Lurker Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Lurker, I have to disagree with you here. In any online discussion with multiple users involved, there may arise a myriad of opinions set forth from both sides to argue their case. It is not necessary that each set arguing for a particular stand is completely homogeneous and tends to agree with each other totally, in fact in most cases it is the opposite. It is just a bunch of individuals who agree on a common point yet have their own reasoning to arrive at the conclusion. During the course of a conversation, it is a poster's prerogative to choose what he wants to debate and him choosing not to do so for a particular post (either agreeing or disagreeing with his stand) does not mean an implicit acceptance of the same. Outy asked Akshay to explain a stand that BB had taken assuming that he also agreed since he was arguing for the same side and hadnt refuted it. I didnt agree with that reasoning and hence posted my disagreement. I dont disagree with any of that. But my reasoning remains. That said, in the end most thread end up becoming debates about fellow posters and not the subject...so lets just agree to disagree here. :winky:
zen Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Aage badho yaar Let me try my hand at duhism: "In 1950 people watched (who else is going to watch, dogs?) TV in their homes (are they suppose to watch in parks?). The TVs were B&W since color TVs weren't standard then (OK). I used to love watching TV (who didn't?) and my favorite program was the cartoon series. After watching TV till late night, I used to go to bed (what did you expect to do?). Another nice day would come to a nice end (how else is a nice day suppose to end)?" - "if people don't reply, it doesn't mean they agree/disagree" - "you don't have to reply to everything you agree or disagree with" - " it is a poster's prerogative to choose what he wants to debate" - "In any online discussion with multiple users involved, there may arise a myriad of opinions set forth from both sides to argue their case. " - " It is not necessary that each set arguing for a particular stand is completely homogeneous and tends to agree with each other totally, in fact in most cases it is the opposite. " - "It is just a bunch of individuals who agree on a common point yet have their own reasoning to arrive at the conclusion." Ganeshran, the master of duhism
ganeshran Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I dont disagree with any of that. But my reasoning remains. That said, in the end most thread end up becoming debates about fellow posters and not the subject...so lets just agree to disagree here. :winky: Ya comparison threads have become dire nowadays. :headshake:
zen Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Ya comparison threads have become dire nowadays. :headshake: "comparison threads have become dire nowadays." (as if he knows how the threads used to go in the past :giggle: ) Aage badho yaar ....
ganeshran Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 rett - you dont come to ICF to debate or discuss cricket. No, your cricketing knowledge and interest is way too limited for that. You come here just to argue, probably because it gives you a sense of recognition online. You pick the side that is guaranteed to have most amount of opposition and then argue to your heart's fill about that. The only impediment here is your lack of knowledge about cricket which is pretty obvious. To overcome this you take posts from other people and pass them off as your own. That is till the debate goes to a point where you are expected to come up with answers of your own. Unable to do that, you take the easiest alternative - start making ad-hominem attacks to pull down the thread into a shouting match, followed by irrelevant stuff with a bunch of smileys. Your lack of maturity at this age (I think you are in your 30s) is disturbing. The typical childish responses and repeated attempts to bait others are tiresome and show deep rooted insecurity to criticism. Like I said before, I have no wish to indulge in a slanging match with you yet you keep trying to provoke some sort of response from my side
zen Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 rett - you dont come to ICF to debate or discuss cricket. No, your cricketing knowledge and interest is way too limited for that. You come here just to argue, probably because it gives you a sense of recognition online. You pick the side that is guaranteed to have most amount of opposition and then argue to your heart's fill about that. The only impediment here is your lack of knowledge about cricket which is pretty obvious. To overcome this you take posts from other people and pass them off as your own. That is till the debate goes to a point where you are expected to come up with answers of your own. Unable to do that, you take the easiest alternative - start making ad-hominem attacks to pull down the thread into a shouting match, followed by irrelevant stuff with a bunch of smileys. Your lack of maturity at this age (I think you are in your 30s) is disturbing. The typical childish responses and repeated attempts to bait others are tiresome and show deep rooted insecurity to criticism. Like I said before, I have no wish to indulge in a slanging match with you yet you keep trying to provoke some sort of response from my side Arre bhai, kyon itna khafa hote ho .... i only pointed to the duhisms. who is