Hindustani Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Imran Khan when he used to do commentary used to say this : even if there is 10% chance of dew later in the day I dont want my team to be bowling at that time ... How about using bottle caps in pockets ?
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 A bunch of more meaningless stats like: 1. Grounds played on: So what are we suppose to judge from it? Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, etc would have played on those grounds too. 2. Bowlers list: Again many of those from Tendulkar's generation would have played against them as well. Hardly there's anything that's exclusive to Tendulkar. And these points would apply to any modern batsmen. As I said if it is argued that 55>100 based on this then 32>58 as well. Otherwise these rules are not exceptional. I would say Tendulkar is slightly ahead of his peers but that's about it. That doesn't put him or anyone like him like Lara (or even Richards) in to Bradman's league. What goes for Tendulkar when compared to his peers is his consistency. But he hasn't out-shone any of his peers to the extent that he isn't interchangeable when everyone is in their best form. What he has done is that he has been amongst the best batsmen for most part of his career. So when Dravid is playing exceptionally well, Tendulkar is still there. When Sehwag is destroying the attack, Tendulkar is still there. When Laxman is playing one of his gems, Tendulkar is still contributing. When Lara is hitting big runs, Tendulkar is still there, when Jayasuriya had that golden period, Tendulkar was still there. Being there is what separates Tendulkar from his peers. And there was also a period where Ponting was hammering and Tendulkar was struggling to be there but Tendulkar was going through injuries at that point so wouldn't hold that against him Now to take on Bradman is a different ball game. To do that he will have to be not also there but be way ahead of his peers. An example of that would be average say 15 points higher than the next group year after year or be at the top of the ICC rankings year after year with some gap in points b/w him and the next guy. First there was this passion to show that he is better than Lara, Anwar, Inzi, Waugh, De Silva, Ponting, ..... Now people want to show he is even better than Sir Don Bradman! It would have been understandable if there was a genuine case of that but it's done through creating rules and cherry picking.
King Tendulkar Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Bloody bradman and his peers. Bradmans peers were aussies and england. THAT WAS IT. Crciket was just begginers game in india , windies etc. Also his small selction of peers(in england cricket still preserve of middle class, especially in batting) were full of semi ametuars as well. He was best of very small group of players. Big fish in small pond
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Bloody bradman and his peers. Bradmans peers were aussies and england. THAT WAS IT. Crciket was just begginers game in india , windies etc. Also his small selction of peers(in england cricket still preserve of middle class, especially in batting) were full of semi ametuars as well. He was best of very small group of players. Big fish in small pond You have to understand that downplaying Bradman won't make Tendulkar the greatest. Also you have to realize what a career test avg of 100 means. On top of that Bradman's peers were like Hammond and Headley. Unless you can show that Hammond and Headley don't cut out well, there is no point in talking about the small sample size. As if that era even had 20 Hammonds and 20 Headleys, Bradman would still be in the league of his own. So small sample size is another pointless argument On top of that, you guys still haven't convinced anyone how Tendulkar is way better than the likes of Sobers, Richards or Lara when everyone is in their best form.
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 :banghead: But then again I just found out that you voted "NO" in this thread .... http://indiancricketfans.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=502 and ofcourse you let us all know how difficult the lbw law was for batsmen in the 30s .... No wonder you keep drooling on anyting Bradman related including a scripted and embellished play. So are you implying that Raja would have scored as much as Hammond because of the LBW law?! I wonder why we still get wrong decisions despite having an elite panel of umpires and why some have to push for use of technology to assist umpires Also I wonder why hasn't our master batsmen managed to have a career avg of 100 in domestic cricket against comparatively weak bowlers, poor fielding standards and generally good batting tracks :P
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 So are you implying that Lohman is the best bowler in the history of the game ? Also is Gubby Allen a better bowler than Allan Donald ? PS: I can play the rhetoric game too. I don't know if Lohman is the best bowler in the history of the game because he didn't stand out amongst his peers, did he? Let me just draw a table so you understand that meaningless points like you make don't cut in: Bradman: 100 Next best guys like Hammond, Headley: 60 To downplay Bradman's achievements: 1. You will have to show that the next best guys were really that good and likes of Raja would have been at least as good if not better than them. To show that Lohmann is like Bradman, you will have to show how he dominated against his peers. The thing you probably don't realize is that Lohmann's example is more applicable to Tendulkar than Bradman because like Tendulkar, Lohmann has a better/comparable avg than/to his peers but doesn't necessarily stand out. So if your point is that a good avg doesn't make Lohmann great, then you know why it doesn't as he doesn't really dominate his peers, which is similar to Tendulkar, who doesn't dominate his peers too. Peer domination is what separates Don from Lohman and Tendulkar :winky: In short, Lohmann's example goes against Tendulkar not Bradman :icflove:
King Tendulkar Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 I don't know if Lohman is the best bowler in the history of the game because he didn't stand out amongst his peers, did he? : O yes he was. 20 % better then his nearest peer.
