Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 ^ what a joke! .... appears as if you still don't know that we are discussing tests here so according to you all his achievements in ODI cricket are not to be considered when judging him as a player? It's abt common sense, Watson. Let me try once again: Do you think that the likes of Rameez Raja are better than AT greats like Hammond/Headley/Hutton/etc? Because if you think that an avg of 56 beats 100, then it must also imply that an avg of 30 beats 58, no? What you are harping over is that peer domination theory is not vaild because it didn't work in the snooker example. And because it didn't work in the snooker example, it doesn't work in cricket (which is lauhable). You also needed to understand why peer domination is being talked abt. Bradman is not the greatest only because he dominated his peers. There are other factors that make him the greatest. And in the end, if your entire effort is based on showing "nothing proves this or that conclusively" (which everyone knows) then we have to take things at their face value, in cricketing terms the avg. And since nothing proves conclusively either this or that, according to you, we take someone with an avg of 100 as the greatest Case closed :winky: Similarly there are many, many factors apart from performance on the field that make Goddy the Greatest of all Time.
Baad Indian Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Comeon Yaar Bradman is the Greatest Batsman in the history of Cricket that too by a good distance , Sachin comes second . Kindly respect the big difference of average that exists between both the Batsmen , refuting this same difference would lead to Pakis coming over and claiming superiority of Yasir Hamid , Mohammed Yousuf , Asim Kamal over Sachin by ignoring the stats difference and conditions where runs were scored
akshayxyz Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 ^ @S=G :two_thumbs_up: @Sachinism - :nice: lets make the time machine - but do not forget to limit to either transporting all bowlers, or all batsmen ;).
pensionplan Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 You back again making proclamations ? Any chance you can come up with an explanation that can tell us why a left arm spinner has stats better than that of a Fast Bowler like Flintoff in Test and FC ? Given your reasoning where you blindly go by numbers you should treat Toshack as a strike bowler.Why not? When the likes of you can be back making the same old proclamations but not explain why SRT cannot separate himself from a pack of dozens of players who average in the 50-60 range as opposed to DGB who was quite a cut over the rest when he played I surely can be back.
akshayxyz Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Comeon Yaar Bradman is the Greatest Batsman in the history of Cricket that too by a good distance ' date=' Sachin comes second . Kindly respect the big difference of average that exists between both the Batsmen , refuting this same difference would lead to[b'] Pakis coming over and claiming superiority of Yasir Hamid , Mohammed Yousuf , Asim Kamal over Sachin by ignoring the stats difference and conditions where runs were scored let them come up with conditions story, it is going to go against them.. (hint : umpiring, tempering).
Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Comeon Yaar Bradman is the Greatest Batsman in the history of Cricket that too by a good distance ' date= Sachin comes second . Kindly respect the big difference of average that exists between both the Batsmen , refuting this same difference would lead to Pakis coming over and claiming superiority of Yasir Hamid , Mohammed Yousuf , Asim Kamal over Sachin by ignoring the stats difference and conditions where runs were scored this is what you have been told over and over and over again, not what you actually believe. Try to open your eyes now and see that the difference between the level of cricket between 1930s and 2000s is absolutely immense. Also, if Bradman has that average of 99.94 then Goddy also has many, many things which no cricketer has ever achieved in cricket. Ok, so if the Pakistanis come and say that Yaisr Hamid was better than Goddy you will say that these people are fools to claim such a thing because the pitches, conditions and quality of their opponents were bad BUT you yourself are proclaiming the same thing with Bardman - the quality of his opposition in comparison to what modern day players have to face was absolutely poor yet you have no objection to calling him the greatest of all time :hatsoff:
Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 No' date=' [b']I haven't except for the occasional clips, Wren and Martin. Now will you answer my questions or record player will stay stuck? Ok, for one minute leave aside all of Don Bradman's stats, people's opinions about him etc etc and just tell me - was there something so extraordinarily spectacular and special in those occasional clips that you saw that you are ready to say with certainty that Sir Don Bradman was without a doubt the best ever ahead of the likes of Goddy, Sobers, Viv Richards etc?? Were those few minutes of clippings enough to convince you of his greatness ahead of every cricketer to played the game since??
Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 The comedy shows continues :hehe: with you as the lead joker :hatsoff:
zen Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 with you as the lead joker :hatsoff: Ok, I get it all the challenges are faced by Tendulkar only and none by his peers. The guys in the Bradman had it easy :hysterical: We all saw how Ten's avg dipped when he faced good bowlers, while many were able to avg 50+. But I guess, that was because he was having so many challenges, while others who avg 50 had not that many challenges to face And yeah, let's not forget the time machine concept! :P It's fun to see some folks so desperate to show Tendulkar is the greatest rather than just enjoying cricket and tendulkar too
saket123 Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 If Tendulkar played about 3 cricket matches a year.. that too all tests.. I have a feeling he would be averaging about 200.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 If Tendulkar played about 3 cricket matches a year.. that too all tests.. I have a feeling he would be averaging about 200. :giggle: that also with plenty of practice matches before each Test match.
zen Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 If Sachin was made to play only games per year, then it would mean that he probably wouldn't be a professional cricketer :P
saket123 Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I think the best way to compare.. would be to take 3 best test matches played by Sachin.. each year of his past 21 years.. and then calculate what his average would have been. If it is more than Bradman's.. then Sachin is undoubtedly better than Bradman... because he would have crossed the average even after playing a heck lot more than Bradman.
zen Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I think the best way to compare.. would be to take 3 best test matches played by Sachin.. each year of his past 21 years.. and then calculate what his average would have been. If it is more than Bradman's.. then Sachin is undoubtedly better than Bradman... because he would have crossed the average even after playing a heck lot more than Bradman. By picking and choosing only can Tendulkar fanboys hope to show that Tendulkar did better .... Did you see the 19 grounds theory? :hysterical:
saket123 Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 By picking and choosing only can Tendulkar fanboys hope to show that Tendulkar did better .... Did you see the 19 grounds theory? :hysterical: and what is wrong with picking and choosing?? Those matches were still played by Sachin.. they are not hypothetical matches!.. My point is.. Bradman played only 3 tests a year... and If Sachin's records can show similar 3 test matches a year.. eventually matching the same number of test matches that Bradman played.. but with better performances .. then he is undoubtedly better. I am not saying pick any 52 tests played by Sachin over all.. I am saying pick 3 tests from every year.. that is a fair comparison to Bradman's productivity.
zen Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 and what is wrong with picking and choosing?? Those matches were still played by Sachin.. they are not hypothetical matches!.. My point is.. Bradman played only 3 tests a year... and If Sachin's records can show similar 3 test matches a year.. eventually matching the same number of test matches that Bradman played.. but with better performances .. then he is undoubtedly better. I am not saying pick any 52 tests played by Sachin over all.. I am saying pick 3 tests from every year.. that is a fair comparison to Bradman's productivity. I will make it even easier for you, why not pick Sachin's 52 best tests out of 170 odd and compare them with Bradman's :P
saket123 Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I will make it even easier for you' date=' why not pick Sachin's 52 best tests out of 170 odd and compare them with Bradman's :P[/quote'] You are not making it easier.. you are only making it a "convenient" comparison in that case. :hysterical: Like I said.. I am not sure even after doing what I suggest.. Sachin would come out higher than Bradman.. but if he does.. then it is a very fair comparison.
zen Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 You are not making it easier.. you are only making it a "convenient" comparison in that case. :hysterical: Like I said.. I am not sure even after doing what I suggest.. Sachin would come out higher than Bradman.. but if he does.. then it is a very fair comparison. The idea is to show Sachin > Bradman by hook or crook, no? In this way, we will also re-pay the debt (of entertaining us, carrying the burden, ....) we owe to Sachin :winky:
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