Elephant in the room

[maniac]

Lol,Even the most hardcore worshipper does not analyse every minute detail of SRT like MR.Rett here does. Rett dude,time you came out of the closet and admit your love for Sachin.

[Jersey #10]

1. Yes, if he scores 8k runs in 80 tests. In shorts depends upon how he performs 2. This shows a lack of understanding on your part of what's being discussed (something that commin with the fanatics, which is why they become one :P) 3. This is like asking who Ram was after the Ramayan

1. But then how do you compare Sachin's 22 years of work vs someone's 8 years work? Based on 4th grade math? Give a scientific reasoning why one that played for 8 years would have lasted for 22 years and played at the same average and strike rate. How do you prove this? 2. what understanding are you talking about? Why should have Sachin retired after the WC? give me one reason. Just to give you a starting point for the reasoning, he scored 475 runs, the only second highest run scorer in the world cup 3. You didn't answer my question. How is it like asking who Ram was after the Ramayan?

[maniac]

1. You need to read the thread, where I talked in terms of runs per test (lara vs Ten) 2. Again, we are talking abt obsession .... even the 200 he got against SA in ODI. I was happy at the achievement but not how he got there in the end 3. There are various options

Can't wait to hear the analytical breakdown for this statement :hysterical:

[zen]

By that logic I am sure you consider Vinod Kambli as an all-time great as he had two double tons in a short span with one double century every 7-8 tests :winky:

That doesn't go with the example I presented. Kambli was forced out and did not retire from international cricket on his own terms. Also we are talking about players who have estabilshed themselves as greats The hypothetical eg I gave had someone establishing himself as a great and retireing on his own terms after an exceptional performance in 80 tests :winky:

[zen]

Lol,Even the most hardcore worshipper does not analyse every minute detail of SRT like MR.Rett here does. Rett dude,time you came out of the closet and admit your love for Sachin.

Ofc, I love Sachin

[Ultimate_Game]

1. You need to read the thread, where I talked in terms of runs per test (lara vs Ten) 2. Again, we are talking abt obsession .... even the 200 he got against SA in ODI. I was happy at the achievement but not how he got there in the end 3. There are various options

Runs per Test is a very poor indicator of the quality of a player. Let me elaborate... 1. Player A plays for a poor team and gets to bat in both the innings in majority of the Tests and manages to score 100 runs ever Test and averages 51 runs per dismissal. 2. Player B plays for a stronger team and sometimes only gets to bat 1 innings and thus scores 90 runs per Test but averages 57 runs a dismissal. As per your logic player A is better just because he scores more runs a Test. I will let the example illustrate the fallacy of your argument.

[zen]

1. But then how do you compare Sachin's 22 years of work vs someone's 8 years work? Based on 4th grade math? Give a scientific reasoning why one that played for 8 years would have lasted for 22 years and played at the same average and strike rate. How do you prove this? 2. what understanding are you talking about? Why should have Sachin retired after the WC? give me one reason. Just to give you a starting point for the reasoning, he scored 475 runs, the only second highest run scorer in the world cup 3. You didn't answer my question. How is it like asking who Ram was after the Ramayan?

1. Well, if someone can score 8k runs in 80 tests, surly is cricketing skills would have been proven, no? Conversely, if Sachin had retired after playing say 100 tests, wouldn't he still be one of the all time greats? If yes, then this answer your question 2 & 3, after writing so many posts, if you still don't get it. how is further elobtation going to help. Like mtc and akshayzys, you are free to make assumptions :P

[akshayxyz]

:omg: Rett is lining up list of people who lack understanding...I am starting to feel special to be part of such exclusive group.

[Jersey #10]

1. Well, if someone can score 8k runs in 80 tests, surly is cricketing skills would have been proven, no? Conversely, if Sachin had retired after playing say 100 tests, wouldn't he still be one of the all time greats? If yes, then this answer your question 2 & 3, after writing so many posts, if you still don't get it. how is further elobtation going to help. Like mtc and akshayzys, you are free to make assumptions :P

1. Can you name someone with such stats? Their cricketing skills would have been proved but how does that ensure that they had the consistency? Has there ever been a player like the one you continue to compare Sachin with? 2. & 3. are still unexplained in many ways. Read my post again, you didn't answer my core question. Seems like you are against asumptions, please provide facts as you reason your points.

