pensionplan Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I meant the dude with the funny moniker who thinks it is somehow a validation of his "neutrality" LOL. Now are you making assumptions on people's monikers. Great.
fineleg Posted March 4, 2011 Author Posted March 4, 2011 Reely ? Now before I go waste time and start producing his posts and posts by few other cartoons I would like to know if you will have the necessary honesty and intestinal fortitude to correct these guys and start dispensing your advices ? I am mainly talking abt this thread. I am not following his posts in each and every thread. So, if there are places where he has put down SRT unfairly, then that is wrong. I absolutely agree with that. However, whether he has done so or not, I am not sure. All I can say is, if he has done so - then it is wrong. I am not challenging you on this. But I really dont have time to wade through all his posts. As far as I understood, his moniker is to make fun of SRT fans who go overboard, and not to make fun of SRT the player. But I dont claim to have followed all his writings. And whats wrong in calling SRT the greatest Batsman ever ? It is not for PC-ness. Its a fact - that the game is very different during DGB era to now. And we have players who excelled at it - each in their own way in the timeframe they played their cricket in. To think that we can compare across all eras and declare one clear winner would be futile - how do we get just one winner across all eras? Thats why I'm hesitant to declare a single winner based on exploits now versus exploits many many years ago.
fineleg Posted March 4, 2011 Author Posted March 4, 2011 I am not claiming any self appointed equal opportunity role in the first place. When I see a post that I agree/disagree with, or have comments about, I write, thats all. I am not a police here, just a poster like anyone else - and I have the times when I frequent the forum more, and times when I'm busy with other things and not writing here as much. Which era has best cricket? 60 years from now - it may be 2070 that has best cricket? The thing is each era has a style, and within that style there are some top players. We cannot compare the cell phone of 1995 to the cell phone of 2011. In 1990s even having a cell phone was a novelty - even if the phone looks weird compared to the stylish/effective ones of today. These things will evolve. It is natural the game also evolves, and will continue to happen even in future decades. Obviously, for me - the period where I watched cricket is the best, the current ones. But that does not mean the players my Dad or Grandpa watched are crap. They are legends in their own way - and the game ALWAYS evolves
pensionplan Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 No extrapolation was asked for just a simple straightforward opinion on whether you consider him to be equivalent to a Strike Bowler as per modern standards ( because his record certainly puts him in that category). Not surprisingly you have tried all sorts of ways to wiggle away from this as you very well know that you are on a very slippery slope. So now if you dont mind can we have a straight answer please.( Yes he was Modern Strike Bowler Material / No he wasn't ) Hypothetically let us say I answered 'No' to Toshack still it does not explain how one person can be so far ahead of his competition. No matter how hard you try you have not come up with one good cricketing reason excepting thrown in stuff like 'amateurish' "socio-economic conditions" etc to combat a metric that is off the charts. Look for all your claims of Tendulkar being the undisputed No.1 of all time he never ever managed to top the 60 average in Tests and stay there for any sustained amount of time. His average falls right in the thick of where the other greats of his era and the previous era have managed. While I am amazed at his longevity and the number of games played that have translated into mountains of runs never once did Tendulkar manage to have a 40-50 game stretch in Tests during his career where he came close to an average of 70. While it is easy to downplay Bradman's average of almost 100 attributing to so called poor quality of cricket and toothless attacks the fact remains that the difference between the first best to the next best is at its widest by quite a margin only when he played and rightfully a freak of that nature will always be looked upon in awe. Simple as that. errr ... just acknowledging facts that are now available in the form of videos would be a good start. Just because there exists million square inches of embellished hogwash written about DGB doesnt necessarily amount to him being the greatest. Like I said stick to facts and develop some honesty instead of hiding behind excuses.