going to give you a pat on the back for those :dontknow: Dont forget that It was you who came to "put rett in his place" in the Richards vs SRT thread. You even went to search around for my posts to try to show how bad/dumb I am (and you posted smileys too, something you think is childish. But it's childish to think that using smiley is childish) and that's when I discovered my new bunny and your dumb blog. Dont forget I even gave you an opportunity to be a 'superhero' .... Per Tera toh popat ho gaya re (Rajesh khanna would say something like this) aur dum dabahke bhag rahe ho :haha: Appears as if you realized that superheros don't rely on duhism, empty vessels do :winky: ..... What is there to provoke a popat like you? And you are free to think whatever you like about me. Do you think I need approval from you :--D Since I am a "kind hearted" person, I will let you go after seeing your agony. Makes me feel like I m picking on a helpless creature ..... rett is not all that bad :P
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Regardless' date=' aren't we overestimating Hadlee's ability as a batsman? I remember him as a decent bat with a mid-20s average. There was enough reason to fear that Imran, Kapil or Botham could take over a match with their batting. Not Hadlee. A great bowler, but hardly a force with the willow. Do I misremember?[/quote']Yes, you do. Hadlee did take over and influence matches and win some with his batting exploits. Of course he did not do it anywhere close to the regularity that Kapsy, the Niazi, or Beefy did but he did enough to be considered as an AR during the 80s ahead of other decently capable ARs like Marshall, Wasim (late 80s), Shastri (ulta of Hadlee - better with bat than ball but nowhere in same class) and a series of English one-hit wonders. The thing is that these 4 were considered as the prime ARs during the 80s when they played. Today when we analyze them it is either thru stats (for those who haven't seen their exploits) or selective memory (for those who did see them play). Like I mentioned in the first para, Marshall wasn't considered an AR in the 80s. And we know that Marshall was more than a capable bat. Given this background, if Hadlee was considered enough to be included in an elite list and extend it to 4 as the Big Four then he must have done something (which he did - some examples are already presented in this thread)?.
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Yes. Sorry but that had to be stated. There is a false equivalence at play here. Fanboys of SRT who end up saying he is the greatest things since sliced bread on every matter cricket, runs, batsmanship, performance under pressure, performance in WC finals etc != Those who support Bradman or Kapil or Sobers or Richards. The first lot is delusional, exists only in India (or amongst Indians) and have made SRT a person that is perhaps hated in many cricketing nations and by fans. Which is kind of odd because as a person SRT is humble and likeable chap. If one is indeed a SRT fans he should be taking on morons like BB etc who are doing nothing to add value to his legacy. Lets not shoot the messenger here and go after Shwetabh who is wondering why Askhsay did not made his comments known on another of BB's loony posts. Not directed against you of course Ganesh :winky:Lurker, I consider Sachin as the best batsman the game of cricket has known and I don't think there is any delusion in that. Rather I'd say I am just as deluded as you are in whatever it is that you believe when it comes to who is the best batsman ever. Don't take such a wide brush and criticize everyone's individual logic and reasons for choosing Sachin as the best. I am sure you have your logic to consider Bradman as the best (or whoever it is) but I am not gonna take a wide brush and just say you are delusional about it. Things change in t,s,p,c - there are no absolutes especially when it comes to opinions like these. And all opinions are equally delusional. In defense of BB, he s allowed to change who his favorite cricketer is. I owe my love of cricket to Kapil Dev. When I was growing up Kapil was greater than Sobers (forget Bradman). And even today I love Kapil for who he is but I have no doubt whatsoever that Kapil is not the greatest AR ever. Similarly, I have no doubt whatsoever that Sachin is the greatest batsman ever. Just coz my beliefs have changed dunn mean I am being dishonest or anything. What is life, if not change? Why can't a person change who his fav cricketer is? What is the moral requirement to hold on to the same opinion no matter how many things may have changed? Why can't I consider Imran as the greatest cricketer ever in spite of almost hating him as a 10 year old coz he was competition to Kapil? Things around me have changed - my knowledge of the game has changed, my own experiences with the game have changed: playing and watching. And here's the thing if you are making an All Time XI list Sachin's name has more probability of making it than Kapil's. Sachin will most likely be in the first choice of batsmen along with Bradman, Lara, Gavva, Hobbs, and maybe Richards but Kapil I assure you will not be in many peoples lists. Does that mean everyone is delusional? Does that mean they are absolutely right and you are delusional? No way! Both parties are equally delusional because this experiential universe has no absolutes (even in physical laws many times) so how can any one opinion be absolute?
