Vijay.Sharma Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 All the points you pointed out are just because you came late into a discussion between me and ganesharan... all these points had been discussed and i cant repeat the same again... just check mine and his posts and you will realize what we were arguing about... i accept all things and i had never said sachin has not helped india win all i was arguing was that he didnot perform in 2nd innings and this is what happens when you just read some posts in a big thread and jump in among a discussion among two other people...:facepalm::facepalm:Alright dude, let us define what you mean by "performance in second innings". And let us finalize this crap once and for all? OK? Here's what I propose - Performance in second innings = a. Ratio of particular batsman's Average in second innings to that of the top 1-6 batsmen excluding him. Example, if batsman A averages 45 and the rest of the top 6 averaged 34 then his performance = 45/34 = 1.33 b. Above Ratio is to be calculated as Home:Away :: 0.8:1.2. Example, if batsman scored 1200 runs at home and 900 away (total 2100) then they are considered as 960 and 1080 respectively (total 2140) c. Ratio in point 'a' is to be calculated based on Regular:Minnow :: 1.0:0.5. The minnows are Zim and Ban for both Sachin and Lax. Example, if batsman scored 1600 runs against regular teams and 500 against minnows then his total runs = 1600*1.0 + 500*0.5 = 1850 Now, very importantly, do not be accusatory or dismissive of my act of proposing a way to measure. If you disagree with it then please provide an alternative - be constructive in your criticism unlike the fanatic who calls others fanatics but does nothing to forward the discussion. Edit - By the way we also need to give importance to how many times a batsman has done it. Doing it in just 25 innings is a lot different from doing it in say 60 innings, innit? So, I propose take innings weightage = batsman's innings versus his competitor's innings i.e. for sachin it will be sachin innings / Laxman's innings. And Laxman it will be Lax innings / Sachin innings. Multiply this with the final "performance in second innings" ratio. If you do not agree with it, propose a different way to measure the difference in number of times but don't be dismissive and rude like the fanatic
pensionplan Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 That was because i had said that i liked laxman better than sachin cause he has performed better in 2nd innings and helped india win and save certain games unlike sachin who has done the same in less number of games.... You will not be alone in rating VVS as highly as any other great batsman. Good for you that you like VVS better than SRT. to which ganesharan charged me of being an anti-srt guy and started saying that sachin has done this that and all... Who is the ganesharan...vonesharan..Do not worry about them SRT fanatics.
carnish Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Evidence? You said Sachin has performed much better in matches that India lost. I am still waiting for the proof for it. Arey yaar ,... you say sachin average is 23 in lost games 4th innings... yes.. wat is laxman's.... 22 so lax < sach lost match 3rd innings... sach = 45 lax = 30 lax < sach but in drawn games and won games both 3rd and 4th innings lax avg is miles above sachins... and i posted the stats innings by innings list so that you can see that in games we lost laxman never has had any substantial knocs in india's second innings... but sach has quite a few...
akshayxyz Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 How do the numbers look for Gary Sobers if we remove India, NZ, and Pakistan that were proven minnows? How do the numbers look for Hutton, and Hammond if we remove South Africa, West Indies, New Zealand, India, and Pakistan that were proven minnows? How do numbers look for Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Laxman, Lara Inzi if we remove Bangladesh that were proven minnows? How do numbers look for Gavaskar if we remove Sri Lanka that were proven minnows? How do numbers look for Greg Chappell if we remove India in Australia, and Sri Lanka that were proven minnows? OMG, Don's average drops below 90, if you exclude the minnows - India and SA. 10 point drop.. OMFG.
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 OMG, Don's average drops below 90, if you exclude the minnows - India and SA. 10 point drop.. OMFG.Remove the WI too Edit - In fact if you take just one regular team and rest minnows then MoYo, Kallis, and so many others average better than Don's 99.94...they average in the 100s including Buddha
carnish Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Alright dude, let us define what you mean by "performance in second innings". And let us finalize this crap once and for all? OK? Here's what I propose - Performance in second innings = a. Ratio of particular batsman's Average in second innings to that of the top 1-6 batsmen excluding him. Example, if batsman A averages 45 and the rest of the top 6 averaged 34 then his performance = 45/34 = 1.33 b. Above Ratio is to be calculated as Home:Away :: 0.8:1.2. Example, if batsman scored 1200 runs at home and 900 away (total 2100) then they are considered as 960 and 1080 respectively (total 2140) c. Ratio in point 'a' is to be calculated based on Regular:Minnow :: 1.0:0.5. The minnows are Zim and Ban for both Sachin and Lax. Example, if batsman scored 1600 runs against regular teams and 500 against minnows then his total runs = 1600*1.0 + 500*0.5 = 1850 Now, very importantly, do not be accusatory or dismissive of my act of proposing a way to measure. If you disagree with it then please provide an alternative - be constructive in your criticism unlike the fanatic who calls others fanatics but does nothing to forward the discussion. Edit - By the way we also need to give importance to how many times a batsman has done it. Doing it in just 25 innings is a lot different from doing it in say 60 innings, innit? So, I propose take innings weightage = batsman's innings versus his competitor's innings i.e. for sachin it will be sachin innings / Laxman's innings. And Laxman it will be Lax innings / Sachin innings. Multiply this with the final "performance in second innings" ratio. If you do not agree with it, propose a different way to measure the difference in number of times but don't be dismissive and rude like the fanatic Bhai saab... i am very sorry i made a statement... i was never here accusing anything... i just said what i feel .... one fellow poster started asking me why i think so so i said because laxman won us a few games and then i am having a torrid time replying him cause i am actually pretty lazy to dig into stats(i have said this before also) but i have been doing it cause i saw that he is very passionate about it and so i thought its ok for a discussion... now i cannot argue about the same with all others.... please spare me... i am here to share my thoughts not argue with all fellow posters.... however i will reply to ganesharan if he wants me to