fineleg Posted March 4, 2011 Author Posted March 4, 2011 SRT had gaps in his resume, and thats the reason there was no need to oppose people pointing at those gaps in the "few years" that you mentioned - and hence the silence. However, now he has polished all that, and he is consummate with respect to achievements. That's why, while I used to say RD and SRT are equal (and in fact for a while RD>SRT in Tests), I changed the stance when SRT proved otherwise in terms of performance, leading to gaurav92 having his new signature :D [You asked me a question abt RD>SRT or SRT>RD some months back, I answered SRT>RD, and you did a :woot: and gaurav92 made that his signature ] Regarding 'contradiction' - no it is not a contradiction. You say 'If the sport as it is today is played at a higher standard and is more competitive then you cant simply proclaim that the oldies were legends" - Thats not true. These games will keep getting competitive, thats the way it is. People can only play the game as it is in their times. And in their times, DGB was head and shoulders above the competition. So, he is thoroughly a legend. What is it that prevents you from accepting non-Indian players as legends? (or it seems so?) :dontknow:
fineleg Posted March 4, 2011 Author Posted March 4, 2011 And yes, Bodyline is very much a factor - it was a big struggle, and DGB withstood that, and protective gear advancements too are to be taken into consideration. Without the protective gear, the current batsmen cannot be so 'fearless' in their shots against pacers. Also coaching and general advancement in bats etc. they are far superior in present times. But those are fine - the game will keep advancing. Just that we need to give due acknowledgements to the legends. Its so hard to get you to admit that DGB was one of the top legends of this game! Phew! So, was Vivian Richards, Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Shane Warne/Muralitharan, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Alan Border - each in their own way. All these are top legends of the game. Ranking among them can only be done among contemporaries and similar dimension (batting or pacer/spinner or allrounder etc)
Raghav_12 Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 And yes, Bodyline is very much a factor - it was a big struggle, and DGB withstood that, and protective gear advancements too are to be taken into consideration. Without the protective gear, the current batsmen cannot be so 'fearless' in their shots against pacers. Also coaching and general advancement in bats etc. they are far superior in present times. Excuse me for intervening in this discussion between two of you,but on this point I could not resist. In my earlier post I had clearly explained how numbers of Bodyline series actually help in debunking the myth of "Bradman being far far superior to his contemporaries". I am putting content of that post again here. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1341489&postcount=75 Bodyline was series where bowlers raised voice for their rights but it was smothered because it was against basic notion of bowlers (which was prevalent at that time) that they are there just to keep the game going. In fact, stats of bodyline series again reduces halo around Bradman and brings him back to Sachin like mortality. From Australian side, Bradman scored 396 runs in series while Steve McCabe did 385. Steve McCabe had a career average of 48, but in Bodyline it went down to 43 only. Bradman had a career average of 100, but in bodyline it came down to 56. Bradman scored 1 century in series and so did Steve McCabe. Point I am trying to make here is, though Bradman was still best Australian batsman in bodyline, but he was no where proved to be in different league. Mind you his being in different league has always been a corner stone of Bradman's Bhakt's argumens. The huge difference between Bradman and his peers was there only for easier conditions. When standards went up they were at same level, almost.
