Where are ha8ers now?

[beetle]

You are well and truly the Smiley queen Rads ... :thumbs_up:

thank you bheem ji.....:regular_smile:

[The Outsider]

Yeah Bumper, Aap karein to chamtkar, hum karein to b***tkar.

[Bumper]

Bumper' date=' I am not questioning the MODS or Gambit's action here. My suggestion is to delete the offending post and warn/ban the offender. I feel that MODS should not be allowed to edit other people's posts. They should have delete privilege , not edit privilege in my opinion.[/quote'] I see deletion or editing as merely a technicality. The key is "moderation" or "no moderation". But thats moot, as you already seem to agree that moderaton is reqd to some extent. I agree that editing someone's posts to make it look drastically different than what the poster intended is bad, but i dont believe there is any evidence of such a thing happening on this board. Trust me, even if a post is deleted, the poster will be equally unhappy.

[Bumper]

Yeah Bumper' date=' Aap karein to chamtkar, hum karein to b***tkar.[/quote'] Go back to my definition Prof. Do u agree that a fan who NEVER pays attention to a string of failures from his idol & clings on his past to glorify him is a worshipper ? May be u dont qualify as a worshipper under this defintion, but many on this board do. If SRT, scores a match winning ton or two in the coming test series, i wont be as critical of him. My stand on SRT is conditional, purely based on performance.

[Predator_05]

May be u dont qualify as a worshipper under this defintion' date=' but [b']many on this board do.

Let's hear some names !!!!!! :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Gambit]

I hope most of you do realise that the original post was tongue in cheek.

[sashi]

Go back to my definition Prof. Do u agree that a fan who NEVER pays attention to a string of failures from his idol & clings on his past to glorify him is a worshipper ? May be u dont qualify as a worshipper under this defintion, but many on this board do. If SRT, scores a match winning ton or two in the coming test series, i wont be as critical of him. My stand on SRT is conditional, purely based on performance.

Ideally...yes. Aint happening tho...Ive seen people criticise Sachin no matter what he did in the game. Take the example of the first ODI....Granted it isnt vintage Sachin.But dont u think the situation demanded caution?Not favourabe for batting to say the least....lost early wickets n all.As i said earlier, if dravid n sachin dint slug it out, we wouldn't have reached the score we did.Still people moan. 2 nineties of three innings...people come out n say...look he failed in the 3rd!Give me a break! Good on u tho to say what u said.

[sashi]

Let's hear some names !!!!!! :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

**** stirring....:P

[sashi]

Nah..I think it is the other way round.It is the worshippers who drive the other lot to react ....

Well....:teeth_smile:

[jf1gp_1]

If steve waugh was Indian captain he would still be leading Indian side instead of retiring in 04 and thats why we will never be No 1 in cricket.

[The Outsider]

Just to put things into perspective Van Wyk's 80 off 120+ balls in the 2nd ODI in similar conditions as the first one and against a much weaker bowling attack was hailed as a gritty innings by all and sundry which gave SA a chance but Tendulkar's 99 off 140 balls was called all sorts of names and abuses against a much better bowling attack.

[sashi]

If steve waugh was Indian captain he would still be leading Indian side instead of retiring in 04 and thats why we will never be No 1 in cricket.

The Australian Domestic system is a lot more competitive n of higher standard.So the transition for their players from domestic cricket to international cricket is far easier when compared to ours. If we need to compare ourselves with the likes of Aussies...we need a major overhaul of Indian domestic circuit. Long term...i know.

[sashi]

Just to put things into perspective Van Wyk's 80 off 120+ balls in the 2nd ODI in similar conditions as the first one and against a much weaker bowling attack was hailed as a gritty innings by all and sundry which gave SA a chance but Tendulkar's 99 off 140 balls was called all sorts of names and abuses against a much better bowling attack.

Exactly. Precisely what i was trying to convey.

[theguyinallblue]

i think we are going overboard..here..discussing sachin ... we have so many other issues to discuss as well...like VVS,dravid, Ganguly, chawla, etc etc... but we are only discussing sachin..sachin and only sachin... i just read the posts related to sachin..but never posted in any of those.. may be i am wrong in my observation...but what i feel is.. the so called sachin supporters..( whosoever they are )...are posting or defending sachin..just to be branded as hard core sachin supporters...???? they are trying to create an identity as sachin supposters...in this forum....???? somehow...i observed this trend of pro-sachin and anti-sachin for last 7-8 days.... i think we should give it a break....lets not make it our ego issues... lets discuss other things than sachin...for some time...

