Elephant in the room

[ganeshran]

That's why it goes as "a Greame Pollock" instead of "Greame Pollock"

Another coulda woulda shoulda argument. Why not compare him with a Andy Ganteaume who played 80 tests. Ganteaume averaged 112 IIRC

[thongale]

The question rett asked was are they of "same" level. Pollock is a great, no one would deny it. And why would we want Andy when there id Don who scored 7k+ runs at 99?

[ganeshran]

The question rett asked was are they of "same" level. Pollock is a great' date=' no one would deny it. And why would we want Andy when there id Don who scored 7k+ runs at 99?[/quote'] The original premise of your argument is not logical. If players are of the same level, then compare their actual stats. You cannot extrapolate their performances assuming a player like Pollock scores at the same average over 80 tests what he did over 20.

[zen]

The question rett asked was are they of "same" level. Pollock is a great' date=' no one would deny it. And why would we want Andy when there id [b']Don who scored 7k+ runs at 99?

And he is the greatest of AT

[akshayxyz]

So I am being penaalized for picking b/w two SRT (same ability)' date=' the one with more runs per tests and likly higher avg, thus more impact .... thanx[/quote'] No - you are being 'penalized' ( not sure how I was penalizing) - for the sheer absurdity of the runs/test parameter. Did you even care about look at the list of top scorers to reach lets say - 8k, 9k, 10k.. and so on landmarks. e.g. Even though Lara reached 8k in 94 matches, and SRT in 96 matches, Lara took more innings (164), as compared to Sachin (154). There are many more irregularities in these fast-to-reach n*K milestone figures. e.g. if you compare Ponting and SRT. Because one of your arguments is - had 'xyz' played more matches he would have outperformed, or as good as SRT. Ponting reached 11K figure in lesser number of matches and innings, than SRT. Then, both reached 12K in about same innings ( although less # of matches for Ponting).. but story beyond that is.. Ponting is just one innings short of the # SRT took to cross 13K and he is about 500+ runs behind 13K mark. And let me repeat again, I am not comparing the players on the basis on how fast they reached these 8k,9k milestones. But want to highlight two absurdities in your arguments. a) Runs per test - most absurd parameter. b) Had 'xyz' played as many matches as SRT, he would have continued performing as well as he was.

[saneindian]

This thread has found its own elephant in the room :P

[zen]

No - you are being 'penalized' ( not sure how I was penalizing) - for the sheer absurdity of the runs/test parameter. Did you even care about look at the list of top scorers to reach lets say - 8k, 9k, 10k.. and so on landmarks. e.g. Even though Lara reached 8k in 94 matches, and SRT in 96 matches, Lara took more innings (164), as compared to Sachin (154). There are many more irregularities in these fast-to-reach n*K milestone figures. e.g. if you compare Ponting and SRT. Because one of your arguments is - had 'xyz' played more matches he would have outperformed, or as good as SRT. Ponting reached 11K figure in lesser number of matches and innings, than SRT. Then, both reached 12K in about same innings ( although less # of matches for Ponting).. but story beyond that is.. Ponting is just one innings short of the # SRT took to cross 13K and he is about 500+ runs behind 13K mark. And let me repeat again, I am not comparing the players on the basis on how fast they reached these 8k,9k milestones. But want to highlight two absurdities in your arguments. a) Runs per test - most absurd parameter. b) Had 'xyz' played as many matches as SRT, he would have continued performing as well as he was.

I know all that stuff .... I am going beyond that and for example I even wrote about Lara playing more tests against quality sides My point was about someone getting 8k in 80 tests. Since you posted both Lara and Ten's numbers, you know now it is very difficult to get to 8k in 80 tests. You need to be truly exceptional to do that and if someone retired after doing that in future, he could rated higher than likes of Tendulkar despite his 15k runs in 180 odd tests. Playing 180 odd tests or scoring 15k runs doesn't fortify your position. Tendulkar didn't have to wait to go past Gavaskar or Border to be rated as one of the best :winky: Gavaskar played 125 tests in 20 odd years. Any reasons to believe that he would have not scored like how he did if he had played say 25-30 more tests in that time frame?

[Yoda-esque]

Man Rett..You really need to stop anatogizing yourself and everybody else with this since nobody's buying what you are saying and neither are you

[zen]

Another example is Dravid, who has played 158 tests and is probably older than Tendulkar .... So longitivity is not something that tendulkar only achieved and someone else cannot

[zen]

Man Rett..You really need to stop anatogizing yourself and everybody else with this since nobody's buying what you are saying and neither are you

haha, I am not selling anything .... there is a reason why people become 'fanatics' :winky:

[akshayxyz]

I know all that stuff .... I am going beyond that and for example I even wrote about Lara playing more tests against quality sides Gavaskar played 125 tests in 20 odd years. Any reasons to believe that he would have not scored like how he did if he had played say 25-30 more tests in that time frame?

You know all that stuff, and yet you bring about runs/test metric? I thought you were ignorant, now I have no choice but to call it stupidity. The answer to second bold part is, what is the reason for you you believe otherwise? As Ganesh aptly said - there is no end to the arguments of the form 'could/should/would' have. At least, some people have example of Ponting, Dravid - who once averaged 57-58, came down to 53ish. As for Dravid - apart from his resurgence this year - everyone knows how much he struggled to match himself, in last 2 years or so.

