'Only Ponting can beat Tendulkar's record'

[straight.drive]

Hmmm..every other thread seems to descend into argument "sachin vs player xyz". We should have a separate sub-forum for such unending discussions.

[Hindustani]

Ponting was the best player for 3 years of last decade, similarly Tendulkar was the best for 3-4 years in last decade, there are few other players too who did well one year each, eg kallis, yousuf etc so in short, 10 years is way too long period to compare players just like 120 years is way too long period to compare batsmen of 1930s to of 90s

[CSK Fan]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=1+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround His avg falls to 47

Err, the decade is from 2001 to 2010, duh. If i give you 20 1 rupee coins the first ten rupees will be from 1 to 10 and next from 11 to 20! but i am not surprised that many people get confused about this. After all, didnt the world celebrate the new millenium on Jan 1 2000 instead of Jan 1 2001 :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

Yeah, the entire world is full of morons. Only Tendulkar bhakts know when a decade starts and finishes.

[Roshanrocks]

Yeah' date=' the entire world is full of morons. Only Tendulkar bhakts know when a decade starts and finishes.[/quote'] you are a Mod here right? can u please do us a favour? in the 3rd test match thread title can u add dravid's 150th test match please? B-> like to honour the good bloke

[Anakin]

now that its been proved no one reads OP here is something for the side discussion going on; ponting never faced the best bowling lineup of last decade and Sachin never got to face the worst bowling line ' date=' now factor that in your discussion[/quote'] But that doesn't matter :woot:

[CSK Fan]

Yeah' date=' the entire world is full of morons. Only Tendulkar bhakts know when a decade starts and finishes.[/quote'] I dunno what my post had to do with Tendulkar. But do you really think the decade started from 2000 and not 2001?

[akshayxyz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade As per this - decade can be any arbitrary period of 10 years. However, ... Since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

[The Outsider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade As per this - decade can be any arbitrary period of 10 years. However, ... Since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

Yup, I knew it that there were a million idiots at Times Square celebrating the new millenium in '00 with all the fan fare of every reporting agency. Should have just rung up Tendulkar bhakts and Wikipedia for the facts.

[asterix]

Tendulkar is more focussed in creating records hence it'll be difficult for Ponting to even dream of catching up with Tendulkar..

[punjabi_khota]

I dunno what my post had to do with Tendulkar. But do you really think the decade started from 2000 and not 2001?

So you are saying that 1990 was part of the 80s decade, and 2000 was part of 90s :hysterical:

[moumotta]

Yup' date=' I knew it that there were a million idiots at Times Square celebrating the new millenium in '00 with all the fan fare of every reporting agency. Should have just rung up Tendulkar bhakts and Wikipedia for the facts.[/quote'] Being in the company of millions of idiots hardly makes one right.

[The Outsider]

I dunno what my post had to do with Tendulkar. But do you really think the decade started from 2000 and not 2001?

No, I don't 'think' the decade started in 2000, the vast majority of the world accepts that it started in 2000, except for some lunatics like you, who would go to the extent of redefining a calendar as long as Tendulkar comes across better than everyone. It must take some caliber to be of a tool of the level to claim 2000 was part of the 1990s decade.

[The Outsider]

Being in the company of millions of idiots hardly makes one right.

So, 2000 was part of the 1990s decade?

[moumotta]

So' date=' 2000 was part of the 1990s decade?[/quote'] Look at it this way. Counting from 1 (not 2001) in the first century, the first decade by your logic was years 1 to 9 and the second from 10 to 19. Can you see the problem.

[Sachinism]

What are people arguing about? :wall: 1st Jan 2000 - 31st Dec 2009 is a decade 1st Jan 2010 - 31st Dec 2019.... etc

[The Outsider]

Look at it this way. Counting from 1 (not 2001) in the first century, the first decade by your logic was years 1 to 9 and the second from 10 to 19. Can you see the problem.

Why would anyone with half a brain count time from 1? It's a continuous distribution and should be counted from 0.

[asterix]

What are people arguing about? :wall: 1st Jan 2000 - 31st Dec 2009 is a decade 1st Jan 2010 - 31st Dec 2019.... etc

Eckjactly.. :dontknow:

[The Outsider]

What are people arguing about? :wall: 1st Jan 2000 - 31st Dec 2009 is a decade 1st Jan 2010 - 31st Dec 2019.... etc

The logical and accepted definitions make Tendulkar come out behind Ponting in the 00s, so what? We'll redefine how decades are interpreted and time is counted.

[moumotta]

Why would anyone with half a brain count time from 1? It's a continuous distribution and should be counted from 0.

Because the first day of calender would have been 1.1.0001 not 0.0.0000