[yoda]

Just to put things into perspective Van Wyk's 80 off 120+ balls in the 2nd ODI in similar conditions as the first one and against a much weaker bowling attack was hailed as a gritty innings by all and sundry which gave SA a chance but Tendulkar's 99 off 140 balls was called all sorts of names and abuses against a much better bowling attack.

Donno what the saffies expect from Van Wyk Shyk. I bet it is a lot less than someone called the Master Blaster.

[Donny]

The Master Blaster is the nickname of the inimitable Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards KBE. Nobody else. Not in cricket, anyway.

[The Outsider]

Donno what the saffies expect from Van Wyk Shyk. I bet it is a lot less than someone called the Master Blaster.

So you do admit that his criticism stems not from cricketing logic, on which going by the above example he should have been praised rather than vilified, but by the super hero image that some of his fans have in their minds and they vent out their frustrations leaving cricketing logic aside when he does not fulfill those grand designs, the bar of which are much higher than other cricketers?

[yoda]

So you do admit that his criticism stems not from cricketing logic' date=' on which going by the above example he should have been praised rather than vilified, but by the super hero image that some of his fans have in their minds and they vent out their frustrations leaving cricketing logic aside when he does not fulfill those grand designs, the bar of which are much higher than other cricketers?[/quote'] Expectations are different for different people. nothing to do with vilification or venting out or lack of cricketing logic. we expect a SRT to do better than a dinesh karthick (atleast at this stage of the latter's career). we also measure a cricketer based on their own past performance including SR. nothing illogical about it. And donny, i don't think that term is an exclusive association with Sir Viv.

[Donny]

There will always be imitators, yoda. :regular_smile: I think Stevie Wonder first coined the phrase in his 1980 album, 'Hotter Than July' which included 'Master Blaster (Jammin')', his tribute to Bob Marley. It was also the name of a character in the film 'Mad Max - Beyond Thunderdome'. "By the 1980's, Viv had matured with West Indies cricket. The matchles beauty, the attractiveness, the splendor and the grandeur of the artform were internationally recognised; in some cases it was coveted. West Indies cricket was established as an institution. By then many were seeking to understand the artform and were painstakingly attempting to use its science to improve their game. To the international public therefore West Indies cricket was no longer perceived as an imitation of white orthodoxy, but as a 'master' artform and a science. These were the ideas loaded in the title of 'Master Blaster' attributed to Vivian richards. You see, Richards represented the unfolding of the boundaries of the human potential, and the unfolding of the potential of the West indian people" - Peter Adrien in Cricket and Development: http://hairoun.blogspot.com/2004/09/viv-richards.html "The dominant batsman of the 1980s, Richards was the original Master Blaster" - James Standley in BBC Sport: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/eng_v_sa_2003/3122525.stm The oil-on-canvas painting, by the artist Brendan Kelly, was commissioned as part of the Lord’s Portrait Project. MCC is inviting up to ten prize-winning young portrait painters to depict some of the world’s greatest cricketers, including Brian Lara, Muttiah Muralitharan and Inzamam-ul-Haq. Kelly’s painting is a powerful portrayal of the original ‘Master Blaster’. It measures over 6ft square and will hang in the Long Room at Lord’s during the summer. See the portrait here: http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-unveils-new-portrait-of-sir-vivian-richards,820,NS.html

[CC1981]

we also measure a cricketer based on their own past performance including SR. nothing illogical about it.

But you just compare numbers without the match context ! rather innane and ridiculous IMO. As i said, its ridiculous to find fault with the strike rate of a batsman who's performance was *easily* the third best in the whole match (including players from both sides), batted when the pitch was at its liveliest and faced 37 of 60 legal balls from the best bowler in the match by a country-mile. As i said, in your dumb world of ' we also measure a cricketer based on their own past performance including SR.' , which is just mindless number-crunching without context, if i bat against Ambrose and score 5 from 10 balls & you bat against Merv Dillon and score 9 from 10 balls, you've done better ! Which is the height of stupidity for you do NOT take into factor that I was facing Ambrose, a much better bowler than who you were pitted against and it stands to reason that if i bat JUST AS WELL as you did, I'd still score slower against Ambrose than you'd against Dillon. Mindless number-crunching is the new-age sensation that is ruining cricket, really. Statistically, anything can be proven by anyone in a field as vague as sport. All it takes is a creative mathematical & logical mind and stupid conclusions purely based on numbers arise, that are as narrowminded as a computer is compared to the human brain. Your statement is a reflection of completely missing the intricacies of the sport that a number-crunching machine cannot grasp. Its like trying to explain the intricacy of a literay genius to a CPU- they simply do not get anything that requires a hint of circumstantial thinking, involving the intangiable or unquantifiable.