Conventional wisdom dumped-Flower, Kallis, Ponting best batsmen over last 30 years

[The Outsider]

Since many have been saying strike rate is the primary factor in determining the batting difficulty of an era, here are the strike rates for : 1. 2000 onwards : 63.8 2. 1990-2000 : 66.3 3. 1980-1990 : 68.3 It's pretty obvious from the above that the bowling standards have been at their peak since 2000 onwards. All this crap about West Indies bowlers of the 80s being the best is just that, crap. The crap about Tendulkar being the best batsmen because he dominated in the 90s (which before these eye opening stats were considered a tougher decade to bat in because of the average) is just crap. The best batsmen of the last 30 years have been Andy Flower, Kallis, and Ponting because they have averaged the highest since run scoring got really difficult with the awesome strike rates of 63 seen on average in test cricket : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=2000;qualval1=runs;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Lara, Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Richards, and Chappell feasted on easy batting conditions when the strike rates were in the late 60s with hardly any good bowlers around. Batting has never been as difficult as 2000 onwards - the strike rates prove it.

[fineleg]

All this crap about West Indies bowlers of the 80s being the best is just that, crap. Lara, Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Richards, and Chappell feasted on easy batting conditions when the strike rates were in the late 60s with hardly any good bowlers around. Batting has never been as difficult as 2000 onwards - the strike rates prove it.

:two_thumbs_up: QED!

[Roshanrocks]

Sehwag is the best :headshake:

[ravishingravi]

You are on a roll.

[ZodiaC]

:regular_smile:

[rkt.india]

Sehwag is the best :headshake:

oh ya:two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachinism]

What's the point of these threads? They make the site look bad, imagine a new visitor joining and without knowing the history sees this they would just laugh and leave

[Ranjha]

What's the point of these threads? They make the site look bad, imagine a new visitor joining and without knowing the history sees this they would just laugh and leave

I agree.

[achilles]

What's the point of these threads? They make the site look bad, imagine a new visitor joining and without knowing the history sees this they would just laugh and leave

In a fit of rage, the equation changes. Settling Personal scores becomes > than the reputation of the site. But these are two of the greatest contributors on ICF. I hope they sort their issues out soon.

[Gunner_Mania]

yeah seriously. I mean why can't these be argued in existing threads. What is the constant need of trying to prove my stats crunching skills are better than yours and therefore I can prove a new theory better than you. Mind you, Prof & BossBhai from my experience here over the past year or so it is not like you both lack cricket intellegntisia and need the aid of stats to fight your battles. This just spoils the way the site looks.

[The Outsider]

Hang on. So it is perfectly alright for people to give 'logic' and 'gyaan' to show Tendulkar is better than Bradman. When I use the same 'logic' and 'gyaan' for other batsmen then I am bringing down the quality of the site? You should pause and think that the problem is not with my applying the 'logic' to other batsmen which supposedly gives absurd results, it is with the 'logic' itself. EDIT : But feel free to delete, close the thread. I have already realized that nothing I will say or write can change the jingoistic notion of Sachin bhakti. And found further proof of it when I went to another site yesterday and saw why Imran Khan is greater than Bradman. This is not about analysis and understanding, but a matter of belief, which cannot be changed. I just have my bit of fun applying the same logic to other cricketers and laughing at the absurd results I see like Jadeja is a greater player than Mankad for example, or that Kallis is greater batsman than Richards.

[Ram]

What's the point of these threads? They make the site look bad, imagine a new visitor joining and without knowing the history sees this they would just laugh and leave

yeah seriously. I mean why can't these be argued in existing threads. What is the constant need of trying to prove my stats crunching skills are better than yours and therefore I can prove a new theory better than you. Mind you' date=' Prof & BossBhai from my experience here over the past year or so it is not like you both lack cricket intellegntisia and need the aid of stats to fight your battles. This just spoils the way the site looks.[/quote'] The absurdity isn’t that we have all these satirical mock threads these days, it is that people who lack even a modicum common sense make over-simplistic assumptions in the name of objective analysis, to glorify their favorite players.

[Sachinism]

I brought up the issue because there's too many threads of applying logic' in a sarcastic way. Most of the points could have been addressed in the thread in which the 'logic' originally appeared, but new threads are created to show everyone else the other persons 'logic'. And its not just this thread, I just brought it up in this thread, but it's the same for the rest

This is not about analysis and understanding' date=' but a matter of belief, which cannot be changed.[/quote'] This is what I've been saying. People believe they are absolutely right, that they're not willing to budge on anything whether it makes sense or not. They will use any means to down play the achievements of the other to show they're right.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

This is what I've been saying. People believe they are absolutely right, that they're not willing to budge on anything whether it makes sense or not. They will use any means to down play the achievements of the other to show they're right.

Believing Tendulkar is greater than Bradman is different from trying to prove that Tendulkar is better than Bradman because he played in an era of better strike rates. I have no problems with the former, but just have my bit of fun showing the absurd logic behind the latter. Anyhow, you are a mod. I have never objected to any of my threads being moved/deleted.

[CSK Fan]

What's the point of these threads? They make the site look bad, imagine a new visitor joining and without knowing the history sees this they would just laugh and leave

I don't think it makes the site look bad. Both Shetawb and BB put their points very well and its a good read even if you don't agree to theie viewpoints

[Ranjha]

I don't think it makes the site look bad. Both Shetawb and BB put their points very well and its a good read even if you don't agree to theie viewpoints

I am not a very old member here so I don't know if my 2 cents hold any weight here. I personally think that healthy debate is good and thats the reason forums exist. But I think creating all these threads is unnecessary to prove a point. It can all be done in one thread. For example: I dont want to be a part of bradman vs tendulkar debate and I am not following it. All these sarcastic threads then just puzzle you more and I imagine it does the same for newcomers.

[Sachinism]

I don't think it makes the site look bad. Both Shetawb and BB put their points very well and its a good read even if you don't agree to theie viewpoints

No doubt there's been some great points. Both are very good debaters and it makes for pleasant reading, but its the sarcastic threads, there seems to be too many of them (and that includes threads by others)

[Ranjha]

Believing Tendulkar is greater than Bradman is different from trying to prove that Tendulkar is better than Bradman because he played in an era of better strike rates. I have no problems with the former, but just have my bit of fun showing the absurd logic behind the latter. Anyhow, you are a mod. I have never objected to any of my threads being moved/deleted.

I agree with you here. Comparing Bradman with Tendulkar is absurd and Tendulkar is not better than Bradman because they both can't be compared to each other. The game has totally changed now to make any reasonable comparisons. You can't predict accurately how both players would have performed in different eras. The time gap is way too large.