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Arey yaar ,... you say sachin average is 23 in lost games 4th innings... yes.. wat is laxman's.... 22 so lax < sach lost match 3rd innings... sach = 45 lax = 30 lax < sach but in drawn games and won games both 3rd and 4th innings lax avg is miles above sachins... and i posted the stats innings by innings list so that you can see that in games we lost laxman never has had any substantial knocs in india's second innings... but sach has quite a few...edit - deleted
Jersey #10 Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 OMG, Don's average drops below 90, if you exclude the minnows - India and SA. 10 point drop.. OMFG. He was a minnow basher all along I guess :giggle: The number of bowlers he played in his career can be counted with your fingers and have some fingers left over:haha: in Sachin's case, you need a calculator :haha: I remember bashing my gully bowlers every day b/c they were the only bowlers I really faced. Then one day I played against the padosi society's bowlers and didn't do so well. also, Don used to get like 6 months rest between games and stuff...hence he was always 100% fit going into a game
akshayxyz Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Furthermore, Don's average in Lost matches is lost match 1928-1938 12 22 0 952 131 43.27 10000 standard deviations away from his normal average of 99.94.
pensionplan Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Bhai saab... i am very sorry i made a statement... i was never here accusing anything... i just said what i feel .... one fellow poster started asking me why i think so so i said because laxman won us a few games and then i am having a torrid time replying him cause i am actually pretty lazy to dig into stats(i have said this before also) but i have been doing it cause i saw that he is very passionate about it and so i thought its ok for a discussion... now i cannot argue about the same with all others.... please spare me... i am here to share my thoughts not argue with all fellow posters.... however i will reply to ganesharan if he wants me to Good idea especially when they try to present a load of BS to prove things that do not make sense.
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Bhai saab... i am very sorry i made a statement... i was never here accusing anything... i just said what i feel .... one fellow poster started asking me why i think so so i said because laxman won us a few games and then i am having a torrid time replying him cause i am actually pretty lazy to dig into stats(i have said this before also) but i have been doing it cause i saw that he is very passionate about it and so i thought its ok for a discussion... now i cannot argue about the same with all others.... please spare me... i am here to share my thoughts not argue with all fellow posters.... however i will reply to ganesharan if he wants me toSo then do you agree your opinion could have been misguided by the lack of understanding the entire facts and your opinion was boosted by selective memory?
akshayxyz Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Further Furthermore Don's average at 4th position is 53.88 - compare that to SRT's average at 4th position :winky:
Jersey #10 Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Good idea especially when they try to present a load of BS to prove things that do not make sense. one needs a functioning normal brain for that which seems to be lacking in your case. who was the guy talking about "rpt"? :haha: is that supposed to make sense?
akshayxyz Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Remove the WI too Edit - In fact if you take just one regular team and rest minnows then MoYo, Kallis, and so many others average better than Don's 99.94...they average in the 100s including Buddha No, that is not allowed, because including that brings his average a bit lower than if we include just England.. which is the secret formula in discussing greats.. try to find the best combination of filters to find minimum average.
pensionplan Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 So then do you agree your opinion could have been misguided by the lack of understanding the entire facts and your opinion was boosted by selective memory?No yours is trying to write BS going in with a pre-meditated view that some 'xyz' is better than others anyway. Buddha/Budda or whatever BS that you can come up with.
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 No' date=' that is not allowed, because including that brings his average a bit lower than if we include just England.. which is the secret formula in discussing greats.. try to find the best combination of filters to find minimum average.[/quote']LOL! OK!
carnish Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 So then do you agree your opinion could have been misguided by the lack of understanding the entire facts and your opinion was boosted by selective memory? Anyone who watches the game of cricket knows that statistics are not the only criteria to judge or compare between players... situation of the game and 100 other factors come in... and in those i cant argue on basis of stats and give evidence which ganesharan demands... so although i wont say i am misguided i would agree of selective memory as truly speaking and i have admitted this once before too in one comparision i had just forgotten one of sachin's knock of 155 vs australia at chennai... but apart from that no... i dont accept it
carnish Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Good idea especially when they try to present a load of BS to prove things that do not make sense. yaar claiming that someone is writing BS isnt going to help your cause in this thread... its opinions and everyone's will differ from others... just that some people cannot accept that others can have a different one cause they think theirs is the only one thats correct...
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Carnish, Let us try that exercise and see who comes out on top. I think it will be very close. I want you to do it because it will be one way you will realize how selective memory can play tricks with our minds. Come on dude, let's do the analysis. Also let us not argue about 27.13 > 27.12 kinda scores. Let's say if there is a difference of at least 10% between the two then there is a significant practical difference otherwise it is just statistical difference. OK?
carnish Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Anymore replies will come later as its dinner time :--D
Recommended Posts