president, BossBhai, providing you with a warm welcome. 3. You say that you need sophisticated computer simulations to decide if Sobers was a better all rounder than Tendulkar. Another option that makes utter fool out of you, just for asking this question. 0) Sobers was an all-rounder, SRT is not supposed to be one. The comparison does not make sense, because of lack of sufficient data, and not because of performance gap..., Its like asking which is better Apple, Kashmir ka apple Or Allahabad ka Mango. Still, if you want to assess SRT's all rounder performance, so as to warrant any comparison against other all rounders, to begin with within his era - how would you go about evaluating? How to evaluate batting skills and performance as an all rounder, how would you evaluate bowling skills as an all rounder.... what weight-ages would you assign....after that you can apply your mom-batti kee theory to compare across eras.. waise, what does your mombatti have to say about Kallis vs Sobers?
The Outsider Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 ^ I am not the right person to answer those questions. Ask BossBhai, who has been claiming Tendulkar to be a better all rounder than Sobers. I did not see you challenge that notion when it was posited so I assumed that you agreed with at least the premise of the comparison. The other option would of course be that you were sucking up to him, something I had wrongly discarded it seems. And given your activity levels in these kind of threads I also assumed that it was not out of indifference to the topic that you chose not to comment on it. And anyways, do you really need all that data to answer as simple a question as to who amongst Tendulkar and Sobers is the better all rounder? Would you run computer simulations to find out if Chris Martin or Gavaskar was the better batsman just because they played in different eras?
akshayxyz Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 btw - I will give you time before you can figure out yourself, how utter BS is your cosmic-candle theory in trying to predict performances across eras, in completely different setups.. I have said before, greats would be greats in any era (because some soft skills are more important than anything else, which make a champion, champion). And you do not need candles to see this. But, when you try to claim that this theory is sufficient to accurately rank players across eras - then good luck!!
ganeshran Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 :blink: If one doesnt refute a post, is that implicit acceptance?
The Outsider Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 ^ I'll give you some time to look up the difference between a "theory" and a musing on a blog.
The Outsider Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 :blink: If one doesnt refute a post' date=' is that implicit acceptance?[/quote'] No, it's not. But when some posters are really active on a particular topic and refute posts of only one side of the discussion, then yeah it's implicit acceptance or sucking up. Take your pick.
ganeshran Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 No' date=' it's not. But when some posters are really active on a particular topic and refute posts of only one side of the discussion, then yeah it's implicit acceptance or sucking up. Take your pick.[/quote'] Not necessarily. A fallacious argument doesnt mean that the conclusion itself is false and someone who is debating the conclusion may very well chose to argue his case on his own ideas and not someone else's.
akshayxyz Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 ^ I am not the right person to answer those questions. Ask BossBhai, who has been claiming Tendulkar to be a better all rounder than Sobers. I did not see you challenge that notion when it was posited so I assumed that you agreed with at least the premise of the comparison. The other option would of course be that you were sucking up to him, something I had wrongly discarded it seems. And given your activity levels in these kind of threads I also assumed that it was not out of indifference to the topic that you chose not to comment on it. And anyways, do you really need all that data to answer as simple a question as to who amongst Tendulkar and Sobers is the better all rounder? kya baat hai!.. there are millions of things that I may not agree with, but I don't comment or did not even see for whatever reason... so it means I agree with them? There are many arguments that: - I don't agree with you/BB/anyone - but did not comment. - I agree with you/BB/anyone - but did not comment good job on creating my janam kundali based on limited and mostly random interaction, kaunsi mombatti use kari? "sucking up to him!" lol.. try again, you can do better. There is only a select set of people who are 4.3 standard deviations away from others - in arts of sucking ladder, cross referencing across contexts, smiley protocol, etc... In case of BB (and few more), I expressed my disagreement many times, and many times chose not to - out of laziness, or simply because, in general, he comes across as nicer person than the enlightenment brigade - unless of course he is attacked first...so I let them handle the skirmishers first - I can always discuss later.
zen Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 The likes of ganeshran and akshayxyz (referred as X) are discussing w/ a prospective bride (reffered as Y) in an arranged marrage scenario: Y: Tea or Coffee X: Which brand of tea and coffee do you have? Y: Taj Mahal and Nescafe X: Which is tea and which is coffee? Y: Taj is tea and nescafe is coffee (Y is wondering, shouldn't this be obvious) X: Give me a coke Y: OK .... gets a coke X: this tastes like pepsi Y: it's a coke X: Do you watch cricket? Y yes, I do .... love Bradman X: But tendulkar is better Y: How? Bradbiy averages 100 X: But that 100 is not really 100 Y: How? X: There is no data available to show that that 100 is 100 Y: it is recorded as 100 X: How can you scientifically show that 100 is 100 Y: beg your pardon X: 100 then is not equal to 100 now .... at present, due to the limitation of technology, we cannot scientifically say that that 100 would be 100 now. It could 40, 80 or 120, we don't know Y: But Bradman is said to be the greatest X: That's a misconception as there is 'NO DATA' to scientifically verify this Y: Have you played cricket? X: Little but I mostly play with data Y: So how can you scientifically say that you know about test cricket X: I watch and play cricket Y: But there is no data derived through scientific method that validates this X: That no data is not equal to this no data Y: But still its no data The parents walk in and ask how did it go: X: Good but need more data Y: No to the no data guy :hysterical:
akshayxyz Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 to give you hint. I almost never go to second page of Cricket/Chit Chat sections, some times not even bottom half... and many times I just select all email alerts and delete... some times I just browse with mouse.. far far away from keyboard... and sometimes I just enjoy reading w/o commenting at all... and yes sometimes I intentionally don't comment, even when I agree with you, because of your "ooh I am so hot" attitude... because sucking up to someone who thrives on being sucked upto, would be worse.
The Outsider Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Chal yaar akshay, you don't consider Tendulkar an all rounder - Rameez Raja and Hammond were both batsmen, that's their job description. So who was better? 1. Hammond 2. Rameez 3. Can't say. Need sophisticated computer simulations to figure it out. EDIT : Got to leave now, but will forward to some complex computer simulations you'll run on a supercomputer to answer the above question. Don't forget to jazz it up with nice and colorful graphs to track the N-body simulation.
zen Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 good job on creating my janam kundali based on limited and mostly random interaction, kaunsi mombatti use kari? I don't think anyone is interested in you to create anything .... folks are just responding to what you typed here As for OP' date=' whom you are defending so vociferously and religiously. [b']I know him very well, from ICF and other credible references. teri janampatri bhi dhoondhne mein time nahi lagega, par abhi waqt hai.. Oh so you know me well and also took the effort to get my references :hysterical:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now