Now Tendulkar averages more than Ponting even in SA

[Cricket_2_Death]

Wah ji Wah ... chalo why don't you start a petition to ICC so that they can award a few Not outs to Lara . Iam sure they will convince a few bowlers who will volunteer to forego some of the wkts ... Even I will sign on this petition Aaye shappath.

Valid point, it's the closest thing that computes to Lahori logic, this will surely expose the midget.

[Sachinism]

If Sachin remained not out it is guaranteed through flawless guesstimates he would eventually choke and therefore would only manage 599 runs due to his midget-titis . This would therefore be far too little when it comes to runs per test so he pales in comparison to any other batsmen. Though don't take my word for it' date= my posts per thread is apparently not high enough to make a proper judgment. :((

Well you need to take into account the opposition. If they're a minnow or Pak (without W's), Aus (without McGrath) then the pressure would drop significantly and he may not choke.

[zen]

:omg: look at the fanatism .... SRT has nice watchdogs, if Lara avg goes up in anyway, the alarm is raised :giggle:

[pensionplan]

Not Outs having an impact on a players average is just a myth. There is no way for anyone to know how many more runs a particular Not Out could amount to. In fact an argument can be made for Not Outs to have a bearing on the total number of runs a batsman scores while having minimal bearing on the average. To me it makes total sense to exclude the Not Out innings number from the total innings played while calculating the averages.

[Sachinism]

:omg: look at the fanatism .... SRT has nice watchdogs' date=' if Lara avg goes up in anyway, the alarm is raised :giggle:[/quote'] rett I've told you before, but I'll tell you again. Please take a break from all this, you're making less and less sense and are losing it now Lara retired a while back, his average doesn't change if he's not playing. Or do you plan on bringing up a new analysis method by looking RPDA (runs per days alive)? Or find a reason why Lara's 1 run is worth more than Tendulkar's 1 run

[zen]

rett I've told you before, but I'll tell you again. Please take a break from all this, you're making less and less sense and are losing it now Lara retired a while back, his average doesn't change if he's not playing. Or do you plan on bringing up a new analysis method by looking RPDA (runs per days alive)?

Ofc, his avg, rpt, rpi, etc doesn't change .... I m just looking at different angles, asking questions like 'what if' There are a lot of places where I hv to make sense, so I need a place where I can not make sense too (per your pov) .... If I start making sense everywhere (again per your definition) then life would get boring, no? .... But you act as if posting on forums is like some serious biz. If I get serious I would not waste my time on such online forums itself Anyways, talking about break, I will be taking one soon as I hv my family coming over to meet me in Canada in a few days

[zen]

@ Sachinism Talking about taking a break, may be you should take one too from being the self appointed guardian of SRT .... Who knows you could be missing out on seeing different angles! For e.g. Start of a day thinking SRT is not the greatest. May be assume Lara is. May be the 153* which you thought may not hv been possible w/o Healey could appear as luck favors the brave. The avg of 33 in Ind may look more meaningful with the match winning knock he played in 3rd inng by getting a big score quickly to allow is team enough runs and time to bowl Ind out .... The 375 would appear even more magificent and then he scored a 400, along with that 501* in FC No matter what we do or say here, it doesn't affect Sachin. Everyone is what he is because of his own hard work and luck. You don't stop being his fan if you admire others so why not take a day to think someone else is the greatest. At least it ll open up your mind to different possibilities and may be you would admire Sachin even more On the other hand, you may know all that and may not need to explore new angles. In that case just ignore the above. But note that I do not advise ppl often as I value my advise and thus don't throw it around everywhere

[Ultimate_Game]

"Not outs" have had a big impact on avg of quite a few players .... Not outs hover around say 10% of the innings Someone like Lara has only 6 not outs of 232 innings .... now say his not out innings were also around 10%, then what would his avg be? =11953/209 = 57.19! PS if Sehwag too remained not out 10% of the time, his avg would be around 56! Ofc, you could have not out innings of 10, 50, 13 or 150, 200, etc so it affects the avg too but this is just taking it of the innings assuming a common trend

Lots of ifs and buts. Doesn't a batsman who remained unbeaten deserves credit for the same? And what was stopping Lara from doing the same? I suspect it would have actually been easier for Lara to remain unbeaten as he didn't have great batsmen around him but he was not able to. This means he lacked focus or wasn't consistent enough to remain not out. A batsman remaining unbeaten should not be penalized for Lara, or other batsmen's failure for getting out.

[Precambrian]

RPT? RPI? Seriously?

[akshayxyz]

RPT? RPI? Seriously?

As if that was not enough, now it has come down to - Lara's not-outs lesser than others, unfairly. exploring new depths of retarded-ness, day by day.

[Trichromatic]

As if that was not enough, now it has come down to - Lara's not-outs lesser than others, unfairly. exploring new depths of retarded-ness, day by day.

Yeah, it's unfair for Lara as he never bothered about stats and got out 7 times on 0 in 4th innings (generally players have most not outs in 4th innings) unlike some other players who care only about stats and didn't throw their wickets away (only 3 ducks in 4th innings despite playing more innings than Lara). :P

[SachDan]

Yeah' date=' it's unfair for Lara as he never bothered about stats and got out 7 times on 0 in 4th innings (generally players have most not outs in 4th innings) unlike some other players who care only about stats and didn't throw their wickets away (only 3 ducks in 4th innings despite playing more innings than Lara). :P[/quote'] Lara seeks Test double-ton record "I would love to get past Bradman. He got 12 double centuries, I have eight." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/other_international/west_indies/4481114.stm

[akshayxyz]

yes, even 400 was very unselfish act.

[Sachin=GOD]

yes' date=' even 400 was very unselfish act.[/quote'] see, the only selfish guy in world cricket is the one whose 100s lead to India's losses and one who could only make 175 while chasing 350 or 136 in chennai while the others were falling like a pack of cards etc etc etc.

[SachDan]

see' date=' the only selfish guy in world cricket is the one whose 100s lead to India's losses and one who could only make 175 while chasing 350 or 136 in chennai while the others were falling like a pack of cards etc etc etc.[/quote'] or slowing down considerably when approaching centuries :winky: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=90486

[vamos_rafa]

or slowing down considerably when approaching centuries :winky: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=90486

hunhh ur just a fanatic of the midget.

[Sachinism]

@ Sachinism Talking about taking a break, may be you should take one too from being the self appointed guardian of SRT .... Who knows you could be missing out on seeing different angles! I can't be bothered with guarding SRT. I mock him quite a bit, though its mainly on my twitter account as I don't discuss cricket too much here any more. Though I feel the need to interject when I see people bringing up absurd new ways to bring him down. I've been around on internet cricket discussion boards a long, long time. And trust me when I tell you I've seen nearly every possible way to break down stats and how the 'true definition of a great batsman' changes according to who he's being compared with. For e.g. Start of a day thinking SRT is not the greatest. May be assume Lara is. May be the 153* which you thought may not hv been possible w/o Healey could appear as luck favors the brave. If winning the match makes the innings greater, why do we not look at other factors that affected the result. If Lara was out caught WI would have lost. If the tail scored the few measley runs left India would have won in Chennai. The point being, the innings can be still quality regardless the result. I understand winning the game is more important but you need to realise its a team game played vs 11 others. So its not all about one individual. Luck favours the brave? - Its all about how you wanna look at it. Some people may say Sachin was brave for going for a big shot. Some people may say Lara played a poor loose shot rather than him being brave The avg of 33 in Ind may look more meaningful with the match winning knock he played in 3rd inng by getting a big score quickly to allow is team enough runs and time to bowl Ind out .... The 375 would appear even more magificent and then he scored a 400, along with that 501* in FC No matter what we do or say here, it doesn't affect Sachin. Everyone is what he is because of his own hard work and luck. You don't stop being his fan if you admire others so why not take a day to think someone else is the greatest. At least it ll open up your mind to different possibilities and may be you would admire Sachin even more In my younger days I admired Lara and Ganguly over Sachin. I would be cheering Ganguly while my family would be showing greater support to Sachin. But as time has gone by I've realised how good this guy is and he surpasses anyone I've ever seen by a country mile. On the other hand, you may know all that and may not need to explore new angles. In that case just ignore the above. But note that I do not advise ppl often as I value my advise and thus don't throw it around everywhere I don't claim to know it all, but I know how easy it is to twist stats to show what you want. I know the usual patterns that appear once a debate ensues. We're never going to be able to compare players across era's. We know when we compare players playing at the same time, people find they're going to change what matters most to suit their agenda and at the end of it all we're not going to move forward. In my mind, from what I've seen Sachin is the best player to have played in that time. I don't know how good past players were, but from what I've seen of Sachin, I find it difficult to believe there would have been too many better players

Responses in bold

[zen]

Responses in bold

Thanks for the responses .... To me it shows why there cannot be an agreement b/w likes of you and me :P I don't agree much with what you said and I picture you the same as you pic those who try to bring down Sachin ....the diff is I don't represent just one player and that should tell you a lot about your views since you claim to 'know it all'

[zen]

Earlier, I was posting from the iPad so didn't read too many posts .... Now I glanced at one of the posts where some stats are presented to show Sachin doesn't slow down. I couldn't stop laughing at the desperation in that post .... Having seen Sachin slow down, I am surprised that ppl have to present stats to show otherwise First thing that struck me about those stats is the period, i.e. from 1999. Are we going to "extrapolate" the data for 1994-1998 period? 2nd, the stats (assuming that they have been done accurately) were just combined for the whole year! Other thing said is Sachin tends to get a bit obsessed about his numbers. Many said he doesn't. But then some of the same folks are talking about who the 100th 100 (a meagingless stat) is affecting Tendulkar and how he should be played in ODIs against WI to help in get that :giggle: Anyways, don't have much time now but this is something which can be discussed further

[Sachin=GOD]

Earlier' date=' I was posting from the iPad so didn't read too many posts .... Now I glanced at one of the posts where some stats are presented to show Sachin doesn't slow down. I couldn't stop laughing at the desperation in that post .... [b']Having seen Sachin slow down, I am surprised that ppl have to present stats to show otherwise First thing that struck me about those stats is the period, i.e. from 1999. Are we going to "extrapolate" the data for 1994-1998 period? 2nd, the stats (assuming that they have been done accurately) were just combined for the whole year! Other thing said is Sachin tends to get a bit obsessed about his numbers. Many said he doesn't. But then some of the same folks are talking about who the 100th 100 (a meagingless stat) is affecting Tendulkar and how he should be played in ODIs against WI to help in get that :giggle: Anyways, don't have much time now but this is something which can be discussed further

if someone presents stats to prove something then you say "I have seen this myself so I don't believe it" and if someone says that he/she has seen something and talks about it then you say "show stats to prove that".