zen Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Brilliant OP! The hypocrites are back to doing what they are best at - contradicting themselves. It is okay for them to compare a player who had played only 52 matches with someone who has played 165 but it is blasphemy to compare a Lohmann who had played 18 matches with the same guy who had played 52. Logic! I will speak for the so-called hypocrites, Logic itself is in the selection of a bowler that not many heard of before, while anyone who knows something about cricket knows about Bradman. How is that apples to apples when speaking about hypocrisy. It would be if someone selected a batsman that no many heard of and tried to show that he is the greatest based on his stats or whatever Also there is no clear leader (like there is in batting) when it comes to bowling, so in the end it boils down to opinion. If Bradman hadn't existed, the same would have been the case for batting I am sure though that Lohmann was a pretty good bowler based on what I read about him. Your ppl's luck also ran out when Spin Magazine chose him as the greatest of the pre-1950 period, which makes this sarcastic thread fall flat on its face :winky: Nothing as been proved for Tendulkar being greatest yet but that those doing that have a desire to prove that by hook or by crook
King Tendulkar Posted March 30, 2010 Author Posted March 30, 2010 I will speak for the so-called hypocrites, Logic itself is in the selection of a bowler that not many heard of before, while anyone who knows something about cricket knows about Bradman. How is that apples to apples when speaking about hypocrisy. It would be if someone selected a batsman that no many heard of and tried to show that he is the greatest based on his stats or whatever Also there is no clear leader (like there is in batting) when it comes to bowling, so in the end it boils down to opinion. If Bradman hadn't existed, the same would have been the case for batting I am sure though that Lohmann was a pretty good bowler based on what I read about him. Your ppl's luck also ran out when Spin Magazine chose him as the greatest of the pre-1950 period, which makes this sarcastic thread fall flat on its face :winky: Nothing as been proved for Tendulkar being greatest yet but that those doing that have a desire to prove that by hook or by crook The fact you have not heard of him is more a reflection of your lack of knowledge of cricket history, rather then a reflection on the great Lohmann!! I mean how the hell can you not have heard of a bowler with an average of 10!!! He is the clear leader by miles in bowling stats(read earlier part of thread to resolve your ignorance)!! Thus cos you haver not heard of the magician does not mean he should be deprived his historical right as best ever bowler. I feel some people are being prejuducial to Lohmann cos he played in 1890s, in pre tv era and only ever played against one decent team. His stats prove he is No 1! I find it sad that the Bradman lobby who have never seen him play(live or on tv) but still call him No 1 based on his 1930s stats. Do not follow their logic through and proclaim the 1890s Lohmann No 1 bowler! The stats prove it Lohmann is the best!
teacup Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I will speak for the so-called hypocrites, Logic itself is in the selection of a bowler that not many heard of before, while anyone who knows something about cricket knows about Bradman. How is that apples to apples when speaking about hypocrisy. It would be if someone selected a batsman that no many heard of and tried to show that he is the greatest based on his stats or whatever Also there is no clear leader (like there is in batting) when it comes to bowling, so in the end it boils down to opinion. If Bradman hadn't existed, the same would have been the case for batting I am sure though that Lohmann was a pretty good bowler based on what I read about him. Your ppl's luck also ran out when Spin Magazine chose him as the greatest of the pre-1950 period, which makes this sarcastic thread fall flat on its face :winky: Nothing as been proved for Tendulkar being greatest yet but that those doing that have a desire to prove that by hook or by crook Doesn't the name "SPIN magazine" tell you something about the nature of the article?
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 The fact you have not heard of him is more a reflection of your lack of knowledge of cricket history, rather then a reflection on the great Lohmann :hysterical:
vvvslaxman Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Your post of 23 did no such thing. The stats prove Lohmann was miles ahead of his peers and his stats are MONSTER. Your post 23 was an insult to the greatest bowler of all time in LOHMANN! LOHMANN STATISTICALLY PROVEN AS THE GREATEST BOWLER EVER! p.s who cares no one has seen him play and it was the 19th Century. He is numero uno. Thus all world 11s must now be adjusted to include this moustached magician! So you agree bowlers were good in that era. You automatically agree Bradman played better bowlers in that era. :hysterical: See how it backfired.
Guest DeveGowda Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 KT, i read some where thet During time of layman..the Balls are NOT round..so u are not taking balls into picture during u r analysis...Plz chk the balls agin.. :giggle: ***All cricket balls
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 So you agree bowlers were good in that era. You automatically agree Bradman played better bowlers in that era. See how it backfired. no, bradman cant be classified as "greatest" Lohmaan because he didnt play against superman Lohmaaan :adore: we need to find out who has the best average against lohmaan
vvvslaxman Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 no' date=' bradman cant be classified against Lohmaan because he didnt play superman Lohmaaan :adore:[/quote'] Naa. that is not the point. According to them demonic, man killing fast bowling started only after 1975.
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Naa. that is not the point. According to them demonic, man killing fast bowling started only after 1975. then we must calculate which fast bwoler caused most injuries.... then we should calculate which batsman has the best average against this demonic bowler
Guest DeveGowda Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 KT's latest fav cricker Layman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lohmann
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 KT's latest fav cricker Layman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lohmann u r again making me laugh in office maaaaannnnnnn :hysterical:
Guest DeveGowda Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 u r again making me laugh in office maaaaannnnnnn :hysterical: Laugh is good for health.... U have to thank GOD everyday for having people like KT..who provide us with wunderful entertainment
zen Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 The fact you have not heard of him is more a reflection of your lack of knowledge of cricket history, rather then a reflection on the great Lohmann!! I mean how the hell can you not have heard of a bowler with an average of 10!!! He is the clear leader by miles in bowling stats(read earlier part of thread to resolve your ignorance)!! Thus cos you haver not heard of the magician does not mean he should be deprived his historical right as best ever bowler. I feel some people are being prejuducial to Lohmann cos he played in 1890s, in pre tv era and only ever played against one decent team. His stats prove he is No 1! I find it sad that the Bradman lobby who have never seen him play(live or on tv) but still call him No 1 based on his 1930s stats. Do not follow their logic through and proclaim the 1890s Lohmann No 1 bowler! The stats prove it Lohmann is the best! The point is I resolved your ignorance by posting that article that a guy you picked thinking he is nothing more than some piece of good stats is actually considered as being the greatest of pre 1950 period by a magazine (which did a detailed research on it) Now am I saying that Lohmann isn't the greatest? No, I am saying that I am willing to look in to it as there isn't a huge difference b/w bowlers as there is b/w Bradman and others in batting Your posts only goes to show how much you read and understand and then try to prove things by hook or by crook (a trademark of many of those who think Tendulkar is the greatest) :winky:
vvvslaxman Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lohmann He lived only for 36 years. Yet achieved so much in first class. Phenomenal record. 1841 wickets at 13.
Guest DeveGowda Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 He lived only for 36 years. Yet achieved so much in first class. Phenomenal record. 1841 wickets at 13. i heard his name long time back...but 1890 is too old to have any comprasion where is the records of Great batsmaen of taht time ?
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 VVS please post his stats here..........its admirable..... :adore:
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 i heard his name long time back...but 1890 is too old to have any comprasion where is the records of Great batsmaen of taht time ? no batsman stands achance against this superman :adore:
Guest DeveGowda Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I think this was supposed to be funny.. From my end things are Funny ..i am not sure about opposition benches...:winky:
Roshanrocks Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 From my end things are Funny ..i am not sure about opposition benches... this thread has beaten Sir AGGY thread...thats how good this is :D
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