Lurker Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Like I mentioned in the first para, Marshall wasn't considered an AR in the 80s. And we know that Marshall was more than a capable bat. Given this background, if Hadlee was considered enough to be included in an elite list and extend it to 4 as the Big Four then he must have done something (which he did - some examples are already presented in this thread)?. Glad you mentioned Marshall. It used to be Marshall's eternal gripe that he was not considered amongst the all-rounders of his time. He was very vocal about this. And although he did score some memorable innings, notably against India, he was not exactly an all-rounder in the classical sense. But a very competent batsman down the order nonetheless. Lurker, I consider Sachin as the best batsman the game of cricket has known and I don't think there is any delusion in that. Rather I'd say I am just as deluded as you are in whatever it is that you believe when it comes to who is the best batsman ever. Don't take such a wide brush and criticize everyone's individual logic and reasons for choosing Sachin as the best. I am sure you have your logic to consider Bradman as the best (or whoever it is) but I am not gonna take a wide brush and just say you are delusional about it. You were not included in that SRT fanboy group Vijay. It was specifically about people/posters whose world revolve around SRT one way or other. If you think SRT is greatest batsman ever thats fine. But by that token if I think Bradman is the best ever, or Barnes as the bowler, or Keith Miller as all-rounder that should be fine too. No need to go ranting in every thread about this. :winky:
zen Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Looks like the usual morons have gotten wound up nicely ... nishana ekdum mast jaga pey laga hai maamu :yay: :hmmmm:
akshayxyz Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Yes. Sorry but that had to be stated. There is a false equivalence at play here. Fanboys of SRT who end up saying he is the greatest things since sliced bread on every matter cricket, runs, batsmanship, performance under pressure, performance in WC finals etc != Those who support Bradman or Kapil or Sobers or Richards. The first lot is delusional, exists only in India (or amongst Indians) and have made SRT a person that is perhaps hated in many cricketing nations and by fans. Which is kind of odd because as a person SRT is humble and likeable chap. If one is indeed a SRT fans he should be taking on morons like BB etc who are doing nothing to add value to his legacy. Lets not shoot the messenger here and go after Shwetabh who is wondering why Askhsay did not made his comments known on another of BB's loony posts. Not directed against you of course Ganesh :winky: Lurker bhai I already responded to whoever it concerned. Since you asked, you deserve at least one response. Yes I have developed a bit of occasional bias against some posters, but not w/o initial provocation - mostly uncalled for.. Still I never troll against stuff I already agree with. To quote someone - "You can afford to be an a s s h o l e, if you are genius". But, I found him more of pretentious (may not be exact word, but this is quite close) than actual substance, with occasional faked up humility. Which is why recently sometimes even if I agree on some point, I do not comment, and just sit quietly and enjoy the match. many times I don't hesitate to show support, and other times I am just lazy - in read-only mode. And on the broader topic - I care least about who is #1, through whatever ranking methodology. Just sometimes I feel like pointing out loopholes in the arguments that people provide in support of their deductions. Edit: I already posted elsewhere that neither side can be too wrong in assuming DGB over SRT or otherwise. because both have proven enough and can be great in any era. I just do not agree on that we have a conclusive method to deduce absolute rankings across era. Edit2: And yes, sometimes I am drunk and trolling/wumming around.
