Elephant in the room

[ganeshran]

Winning arguments on the internet 101. 1) Always put the burden of proof on the other person by nitpicking on his points. Never ever defend your own points and divert discussion from them as soon as possible. If nitpciking cannot be done, use smileys and sarcastic remarks to provoke. 2) Always claim to have secret expertise in the field of discussion that others dont possess. 3) Claim to be a victim and that you are being prevented from airing your opinion - No matter how illogical your points are - always come with a claim that the opposite party is not letting you discuss 4) Be persistent - Keep replying and take the debate tangentially if not able to address the points. Eventually people will get tired of banging their head against a wall and stop replying. Thats when you can claim victory.

[zen]

appears as if there is a lot of interest in this thread

[Jersey #10]

^still waiting

[carnish]

stupid discussions... great players should not be compared.. they play for different teams at different numbers in different conditions and with different expectations... not everyone can have the same statistics and therefore it is highly important for any player to get due credit... you can never guess what would/could/can have happened but the position players find themselves in and situation their team is leads them to play different kind of innings. so comparisions are baseless...:--D

[zen]

Link :omg: Look at Lara and Sehwag's performance in the last decade from today! Lara avg of 72 Sehwag amazing avg with a phenomenal SR. That too despite only 3 not outs and 13 zeros Lara and Sehwag :hatsoff:

[ganeshran]

Selectively picking oppositions and arbitrary time slices to prove a point :cantstop:

[zen]

Selectively picking oppositions and arbitrary time slices to prove a point :cantstop:

1. Not arbitrary as on cricinfo you can select the last decade and it calculates back from today .... If you want to put in different dates go ahead and do it 2. Perfo against top 5 bowling sides :--D I have heard the blanket statement you make on forums a lot. In fact have been hearing since a decade in a variety of context. Rarely, do the person making those statement realize or make an effort to understand what's presented. And this has been a main problem with posters from subcontinent. They just make blanket statements w/o even knowing what's on the table because they probably saw someone else make that statement :hysterical: That's the fun part about debating with those in subcontinent :p

[Sachinism]

If we look at the 2006 season, we can easily establish Tendulkar is a nobody. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+dec+2006;spanmin1=1+jan+2006;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Habibul Bashar & Darren Ganga > Tendulkar

[Yoda-esque]

^ @Rett : :headshake: Such prejudice..

[zen]

If we look at the 2006 season, we can easily establish Tendulkar is a nobody. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+dec+2006;spanmin1=1+jan+2006;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Habibul Bashar & Darren Ganga > Tendulkar

Sure! If that's the same :hysterical: .... Supports your dropped catch statement well

[akshayxyz]

Winning arguments on the internet 101. 1) Always put the burden of proof on the other person by nitpicking on his points. Never ever defend your own points and divert discussion from them as soon as possible. If nitpciking cannot be done, use smileys and sarcastic remarks to provoke. 2) Always claim to have secret expertise in the field of discussion that others dont possess. 3) Claim to be a victim and that you are being prevented from airing your opinion - No matter how illogical your points are - always come with a claim that the opposite party is not letting you discuss 4) Be persistent - Keep replying and take the debate tangentially if not able to address the points. Eventually people will get tired of banging their head against a wall and stop replying. Thats when you can claim victory.

That is how it ended for me, and perhaps few others in this thread.

Link :omg: Look at Lara and Sehwag's performance in the last decade from today! Lara avg of 72 Sehwag amazing avg with a phenomenal SR. That too despite only 3 not outs and 13 zeros Lara and Sehwag :hatsoff:

:facepalm: What kind of selective time window is that??? And yet again you are making same mistake - comparing average over 120 innings vs, that over 60 innings.. Which has been proven to be nonsense countless times. But yes, perhaps others here lack the depth of analysis, that is required to extrapolate numbers - that to over twice the data available..

[Yoda-esque]

^No point in having an argument if neither party sees reason.It just descends into a name-calling thread to settle personal scores.

[akshayxyz]

1. Not arbitrary as on cricinfo you can select the last decade and it calculates back from today .... If you want to put in different dates go ahead and do it 2. Perfo against top 5 bowling sides :--D I have heard the blanket statement you make on forums a lot. In fact have been hearing since a decade in a variety of context. Rarely, do the person making those statement realize or make an effort to understand what's presented. And this has been a main problem with posters from subcontinent. They just make blanket statements w/o even knowing what's on the table because they probably saw someone else make that statement :hysterical: That's the fun part about debating with those in subcontinent :p

:hysterical::hysterical: how specific!!! Was that supposed to be a joke?

[ganeshran]

1. Not arbitrary as on cricinfo you can select the last decade and it calculates back from today .... If you want to put in different dates go ahead and do it 2. Perfo against top 5 bowling sides :--D I have heard the blanket statement you make on forums a lot. In fact have been hearing since a decade in a variety of context. Rarely, do the person making those statement realize or make an effort to understand what's presented. And this has been a main problem with posters from subcontinent. They just make blanket statements w/o even knowing what's on the table because they probably saw someone else make that statement :hysterical: That's the fun part about debating with those in subcontinent :p

Do you not realize the irony of this :facepalm: :hysterical::hysterical:

[ganeshran]

That's been the mantra for years .... and we see what that has brought us to :(( When we see a guy like PK opening our bowling attack, we should feel pathetic .... But instead we justify his inclusion and the same thing continues, i.e. lets play the trundlers because we don't have options. The fast bowlers get sidelined and the need for speed takes a back seat .... If even a trundler like PK can open Ind's attack, why would you want to bowl fast .... On the other hand, if you need to bowl fast to be a part of India's seamers attacks, you would want to bowl fast In order to have the psychological change, I would rather give exposure to quick bowlers (even at the risk of them getting hit around) than have likes of PK open our pace attack I may make blanket statements but it takes a lot more to understand their depth (I don't expect most folks to understand its depth because many of those who are capable of understanding the depth wouldn't waste their time on onlline forums.)

:hysterical::hysterical:

Winning arguments on the internet 101. 1) Always put the burden of proof on the other person by nitpicking on his points. Never ever defend your own points and divert discussion from them as soon as possible. If nitpciking cannot be done, use smileys and sarcastic remarks to provoke. 2) Always claim to have secret expertise in the field of discussion that others dont possess. .

[zen]

What kind of selective time window is that??? And yet again you are making same mistake - comparing average over 120 innings vs, that over 60 innings.. Which has been proven to be nonsense countless times. But yes, perhaps others here lack the depth of analysis, that is required to extrapolate numbers - that to over twice the data available..

window ----> last decade (unless you put the date in, cricinfo calculates back from the date of query) .... the point is that it takes a "decade" into account from the most recent performances 2ndly, I did not claim that either Lara or Sehwag or Tendulkar to be "the" greatest of all time. I just think that Lara is a better test batsman, while Tendulkar is a better ODI player. There are people who think that Ponting has been the best batsman of the last decade, but imo, it is either Sehwag (SR and avg) or Lara 3rd, this is the most interesting one. If the comedy brigade (Tendulkar is the greatest brigade) truly believes that Tendulkar is the greatest, they should NOT be concerned about what criteria is chosen (esp when you take a decade into account) because the greatest batsman is suppose to be in the top bracket .... Now I post some stats here and write hats off to Lara and Sehwag w/o making any claim but we see all the questions being raised about the 'window' because that particular 'window' doesn't show Tendulkar at the top in the fanatics opinion. And that lack of confidence itself in Tendulkar coming at the tops in a big window like a decade shows how unsure fanatics themselves are in Tendulkar's stats. That is what I showed by posting those stats. As usual, the comedy brigade lached on to the irrelevant part like the "window" and missed the big picture case closed

[mishra]

@rett what is harm in most people/cricket lovers believing Tendulkar is greatest? After all there are people who believe that God exists. Do non believers allways enforce on believers to prove that God exists? PS: Above comment is based on you having problem not with Tendulkar as greatest but with Tendulkar is greatest brigade

[zen]

@rett what is harm in most people/cricket lovers believing Tendulkar is greatest? After all there are people who believe that God exists. Do non believers allways enforce on believers to prove that God exists?

I have nothing against it. It just the lengths to which some of the fanatics go to to show that makes discussing with them fun .... I don't care if Lara is a better test batsman as if I am picking a batsman based on emotions (which is what we usually do), it would be Tendulkar :winky:

[akshayxyz]

window ----> last decade (unless you put the date in' date=' cricinfo calculates back from the date of query) .... the point is that it takes a "[b']decade" into account from the most recent performances 2ndly, I did not claim that either Lara or Sehwag or Tendulkar to be "the" greatest of all time. I just think that Lara is a better test batsman, while Tendulkar is a better ODI player. There are people who think that Ponting has been the best batsman of the last decade, but imo, it is either Sehwag (SR and avg) or Lara 3rd, this is the most interesting one. If the comedy brigade (Tendulkar is the greatest brigade) truly believes that Tendulkar is the greatest, they should NOT be concerned about what criteria is chosen (esp when you take a decade into account) because the greatest batsman is suppose to be in the top bracket .... Now I post some stats here and write hats off to Lara and Sehwag w/o making any claim but we see all the questions being raised about the 'window' because that particular 'window' doesn't show Tendulkar at the top in the fanatics opinion. And that lack of confidence itself in Tendulkar coming at the tops in a big window like a decade shows how unsure fanatics themselves are in Tendulkar's stats. That is what I showed by posting those stats. As usual, the comedy brigade lached on to the irrelevant part like the "window" and missed the big picture case closed

That is very deep analysis indeed. Btw - did you get time to look up the meaning of 'arbitrary'? one last attempt - people here have no issues with your personal choices. It is just the ridiculous basis you keep coming up with, that makes people bang their head on the wall. And I sincerely admire depth of your skills on that front.

[Yoda-esque]

Chalo Bhaiyon,Is Haathi ko yaheen par dafanado