[zen]

You know all that stuff, and yet you bring about runs/test metric? I thought you were ignorant, now I have no choice but to call it stupidity. The answer to second bold part is, what is the reason for you you believe otherwise? As Ganesh aptly said - there is no end to the arguments of the form 'could/should/would' have. At least, some people have example of Ponting, Dravid - who once averaged 57-58, came down to 53ish. As for Dravid - apart from his resurgence this year - everyone knows how much he struggled to match himself, in last 2 years or so.

yaaawn So dravid's comeback shows if you play for long, you can make a comeback *cough 2004-2007 mirror mirror*

[akshayxyz]

haha' date=' I am not selling anything .... there is a reason why people become 'fanatics' :winky:[/quote'] If correcting factual, logical discrepancies is fanaticism - then so be it. But, you may want to look up what it means to continue repeating same nonsense, despite being proven wrong - based on numbers and real world examples - that actually materialized and not from one's imagination.

[zen]

If correcting factual, logical discrepancies is fanaticism - then so be it. But, you may want to look up what it means to continue repeating same nonsense, despite being proven wrong - based on numbers and real world examples - that actually materialized and not from one's imagination.

Anything that doesn't support "Tendulkar is the greatest" argument is suppose to be illogical, factually wrong or whatever per his fanatics Thankfully, I didn't have to hear "he is better than Lara in tests because he has a better ODI record" argument this time

[Sachinism]

That's being a bit unidimentional: * I have watched Lara play * His superior record against the top 3 bowling sides of his time: Aus, Pak and SA * His ability to get big scores * Play match winning knocks for WI, like 153* against Aus, the 80 odd that helped WI level series against Ind, the 50 he made in WI on a dynamite pitch where Ind got bowled out for nothing (In fact I was like Ind would win this but our batsmen couldn't fight it out) * .... runs per tests would show that if were to play more, he is likely to get more runs ....

Lara was dropped during that 153, I believe in the 130's or something, but if he was out there, would that innings now be a choke like Sachin's 136? If that's the case, then please give Healey some credit for that knock

[maniac]

Anything that is created to doesn't support "Tendulkar is the greatest" argument is illogical, factually wrong

Corrected You just brought up Dravid when some one mentioned longetivity,People have compared him with Bradman,Lara hell even a nobody(in international terms) like Greame Pollock. Bradman once was a benchmark but today SRT is that benchmark against which any batsman is measured across varying factors....hence,Srt is the best and the greatest....case closed

[zen]

Lara was dropped during that 153, I believe in the 130's or something, but if he was out there, would that innings now be a choke like Sachin's 136? If that's the case, then please give Healey some credit for that knock

You are beginning to sound like some of the Pakistanis now .... who think Sehwag got a triple because he was dropped, Ind won the SF in 2011 because they dropped Ten, Ten made 98 odd in SA '03 because Razzaq dropped him (theball infact never carried to Razzaq) And ofc, the benefits that Sachin receives will never be considered .... can't believe such points are being raised but its from the "Tendulkar is the greatest" (comedy) brigade so I shouldn't be surprised!

[zen]

Corrected You just brought up Dravid when some one mentioned longetivity,People have compared him with Bradman,Lara hell even a nobody(in international terms) like Greame Pollock. Bradman once was a benchmark but today SRT is that benchmark against which any batsman is measured across varying factors....hence,Srt is the best and the greatest....case closed

Pollock, a nobody? :hmmmm: Anyways .... keep going

[daryl1985]

Corrected You just brought up Dravid when some one mentioned longetivity,People have compared him with Bradman,Lara hell even a nobody(in international terms) like Greame Pollock. Bradman once was a benchmark but today SRT is that benchmark against which any batsman is measured across varying factors....hence,Srt is the best and the greatest....case closed

It's not as simple as that, Bradman will always have a claim to being the greatest ever due to his astonishing figures. Sachin also has a claim to be the greatest, as does Lara and maybe some others.

[maniac]

Pollock, a nobody? :hmmmm: Anyways .... keep going

Is that the only part of my statement that caught your attention....Pollock does not have a big enough international tenure to be an ATG great.Mohd.Yousuf too had a year in which he looked invincible and he did end up with pretty decent statistics but he will never be a ATG and I am glad you did not say that even he is better than SRT. Even Lara's mom may not have argued his case this passionaitely, Lara himself has said Tendulkar is the greatest batsman ever- so why are we having an argument comparing these 2. Now please don't say it was Lara being humble...Lara was never a team player,he was individually brilliant. You brought up SRT's 200 but what about his 100's against SA and Eng in WC where he was out after scoring a 100 and it ended up squandering an even stronger position.It is not like he wasted any deliveries nearing 200. sometimes you need to slow down when you get a start,so that the others around you can play freely because as far as I know in cricketing term,getting out in 70's or 80's playing a reckless shot is still considered throwing it away.If any be happy that SRT plays for the team rather than selfishly playing for the gallery.