Marut Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Batting wise: [ not based on averages alone] Kapil>Botham>Imran>Hadlee Bowling wise:[ not based on averages alone] Hadlee>Imran>Botham>Kapil Overall: Imran>Kapil>Botham>Hadlee Imran is an ATG bowler and his average of 22.81 testifies that. ( the best Indian bowler has an average of 28+). He was a solid batsman with 37+ test average, but not as flambouyant or match-winning with the bat like Botham or Kapil. Imran did not peak with the bat and ball together like Botham or Kapil ever did. Early in his career he was a phenomenal bowler ( and averaging less than 16 during his six best years) and later he was a very solid batsman, but his bowling was not as phenomenal. Kapil Dev was the dream batsman every team likes to have, and he was good against both pace and spin, but he did not do enough justice to his talent as a batsman. His match winning skills and scoring rates were second to none during his era and India's fortunes revolved round him ( especially in ODIs) at one point of time. Botham played some of the most breath taking knocks ever, as an all rounder. He scored a 100 and took a 5 wicket haul ( and 10 wkt match haul) together a few times. His 149 and 6-95 in the same test at Headingly in a follow on and win was one of the best all time test all -round performances. His peak form was however, shorter than the other three. Hadlee was the most disciplined bowler, and gave nothing away in line and length and is an ATG bowler with sub 23 average. He was an average batsman however.
Lurker Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Batting wise: [ not based on averages alone] Kapil>Botham>Imran>Hadlee Bowling wise:[ not based on averages alone] Hadlee>Imran>Botham>Kapil Overall: Imran>Kapil>Botham>Hadlee Imran is an ATG bowler and his average of 22.81 testifies that. ( the best Indian bowler has an average of 28+). He was a solid batsman with 37+ test average, but not as flambouyant or match-winning with the bat like Botham or Kapil. Imran did not peak with the bat and ball together like Botham or Kapil ever did. Early in his career he was a phenomenal bowler ( and averaging less than 16 during his six best years) and later he was a very solid batsman, but his bowling was not as phenomenal. Kapil Dev was the dream batsman every team likes to have, and he was good against both pace and spin, but he did not do enough justice to his talent as a batsman. His match winning skills and scoring rates were second to none during his era and India's fortunes revolved round him ( especially in ODIs) at one point of time. Botham played some of the most breath taking knocks ever, as an all rounder. He scored a 100 and took a 5 wicket haul ( and 10 wkt match haul) together a few times. His 149 and 6-95 in the same test at Headingly in a follow on and win was one of the best all time test all -round performances. His peak form was however, shorter than the other three. Hadlee was the most disciplined bowler, and gave nothing away in line and length and is an ATG bowler with sub 23 average. He was an average batsman however. Thats a fair argument and although I have some difference of opinion (Botham ahead of Kapil as a bowler for instance), I can see why you could go that route. Looks like you have observed them which is great, For one those who have had the pleasure to watch them play know how good they were and also how little there was to choose between them. Of course if you go statistical route the rankings may be completely different.
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Kapil by a mileSomething tells me that was a troll post. Is it?
coffee_rules Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Imran and Botham had made India their b1tches, so from Indian fans perspective we would rate them higher. Imran was fairly successful bowler outside Pak (not in India though). His batting stats in the last 50 tests looks like to be from a regular batsmen, very effective and useful, but not of much impact to the proceedings like Botham/Kapil were. Kapil pre-1984 purely as a bowlers ranks as high as Imran..after his knee-surgery he spoilt his bowling stats quite a bit (trunder-like). So, pre-1984 I would rate: Botham, Kapil, Hadlee, Imran Overall: Hadlee, Botham=Imran, Kapi
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Imran and Botham had made India their b1tches, so from Indian fans perspective we would rate them higher. Imran was fairly successful bowler outside Pak (not in India though). His batting stats in the last 50 tests looks like to be from a regular batsmen, very effective and useful, but not of much impact to the proceedings like Botham/Kapil were. Kapil pre-1984 purely as a bowlers ranks as high as Imran..after his knee-surgery he spoilt his bowling stats quite a bit (trunder-like). So, pre-1984 I would rate: Botham, Kapil, Hadlee, Imran Overall: Hadlee, Botham=Imran, KapiThat's an interesting viewpoint. Hadlee ahead of the other 3 in career AR stakes? Would be nice to hear more about the reasons for such a ranking...
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