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 O yes he was. 20 % better then his nearest peer. I am willing to look at his stats and comparision if you can provide that. There is no clear consensus on who the greatest bowler is simply because there is no Bradman of bowlers. Same would have been the case with batsmen if there were no Bradman. The idea of the greatest batsmen itself gained weightage because of the consensus Bradman could generate. So first let's start by laying down the criteria for the greatest bowler. Should be be judged based on his avg or wkts per tests and so on. And then how much ahead he should be of his peers. From what I remember, most bowlers like to judge themselves based on wkts per test. The number that you pulled out 20% means nothing without taking things in to perspective. Esp. when the batting great is approx. 70%(Avg of 60 times 1.7 = 102) ahead of the next good pack! You have to shows us how you pull out this number as so far it just looks like another meaningless stats being thrown out in ignorance. The way how the parllels are drawn by some of you reminds me of the "neem hakin khatre jaan" story, where a hakim fixes a watermelon stuck in a camel's neck by smashing it with a stone. A guy sees that and tries to cure a throat problem of an old lady by smashing a stone on to her neck.
yoda Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 A bunch of more meaningless stats like: 1. Grounds played on: So what are we suppose to judge from it? Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, etc would have played on those grounds too. 2. Bowlers list: Again many of those from Tendulkar's generation would have played against them as well. Hardly there's anything that's exclusive to Tendulkar. And these points would apply to any modern batsmen. As I said if it is argued that 55>100 based on this then 32>58 as well. Otherwise these rules are not exceptional. I would say Tendulkar is slightly ahead of his peers but that's about it. That doesn't put him or anyone like him like Lara (or even Richards) in to Bradman's league. What goes for Tendulkar when compared to his peers is his consistency. But he hasn't out-shone any of his peers to the extent that he isn't interchangeable when everyone is in their best form. What he has done is that he has been amongst the best batsmen for most part of his career. So when Dravid is playing exceptionally well, Tendulkar is still there. When Sehwag is destroying the attack, Tendulkar is still there. When Laxman is playing one of his gems, Tendulkar is still contributing. When Lara is hitting big runs, Tendulkar is still there, when Jayasuriya had that golden period, Tendulkar was still there. Being there is what separates Tendulkar from his peers. And there was also a period where Ponting was hammering and Tendulkar was struggling to be there but Tendulkar was going through injuries at that point so wouldn't hold that against him Now to take on Bradman is a different ball game. To do that he will have to be not also there but be way ahead of his peers. An example of that would be average say 15 points higher than the next group year after year or be at the top of the ICC rankings year after year with some gap in points b/w him and the next guy. First there was this passion to show that he is better than Lara, Anwar, Inzi, Waugh, De Silva, Ponting, ..... Now people want to show he is even better than Sir Don Bradman! It would have been understandable if there was a genuine case of that but it's done through creating rules and cherry picking. Top post!
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Since you are into this simplistic bakwaas of assuming a run scored and a wkt taken in any era is the same as modern era .... can ou please confirm if you think Lohamn was twice the bowler as Ambrose or Steyn since his Avg is half of those two ... ? Simply yes/no please. Lohmans Bowling avg is a cool 30% higher than the next guy unlike SRT so this confirms that Lohman is the best bowler ever. Whether you agree that he beats his peers or not he does easily beat the likes of Waqar, Steyn and Ambrose going by your theory of relativity and peer dominance. So once again pls confirm that Lohman > Steyn, Waqar , Ambrose etc etc ... You should read my last post (#104) where I just made a few comments!
zen Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Forget for a moment who is the Bradman of Bowlers ... you are into this simplistic theory that if x > y then no matter in which era x & y occur we need to acknowledge that x is indeed better than y ( especially if the difference is quite large ) So going by that Lohmans Avg is half that of Ambrose or Steyn or Waqar ... so pls confirm in your own words who is a better bowler according to you Lohman or any of those other modern bowlers ? Will appreciate a straight answer. why not read the rest of the post: So first let's start by laying down the criteria for the greatest bowler. Should be be judged based on his avg or wkts per tests and so on. And then how much ahead he should be of his peers. From what I remember, most bowlers like to judge themselves based on wkts per test. The number that you pulled out 20% means nothing without taking things in to perspective. Esp. when the batting great is approx. 70%(Avg of 60 times 1.7 = 102) ahead of the next good pack! You have to shows us how you pull out this number as so far it just looks like another meaningless stats being thrown out in ignorance. The way how the parllels are drawn by some of you reminds me of the "neem hakin khatre jaan" story, where a hakim fixes a watermelon stuck in a camel's neck by smashing it with a stone. A guy sees that and tries to cure a throat problem of an old lady by smashing a stone on to her neck. And why would you think that what I said about batting is based on simplistic terms? It would be if I simply ranked all batsmen based on their averages but have I? It would be if I said that Hammond (58) > Tendulkar (56). And I even said that if Tendulkar to be in the league of his own (based on his generation) he should probably have at least 15 runs more than the next best pack. So basically a carrer avg of 70+ when others hover around 55. Bradman is approx 40 runs more than his peers! But in order for you to show that Tendulkar (56) > Don (100) based on the rules that you have created, your rules should be universally applicable! So if 56>100 per your math then 32(Raja) should be > 58 (Hammond).
yoda Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 Lohman's sample size is too small. It may be ok for some just for the sake of argument to put Bradman's performance down, but not ok for others.
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2010 Posted October 20, 2010 The problem with these discussions is that people are so afraid of 'losing' on an online forum that they cannot even acknowledge the most basic of analysis, mathematics, and statistics. Either that or they are just plain dumb. Lohmann was definitely a great bowler and is considered so by all cricket historians. Is he the best ever without doubt like Bradman is in batting? The issue has already been discussed in the Lohmann thread, yet the same things get repeated. Here is SJS's post on Lohmann which pretty much sums it up : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1015745&postcount=145 In addition to that, during the years Lohmann bowled the average batting/bowling average was around 20, as opposed to around 30 where it has been for the last 90 years. It's quite natural and a simple mathematical deduction that if the best bowlers average around 20 in an era when the average is 30, the best bowlers will average 10 points lower ie. (20-10=10) when the batting/bowling average is around 20, as it was in Lohmann's time, which in fact was around Lohmann's average. Anyone with a basic understanding of math, logic, and intellectual honesty will be able to see and acknowledge this simple deduction. No chance of that happening on ICF though.
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