'Tendulkar better than Bradman' : Zaheer Abbas

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

So you accept that you set out with a pre-conceived notion of projecting Sachin to be better than Bradman wheather the basic premise of that argument makes sense or not to others. So now that you have made yourself clear I can at least see your analysis falls in line with the point you are trying to prove.

How exactly are you inferring that? My premise is this, in case you have not yet understood it in spite of me repeating it on various threads more than a dozen times, Bradman's dominance over his peers is no indication of his greatness vis-a-vis Test batsmen from his future generations. My belief is this: There is no Test batsman greater than Sachin, Lara, and Bradman My Analysis shows - There is one more batsman I can add to the Virtuoso category along side these 3, who is Gavaskar. In case you have not already observed that my posts are very articulate and to the point...I have tried to make them as clear as possible because it encourages very clear debate. If you choose to read things more than what IO have presented then that is your problem. If you are really interested in debate and understanding things with rational pov then stop these underhand tactics and question my arguments...not my appreciation of other posters' posts.

[Raghav_12]

I have considered most of the points you made here or thought about. Actually this is what I had to say on the other thread. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1213630&postcount=413

Went through your post and exactly that's what I have tried to answer in post above. My point is that circumstances might throw up a scenario where one might be seen as much greater than contemporaries, without that being the case in reality. You can also go through my another post where I have tried to explain the same point http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1215257&postcount=2 Also, it is ridiculous to say that Wally Hammond or Jack Hoobs were half as good a batsman as Brdaman was just becuase he averaged so low with respect to him and to say that by putting Sachin at par with Bradman, we eventually putting Hobbs or Hammond at level of mediocre players is totally irrational. You don't translate averages in greatness that simply. You may have to use anti-log for that :--D

[Nirvanam]

There are two ways to look at it. One the way you seem to suggest and two the other side could be so much off base that smileys and sarcasm are one way to deal with it. Because when someone has this rigid mind-set of being obsessed with this one player and out to prove a point there is nothing much one could do. I have seen some excellent rebuttals by the way from Rett on the other thread.

No amount of ridicule can justify against rational argument. In case any of you seriously have any rational arguments you would have already presented them. I even included a very good link about logical fallacies which you yourself can verify if your arguments are committing logical fallacies. Your ONLY argument in favor of Bradman is that Bradman >> peers. Your resultant inference from that is that Bradman necessarily > all other Test batsmen. This, in case you do not know, is a LOGICAL FALLACY. So if you can present me one logically sound argument about Bradman's superiority vis-a-vis batsmen like Sachin and Lara I'll view you as an open minded person who is willing to test his own theories. So please stop talking in the air and accusing me of not trying to debate rationally here (although this post does not but the previous post did). You need to provide counter arguments to my arguments. I have started 2 threads and on them I am yet to come across one logically sound argument against my argument. Most of them were fallacies of the type Strawman. An open minded person should be able to argue his position logically. You are not doing it. You tried to earlier but your arguments were shown to either lack rational inference or were shown to be strawmas. Please don't resort to tactics like that idiot Rett. That dickhead has no sense of respect to fellow posters. Pls dissociate yourself from that idiot's unnecessary disrespectful posts. I have noted above that ridicule is the only form of opposition given to paradigm changing theories. That can be evidenced with Rett the resident idiot of ICF

[Nirvanam]

srtsfanaticssuck, I have started a new thread with an argument. Why don't you try arguing against it? What happened to the other 2 parameters? I guess you don't have any arguments against them otherwise you would've presented them. Or do you have any arguments against them?

[Mamu]

Went through your post and exactly that's what I have tried to answer in post above. My point is that circumstances might throw up a scenario where one might be seen as much greater than contemporaries, without that being the case in reality. You can also go through my another post where I have tried to explain the same point http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1215257&postcount=2 Also, it is ridiculous to say that Wally Hammond or Jack BHoobs were half as good a batsman as Brdaman was just becuase he averaged so low with respect to him and to say that by putting Sachin at par with Bradman, we eventually putting Hobbs or Hammond at level of mediocre players is totally irrational. You don't translate averages in greatness that simply. You may have to use anti-log for that :--D

I thought your Jack Boobs played before Bradman time -- no ?

[Nirvanam]

I thought your Jack Boobs played before Bradman time -- no ?

Jack Hobbs' ending time coincided with Bradman's start. Also Hobbs played in far more difficult conditions than Bradman or Hammond did...he also faced better bowlers than Bradman did.

[Raghav_12]

I thought your Jack Boobs played before Bradman time -- no ?

He started much earlier than Bradman, in 1902, while Bradman did in 1928. But Hobbs had super lengthy career so I believe his last few years coincided with Bradman. But don't understand how that piece of information is relevant here. My point was that by just looking at the averages you can't compare two players even if they are from same (or almost same) era.

[zen]

Whatever the case' date=' [b']I only see Sachin supporters making some arguments here, the other side has been limited to smileys and pot-shots. And thats true for other threads too. I think that says something

Appears as if you haven't read the statement below :giggle: "Most of their arguments have already been thrown out in other threads so to me it appears as if some people keep doing the same thing to show that they are still in the game. And try to raise their ego. How can anyone in his right frame of mind discuss such a trolling effort and comical manipulation of data seriously! "