Yoda-esque Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 Ah I see, thank you! Your quote sounds pretty cool, almost Confucius like. How I wish it wasn't true but I already see it unfolding. :(( Now I'm going to get ready for the match tonight. I want to Spam the match thread with India support! This is what I joined the forum for, I hope many will be there cheering every boundary and wicket we pickup! :yay: Then you are in luck.ICF has some distinguished spammers on board (myself included) and its why I joined ICF as well.
CasualVisitor Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 So much promise, apart from being the son and having influence of one of the legends of Indian ricket - where did he go ? Was it a case of overhyped and undercooked or did India find better players than Rohan ?
Mariyam Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 When it comes to batsmen, a hundred is equivalent to a medal in the armed forces. Sir Don Bradman has an average of nearly a hundred. Sachin has, or soon will have a hundred hundreds. The very word Hundred is used twice in the context of Sachin. Those of you who have read Advanced Maths and Comparative Techniques in Sports by Prof. Pradeep Hasmukh , will verily attest to the fact that 2>1 by implication, Sachin > Bradman Q.e.d Need there be anymore proof of superiority? There are other in your face reasons too, that people have collectively chosen to obliviated. Don = Donald -> closely associated with Donald Duck. And we all know what Duck stands for in the context of cricket. From Konkan Marathi, Ton is often transcribed as Ten in English. Sachin Tendulkar is actually Sachin Tondulkar. And here too, we know what Ton indicates in the context of cricket. Duck or Ton? 1 or 2? Bradman or Sachin? The answer is obvious. :yay:
Sachin=GOD Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 Sure' date=' but my point is for claims like just because SRT has 15k runs, he automatically becomes the greatest. Like even Gavaskar automatically become the greatest after becoming the first man to score 10 k runs .... [b']The point was also against developing obsession for stats says the man who has only one reason for calling Bradman the greatest of all time - 99.94 :giggle:
mishra Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 How can such guestimates/ifs/buts/coulda/woulda/shoulda/ nonsense even be taken seriously. I can't believe people are even bothering to argue against this guy and defend Sachin. Pakis come up with this exact mentality every time to suggest Inzamam Old Hag > SRT and people hardly bother' date=' why is this guy even worth such an effort to argue with. [b']It makes no sense for someone to intentionally try and degrade the most prolific batsmen from their nation unless they are trolling or being a typical Ponting/Inzamam fanboy. This is pitiful and pathetic, you come to a Indian Cricket forum to enjoy and discuss Cricket with other supporters of your team and you run into this typical Paki crap of bashing Sachin with absolute nonsense woulda/coulda/shoulda/if/but/guestimate crap. Bhai, Few month on this thread and you will memorize the names of each of those super Posters. Their only goal is to somehow belittle Tendulkar
Sachinism Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 When it comes to batsmen, a hundred is equivalent to a medal in the armed forces. Sir Don Bradman has an average of nearly a hundred. Sachin has, or soon will have a hundred hundreds. The very word Hundred is used twice in the context of Sachin. Those of you who have read Advanced Maths and Comparative Techniques in Sports by Prof. Pradeep Hasmukh , will verily attest to the fact that 2>1 by implication, Sachin > Bradman Q.e.d Need there be anymore proof of superiority? There are other in your face reasons too, that people have collectively chosen to obliviated. Don = Donald -> closely associated with Donald Duck. And we all know what Duck stands for in the context of cricket. From Konkan Marathi, Ton is often transcribed as Ten in English. Sachin Tendulkar is actually Sachin Tondulkar. And here too, we know what Ton indicates in the context of cricket. Duck or Ton? 1 or 2? Bradman or Sachin? The answer is obvious. :yay: /thread
CSK Fan Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 When it comes to batsmen, a hundred is equivalent to a medal in the armed forces. Sir Don Bradman has an average of nearly a hundred. Sachin has, or soon will have a hundred hundreds. The very word Hundred is used twice in the context of Sachin. Those of you who have read Advanced Maths and Comparative Techniques in Sports by Prof. Pradeep Hasmukh , will verily attest to the fact that 2>1 by implication, Sachin > Bradman Q.e.d Need there be anymore proof of superiority? There are other in your face reasons too, that people have collectively chosen to obliviated. Don = Donald -> closely associated with Donald Duck. And we all know what Duck stands for in the context of cricket. From Konkan Marathi, Ton is often transcribed as Ten in English. Sachin Tendulkar is actually Sachin Tondulkar. And here too, we know what Ton indicates in the context of cricket. Duck or Ton? 1 or 2? Bradman or Sachin? The answer is obvious. :yay: This seriously makes more sense than some of Rett's and Srtclosetfans arguments. :two_thumbs_up:
zen Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 You don't know anything about me, but your display thus far on this thread along with your attacks on others and even me being a new member are sad. At least I'm not using ifs/buts/coulda/guestimate nonsense in any of my posts and attacking others for pointing it out. Yet you call me ignorant? This whole charade you are running is not good, degrading your own players is not what an Indian Cricket Forum should be about. I have not even set an opinion on a single player here as yet. I can call SRT a great player, I can call Lara a great player and yes I can call Ponting a great player. Who is going to attack or argue with me for it? I didn't do anything wrong by saying these players are great, the only person spouting this hate and encouraging it is you. Ok so you did not try to attack me in post #1130 .... But my posts welcoming you is an attack and you never wrote anything about inzamam, pointing, etc in your short number of posts You fit the profile .... Unfortunately, if you stay longer here, I ll devote some of my time on you. Because that ll be fun :hysterical:
zen Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: rett dikra give it a rest. Even the newbies are pwning your sorry behind As you can see, I can take the mask off ppl faces and help them to reveal their true selves :P
bulbul Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Bhai, Few month on this thread and you will memorize the names of each of those super Posters. Their only goal is to somehow belittle Tendulkar why do u think we all Belittle Sachin..just becuse wont agree with u guys..... We have to give justice to the talents of Other cricketers also who completely ignored by Sachin fans :winky:
mishra Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 why do u think we all Belittle Sachin..just becuse wont agree with u guys..... We have to give justice to the talents of Other cricketers also who completely ignored by Sachin fans :winky: You just need to check my signature to understand the hollowness of the thread and its Pundits :hehe:
akshayxyz Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 What do you call someone who goes through people's post history, goes through blogs and quotes the irrelevant blog content here...
Cricket_2_Death Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Ok so you did not try to attack me in post #1130 .... But my posts welcoming you is an attack and you never wrote anything about inzamam, pointing, etc in your short number of posts You fit the profile .... Unfortunately, if you stay longer here, I ll devote some of my time on you. Because that ll be fun :hysterical: Again, I was simply pointing out your use of buts/woulda/ifs/guestimate nonsense which you use when arguing. I'm not sure why you keep jumping to "Ponting" and "Izamam" at every chance when those posts had NOTHING to do with you. I haven't once said anything about anyone being better than someone else or degrade any of our players like you are. I'm not sure what fun you are talking about with respect to "devoting time" to me, but what you are doing is neither fun nor is it some game.
zen Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Again' date=' I was simply pointing out your use of buts/woulda/ifs/guestimate nonsense which you use when arguing. I'm not sure why you keep jumping to "Ponting" and "Izamam" at every chance when those posts had NOTHING to do with you. I haven't once said anything about anyone being better than someone else or degrade any of our players like you are. I'm not sure what fun you are talking about with respect to "devoting time" to me, but what you are doing is neither fun nor is it some game.[/quote'] In short you know nothing, you are just doing this or that :haha: *poor rett has to listen to lectures from likes of him*
Cricket_2_Death Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 In short you know nothing, you are just doing this or that :haha: *poor rett has to listen to lectures from likes of him* What are you talking about? You just jump from one thing to another without making any sense. Every one of your posts towards me simply ignore the lack of solidity in your argument exposed by me and you set off on some berserk run to draw attention to "Inzamam" or "ponting" or "this or that". So every time you post you make less and less sense which by no means strengthens an argument based on "guestimates" that you are hoping to defend.
Tapioca Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Sure' date=' but my point is for claims like just because SRT has 15k runs, he automatically becomes the greatest. Like even Gavaskar automatically become the greatest after becoming the first man to score 10 k runs .... The point was also against developing obsession for stats[/quote'] But longevity is a critical part in judging the greatness. Other things being generally equal, one who wins 8 Wimbledon single titles is a far greater player than one who wins 5. Extrapolation doesn't work there.
ganeshran Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 What are you talking about? You just jump from one thing to another without making any sense. Every one of your posts towards me simply ignore the lack of solidity in your argument exposed by me and you set off on some berserk run to draw attention to "Inzamam" or "ponting" or "this or that". So every time you post you make less and less sense which by no means strengthens an argument based on "guestimates" that you are hoping to defend. @C_2_D: You are wasting your time here in trying to engage in a constructive debate. rett has the mental maturity of a 7 year old. He lacks cogency and his posts are full of irrelevant ad-hominem statements littered with smileys. Depending on which side you are on in the SRT v/s Viv debate, I suggest replying to Outsider or My two cents.
amiret Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 When compared to Tendulkar. here's another stat : No.Of Sub 25 avg bowlers faced by Viv = 5 in a Total of 38 Tests No.Of Sub 25 avg bowlers faced by SRT = 18 in a Total of 108 Tests. Thats almost as long as Vivs entire test career. :--D Source of this Stat ?
Recommended Posts