zen Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Excuse me for intervening in this discussion between two of you,but on this point I could not resist. In my earlier post I had clearly explained how numbers of Bodyline series actually help in debunking the myth of "Bradman being far far superior to his contemporaries". I am putting content of that post again here. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1341489&postcount=75 ^ That's as comical post as it can get :hysterical: What does THIS show (3 test matches, if it shows anything) first you drew parallels by giving example of Andy Flower, then that antilog and now this take on bodyline :giggle: PS even a shrink won't attend to folks like you :P
The Outsider Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Excuse me for intervening in this discussion between two of you,but on this point I could not resist. In my earlier post I had clearly explained how numbers of Bodyline series actually help in debunking the myth of "Bradman being far far superior to his contemporaries". I am putting content of that post again here. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1341489&postcount=75 I know BossBhai is impervious to any facts as far as this discussion is concerned, but it amazes me how people turn a blind eye to facts. I have made all these points and many more in the Bradman thread, but it seems some people just like to read what they like : 1. Bodyline was made illegal. By definition it can never be used again. 2. Bodyline is different from short pitch bowling. 3. There has been one instance in history after Bodyline was made illegal that it was used. The umpires turned a blind eye to the ongoings. Here was the result : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63162.html This was a batting lineup which had chased a world record 404 in the previous match for the loss of 4 wickets. 4. Bradman's runs in the series came from 4 matches, McCabe's from 5. 5. Bradman was coming off an illness into the series. There were serious doubts whether he would be able to take any part. 6. Suggesting an average of 57 and 43 are in the same league as suggesting Tendulkar and Ganguly are the same level of batsmen. 7. Bradman averaged marginally more than even Hammond and Sutcliffe who were not facing Bodyline. 8. Bradman scored 3 50s in addition to the hundred, McCabe only 1 50. 9. There was no other Australian who got even close to McCabe forget about Bradman. So an argument can easily be made that McCabe played one freakish innings rather than Bradman went down to the level of his peers. 10. Regarding the importance of protective equipment, people still die in car crashes after wearing seat belts. But it's common sense that chances of dying are significantly reduced if you wear one.
zen Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Avg of 100 after 52 tests and 20 yrs of cricket means little!
Raghav_12 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 ^ That's as comical post as it can get :hysterical: What does THIS show (3 test matches, if it shows anything) first you drew parallels by giving example of Andy Flower, then that antilog and now this take on bodyline :giggle: PS even a shrink won't attend to folks like you :P A low life like you, should stay away from all kind of civilized discussions. Tujhe tameez se bat karni nahin ati to sale discussion karne ata kyoon hai. Why the f*** you resorted to personal attack when everything was discussed based on simple facts.. I hope moderators will have a look at above post..
zen Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 A low life like you, should stay away from all kind of civilized discussions. Tujhe tameez se bat karni nahin ati to sale discussion karne ata kyoon hai. Why the f*** you resorted to personal attack when everything was discussed based on simple facts. I hope moderators will have a look at above post.. Now that's more like personal attack :hysterical: It nice of me that I even take time to respond to your crap in such a nice way :P
Raghav_12 Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I know BossBhai is impervious to any facts as far as this discussion is concerned, but it amazes me how people turn a blind eye to facts. I have made all these points and many more in the Bradman thread, but it seems some people just like to read what they like : 1. Bodyline was made illegal. By definition it can never be used again. 2. Bodyline is different from short pitch bowling. 3. There has been one instance in history after Bodyline was made illegal that it was used. The umpires turned a blind eye to the ongoings. Here was the result : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63162.html This was a batting lineup which had chased a world record 404 in the previous match for the loss of 4 wickets. 4. Bradman's runs in the series came from 4 matches, McCabe's from 5. 5. Bradman was coming off an illness into the series. There were serious doubts whether he would be able to take any part. 6. Suggesting an average of 57 and 43 are in the same league as suggesting Tendulkar and Ganguly are the same level of batsmen. 7. Bradman averaged marginally more than even Hammond and Sutcliffe who were not facing Bodyline. 8. Bradman scored 3 50s in addition to the hundred, McCabe only 1 50. 9. There was no other Australian who got even close to McCabe forget about Bradman. So an argument can easily be made that McCabe played one freakish innings rather than Bradman went down to the level of his peers. 10. Regarding the importance of protective equipment, people still die in car crashes after wearing seat belts. But it's common sense that chances of dying are significantly reduced if you wear one. Not that I was trying to say that McCabe or anybody else was greater batsman than Bradman or equal. My whole point here was that in sports difference between two players get magnified when conditions are easier while when conditions are tougher and more competitive these kind of differences in numbers go away. And for the same reason it can not be said that Bradman is greater than Tendulkar just because he was far more ahead of his peers than what Sachin is.
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