[Ultimate_Game]

1. Well' date= if someone can score 8k runs in 80 tests, surly is cricketing skills would have been proven, no? Conversely, if Sachin had retired after playing say 100 tests, wouldn't he still be one of the all time greats? If yes, then this answer your question 2 & 3, after writing so many posts, if you still don't get it. how is further elobtation going to help. Like mtc and akshayzys, you are free to make assumptions :P

Not really, no. Performing at a high level for shorter duration is comparatively easier than maintaining high level of performance for a longer period. Case in point Ponting - look how difficult it has been for him to be consistent for longer time period. Tendulkar is special as he has managed to average 56 for 22 years!!! Any other player and his average would be in 40s by now.

[Jersey #10]

4. Assume, Umar Akmal had quit after his debut stint, would you rate him higher than someone like let's say Virat Kohli?

[zen]

Runs per Test is a very poor indicator of the quality of a player. Let me elaborate... 1. Player A plays for a poor team and gets to bat in both the innings in majority of the Tests and manages to score 100 runs ever Test and averages 51 runs per dismissal. 2. Player B plays for a stronger team and sometimes only gets to bat 1 innings and thus scores 90 runs per Test but averages 57 runs a dismissal. As per your logic player A is better just because he scores more runs a Test. I will let the example illustrate the fallacy of your argument.

Already explained how it works in my post .... runs per tests, takes into account the enviornment one is presented with and has to perform in it In situation A, the batsman has to do more work to compensate for playing for a poor team .... in situation B, the player has the support of a better team and thus has to make the most of his opportunities .... and since test cricket is anything but monotomous more often than not, runs per tests reflects what you did in the envoirnment you were presented with

[Ultimate_Game]

Already explained how it works in my post .... runs per tests, takes into account the enviornment one is presented with and has to perform in it In situation A, the batsman has to do more work to compensate for playing for a poor team .... in situation B, the player has the support of a better team and thus has to make the most of his opportunities .... and since test cricket is anything but monotomous more often than not, runs per tests reflects what you did in the envoirnment you were presented with

And what if I add that player B has "worked" lot more than player A in playing lot more tests and scoring more runs than player A?

[zen]

Not really' date=' no. Performing at a high level for shorter duration is comparatively easier than maintaining high level of performance for a longer period. Case in point Ponting - look how difficult it has been for him to be consistent for longer time period. Tendulkar is special as he has managed to average 56 for 22 years!!! Any other player and his average would be in 40s by now.[/quote'] debut at 30, retiring at 38 (when it time to retire) .... 80 tests over 8-9 years till his retirement should give a good enough account to most cricket fans about that player's abiliy, no?

[akshayxyz]

@rett, I will make it easier for you. Who is better batsman - SRT after 8K runs or SRT after 15k runs. See, this eliminates many factors - difference in opposition, team members, pressure situations, batting order.. and even genetics.

[thongale]

Yes, if he scores 8k runs in 80 tests. In shorts depends upon how he performs

There's a guy who's close to it. 7597, in last 80 tests with average of 58.9. BTW, Even Sachin will not be as obsessed as you lot in his 100th 100.

[zen]

And what if I add that player B has "worked" lot more than player A in playing lot more tests and scoring more runs than player A?

Those more runs would be by virtue of playing more games, no? also it depends upon what opposition you played against, the surfaces, etc "worked a lot more" is subjective

[zen]

@rett, I will make it easier for you. Who is better batsman - SRT after 8K runs or SRT after 15k runs. See, this eliminates many factors - difference in opposition, team members, pressure situations, batting order.. and even genetics.

SRT with 8k runs in 80 tests and retired normally (100 runs per test) > SRT with 15k runs in 183 tests and retired normally (82 runs per test)

[Jersey #10]

Rett, you dodged all 3 of my questions! can't back up your asumptions?

[Ultimate_Game]

debut at 30' date=' retiring at 38 (when it time to retire) .... 80 tests over 8-9 years till his retirement should give a good enough account to most cricket fans about that player's abiliy, no?[/quote'] We are not talking "ability" here. Ability and talent are the most abused and overused terms in the world. If we go with "talent" and "ability" our padosis wouldn't have lost a game of cricket in their history :winky: In this thread we are discussing who is the better player based on actual production and results and for me, and majority of people going by the posts in the thread, a player with an average of 56 and 15000 runs over a period of 22 years is better than the one with 8000 runs in 80 Tests with an average of 53 over a span of 8 years. No matter how you slice or dice it player with 15000 runs will come on top, in this case even on "ability" front :giggle: