Elephant in the room

[zen]

I do not want to waste my thinking cap on useless stats. So allow me to just work with your postulates. Going by various arguments I have picked from this forum -- playing more tests against same side should rather boost the average? So, according to what theory - Lara's average went a bit down - by 10 additional tests. Also why just 2 runs, why not a bit more? Also, don't kid yourself - it was very clear why you 'commented' - "but but but Lara played 10 extra tests". Let me break the news to you - the kind of ridiculous arguments people like you keep repeating every now and then - is the sign of fanaticism - and not otherwise (those who are trying to show what is wrong with your arguments). At the end of the day, yes you have right to have your opinion - but, I feel sorry for you, if that is based on some ridiculous reasoning and selective numbers.

Obviously, you need to pick up a lot more before you can even think about discussing this :winky: your 2nd part is like a nurse trying to pass a judgment on what a doctor did :P

[zen]

@rett btw - I forgot to say - welcome back to ICF. :two_thumbs_up: The cricket talk section was getting very boring.

Thanks! .... Got bored of the mundane world, Christmas is coming. ICF is good time pass, which is why I am commenting here .... I can't focus on work but issues are piling up on my table so have to get the concentration back

[akshayxyz]

Guys,Please stick to the point instead of digressing. The implicit question here was whether this landmark is affecting SRT's natural game.

IMO no - and it is based on watching him bat in England series and Delhi match. I would say - this theory about 100 playing on his mind - is just our speculation based on what/how we would have behaved in such situation, if put in w/o the kind of experience he has. And it is more likely that it is not the case in the middle, than otherwise. As the other 'yoda' said, in most likelihood - himself and the team are least bothered about these stats, it is just media and 'us' who speculate about what might be happening, and when most of us have no experience to relate it with.

[Jersey #10]

To be fair to Lara' date=' he played more tests when McGrath was in the Australia team whereas Sachin played a couple of series where McGrath did not play. McGrath had good success against both men.[/quote'] but in McGrath's words, he finds Sachin > Lara

[akshayxyz]

Obviously, you need to pick up a lot more before you can even think about discussing this :winky: your 2nd part is like a nurse trying to pass a judgment on what a doctor did :P

yet again - true to your usual self - instead of answering, you are diverting it with childish comments. the ICF layoff didn't help it seems. Also, looks like I missed some gem you posted, that moderators had to steal away, before anyone else could read it. It is difficult to take you seriously when you are in such form.

[daryl1985]

but in McGrath's words' date=' he finds Sachin > Lara[/quote'] He also said this: http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=78611

[akshayxyz]

He also said this: http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=78611

I will not attempt to counter his words. It was his opinion - for the period of playing with them, and he has seen them from quite close. But, let me just point out that - that article is dated 2006. And people have short memories, and most of the opinions (esp when asked in casual interviews/talks) are heavily colored by recent history of the subject. And also depends on who is interviewing :) Also - The cuteness of statements like - "on his day" is easy to miss. Man!!! everyone knows "on his day", even Yusuf Pathan would be better than Don Bradman.

[daryl1985]

I will not attempt to counter his words. It was his opinion - for the period of playing with them, and he has seen them from quite close. But, let me just point out that - that article is dated 2006. And people have short memories, and most of the opinions (esp when asked in casual interviews/talks) are heavily colored by recent history of the subject. Also - The cuteness of statements like - "on his day" is easy to miss. Man!!! everyone knows "on his day", even Yusuf Pathan would be better than Don Bradman.

Yeah there is no doubt about it, at different points in his career he rated one ahead of the other (before changing his mind). Initially he said that Lara normally gives him a chance and he would rate Tendulkar higher as his technique was tighter. However, towards the end of his career Tendulkar suffered from injuries and went through a lean run of form while i think Lara had the better of his later exchanges with McGrath which may explain his change in opinion. My point is that they are both comparable. I would not argue with someone who feels Lara is better nor would i argue with someone who says Tendulkar is better.

[zen]

yet again - true to your usual self - instead of answering, you are diverting it with childish comments. the ICF layoff didn't help it seems. Also, looks like I missed some gem you posted, that moderators had to steal away, before anyone else could read it. It is difficult to take you seriously when you are in such form.

You mean answer to stuff like this:

Going by various arguments I have picked from this forum -- playing more tests against same side should rather boost the average? So, according to what theory - Lara's average went a bit down - by 10 additional tests. Also why just 2 runs, why not a bit more? Also, don't kid yourself - it was very clear why you 'commented' - "but but but Lara played 10 extra tests".

after posting the above, you have it in you to say the below:

Let me break the news to you - the kind of ridiculous arguments people like you keep repeating every now and then - is the sign of fanaticism - and not otherwise (those who are trying to show what is wrong with your arguments). At the end of the day, yes you have right to have your opinion - but, I feel sorry for you, if that is based on some ridiculous reasoning and selective numbers.

and then top it up with your last post great! So you think based on what you learned at this forum that more someone plays against a team, his avg will get a boost (:giggle: .... OK so playing MCgrath and warne more will give my avg a boost) .... Per your understanding, if Lara played 10 more tests than Tendulkar against OZ, his avg should be more than Tendulkar's. So how did his avg go down? What theory worked? Let's do this: Aus Lara ----> 31 tests, avg 51 Ten ----> 21 test, avg 53 Pak Lara ---> 12 tests, avg 53 Ten ----> 16 tests, avg 40 (based on your logic, Ten avg should be more here, right?) SA Lara ----> 18 tests, avg 49 Ten ----> 16 tests, avg 37 First of all, there is not much difference in an avg of 51 and 53 against Australia. This difference can be easily explained by virtue of 2 not outs in 58 innings vs Ten's 4 in 38. On top of that Ten has 3 not out scores against Pak and SA vs zero for Lara .... It's not hard to see, that Lara's numbers are better Why did I mention 10 tests more? Playing 10 more tests against the strongest side of your time adds more value to one's numbers. There is a reason why many take out minnow's from stats, similarly it is something to note if you play more tests against a stronger team. Mentioning 1o tests more is nothing to do with the crap you mentioned. I think you would be better served if you tried to find problems with your own arguments, which doesn't even exist in the first place. Without even realizing how the overall picture looks, you came to this based on your limited understanding and trying to make something out of cherry picking. On top of that you had it in you to insist on an answer as if you made some kind of a point where none exist. Normally, i would say enough time wasted but now-a-days, I am looking for a diversion this time its ok

[akshayxyz]

I will keep it short - I did not make any claim about correlation between # of tests and average going down/up. It was you all the way, I am just having fun with various reasonings of yours, which you keep tweaking/twisting to satisfy your then agenda. Initially, you said - SRT's 15K runs are meaningless as - as per you anyone would have done that...blah blah blah.. and then you followed it up with the cute little justification of Lara's 51 avg - "ohh my dear Lord Lara has played N extra tests, so that is why he got 2 runs less than SRT.".... Thank you for the entertainment.

[nballa]

looking at some of the indian players it appears there is more than one elephant in the room.

[zen]

I will keep it short - I did not make any claim about correlation between # of tests and average going down/up. It was you all the way, I am just having fun with various reasonings of yours, which you keep tweaking/twisting to satisfy your then agenda. Initially, you said - SRT's 15K runs are meaningless as - as per you anyone would have done that...blah blah blah.. and then you followed it up with the cute little justification of Lara's 51 avg - "ohh my dear Lord Lara has played N extra tests, so that is why he got 2 runs less than SRT.".... Thank you for the entertainment.

What's entertaining is your interpretation :winky: ... and the effort you are making to shove it down your own throat :hysterical:

[Deleted_User_1]

Once a midget, always a midget. End of story!

[Sooda]

looking at some of the indian players it appears there is more than one elephant in the room.

:cantstop:

[ganeshran]

looking at some of the indian players it appears there is more than one elephant in the room.

:hysterical::hysterical:

[daryl1985]

looking at some of the indian players it appears there is more than one elephant in the room.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Yoda-esque]

Mods-Time to change the title..See posts above :hysterical:

[punjabi_khota]

looking at some of the indian players it appears there is more than one elephant in the room.

:yay::haha:

[Sachinism]

I cannot agree with you: 1. Lara retired at the right time, I think Tendulkar could have hanged his boots after 2011 WC. He is probably carrying on like how Kapil did. Starting late or retiring early (comparitively) is not related to cricketing skills that's being discussed here. Someone could start his international test career at 30 and retire at 38, play 80 tests and score 8000 runs and could be better than someone like Tendulkar with 180 odd tests for 15k runs :winky: 2. I haven't see any scientific studies that measures a players mental toughness. I have seen Lara play some unbelibavle knocks though like taking WI to win against Aus almost single handledly, on the other hand I have seen Tendulkar fail to take India across (the test vs Pak for example). 3. All things considered, I repeat, for e.g. if Gavaskar (who is India best test batsman) had played as many games as Tendulkar, he would have had as good if not better test record. And he opens in tests When I make a point, usually, it considers many things that you need to. What comes out is an assessment.

:hysterical: thanks for reminding me why I stopped reading your bullshit. Amazing how you manage to pull stuff out of your rear so effortlessly.

[zen]

:hysterical: thanks for reminding me why I stopped reading your bullshit. Amazing how you manage to pull stuff out of your rear so effortlessly.

Good to see a lot of fanatics being hurt by the truth :hysterical: Sachin ,,,, Saachin :giggle: