94

[Jersey #10]

I can already see something on these lines coming up. Bravo > SRT. Bravo beats him by RPT. Bravo RPT - 13 games - 89 SRT RPT - 184 games - 82 therefore, Bravo's runs after 184 games using RPT - 16378 Sachin's runs after 184 games - 15183 Bravo > SRT... :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

[Jersey #10]

^that's Rett's invention at work :haha:

[The Outsider]

Next what? Chris Martin > Tendu?

Well it's already been proven Martin > Gavaskar because some people haven't seen Gavaskar bat.:winky:

[zen]

I can already see something on these lines coming up. Bravo > SRT. Bravo beats him by RPT. Bravo RPT - 13 games - 89 SRT RPT - 184 games - 82 therefore, Bravo's runs after 184 games using RPT - 16378 Sachin's runs after 184 games - 15183 Bravo > SRT... :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Thanks for displaying your understanding of rpt, bravo! (no pun intended :P) My point was that having the most number of runs doesn't equate to being the greatest. If batsmen of similar calibre get the same amt of opportunity they are likely to get to same total. If someone like Lara had got the opp to play 180 odd test, he would hv got 15k runs too, if not more If getting the highest runs or most 100s were the criteria, Gavaskar would hv become the greatest batsman for scoring 10k runs and hitting 34 100s, the most at that point. Border would hv become the greatest once he got the most runs. Unfortunately for them, nothing like that happened Like you showed, if bravo were good enough to play 180 test (which means he would be exceptional player), he could get to 15k or more too. Therefore if you score like 15k runs in 150 games, then it is a phenomenal achievement. which is why I don't jump around if someone gets 13k or 15k runs (rpt) at avg rpt of batsman of certain caliber .... On the other hand IF Bravo gets say 15k runs in 150 tests (rpt 100), he would be considered better than Ten, who would say has some 16k runs in 200 tests (rpt 80). Having more runs doesn't fortify Ten position So by using rpt and saying is bravo > ten (bravo has just started out) you are in fact w/o realizing agreeing with me that more runs doesn't equate to being the greatest even though your purpose was to show something else. Your example reminds me of the nim hakim khtre jaan story. Where a melon is stuck in camel's neck. A hakim breaks it with a stone ..... Khatre jaan sees that and tries to cure a bump in the neck of a lady. He smashes the lady's neck with a stone .... While the camel lived, the lady died :winky:

[zen]

And since you compared bravo to ten, don't forget to note that in the thread where you summarize such SRT comparisons :hysterical:

[Jersey #10]

and you are still trying to defend this? :haha:

[pensionplan]

Thanks for displaying your understanding of rpt, bravo! (no pun intended :P) My point was that having the most number of runs doesn't equate to being the greatest. If batsmen of similar calibre get the same amt of opportunity they are likely to get to same total. If someone like Lara had got the opp to play 180 odd test, he would hv got 15k runs too, if not more If getting the highest runs or most 100s were the criteria, Gavaskar would hv become the greatest batsman for scoring 10k runs and hitting 34 100s, the most at that point. Border would hv become the greatest once he got the most runs. Unfortunately for them, nothing like that happened Like you showed, if bravo were good enough to play 180 test (which means he would be exceptional player), he could get to 15k or more too. Therefore if you score like 15k runs in 150 games, then it is a phenomenal achievement. which is why I don't jump around if someone gets 13k or 15k runs (rpt) at avg rpt of batsman of certain caliber .... On the other hand IF Bravo gets say 15k runs in 150 tests (rpt 100), he would be considered better than Ten, who would say has some 16k runs in 200 tests (rpt 80). Having more runs doesn't fortify Ten position So by using rpt and saying is bravo > ten (bravo has just started out) you are in fact w/o realizing agreeing with me that more runs doesn't equate to being the greatest even though your purpose was to show something else. Your example reminds me of the nim hakim khtre jaan story. Where a melon is stuck in camel's neck. A hakim breaks it with a stone ..... Khatre jaan sees that and tries to cure a bump in the neck of a lady. He smashes the lady's neck with a stone .... While the camel lived, the lady died :winky:

Yes if one is making a pitch for players of equal caliber based on stats alone this makes sense instead of making proclamations that so and so scored 10k or 15k runs without getting into the number of games/innings etc.

[pensionplan]

and you are still trying to defend this? :haha:

At least read and understand the crux of a posters POV before being dismissive.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Jersey #10]

At least read and understand the crux of a posters POV before being dismissive.

are you kidding me? wait, let me clear it up, are you telling me Bravo > SRT? Give me a yes/no answer instead of an essay that makes zero sense

[MCcricket]

Whats probably the best scenario we could see Tendulkar hit a 100 100's, in Australia with Australia posting a big score, loosing wickets Tendulkar , Sehwag start tearing into the OZ attack, get huge centuries, we get close to OZ target, get em out cheaply and Tendulkar takes us to victory in the 2 nd innings, that wil be a perfect finale.

[Ultimate_Game]

Since you don't consider the 136 as a crunch knock and adore some FTB slaughtering Vaughan and Pietersen there is very little cricket to be discussed here.

Well since you, not I, touched upon Mongia's performance under "crunch" situations I was eager to hear more about the same. Now you can't come up with anything and suddenly "there is very little cricket to be discussed here" :hysterical:

[Sachinism]

Rett still trying to sell his RPT theory :((

[The Outsider]

Well since you' date=' not I, touched upon Mongia's performance under "crunch" situations I was eager to hear more about the same. Now you can't come up with anything and suddenly "there is very little cricket to be discussed here" :hysterical:[/quote'] Yeah, as long as you prostrate to cricketing knocks scored against Vaughan and Pietersen compared to Akram and Saqlain at their prime there is little that can be discussed.

[Ultimate_Game]

Yeah' date=' as long as you prostrate to cricketing knocks scored against Vaughan and Pietersen compared to Akram and Saqlain at their prime there is little that can be discussed.[/quote'] Agreed that there's nothing much to be discussed as far as Mongia's stellar performances in "crunch" situations are concerned, which Dhoni can only aspire to.

[b555]

How about following your own advice ?

how can u even say that BB ? his 1000+ posts simply show the fact that he never follows the advice he stated above :cantstop:

[The Outsider]

Agreed that there's nothing much to be discussed as far as Mongia's stellar performances in "crunch" situations are concerned' date=' which Dhoni can only aspire to.[/quote'] True! Scoring against Vaughan, Giles, and Pietersen is the pinnacle of cricketing excellence - what have Akram, Waqar, and Saqlain at their prime have in front of the awesome threesome of Vaughan, Giles, and Pietersen! Crunch situations got a new meaning all together when this fearsome threesome was bowling.

[gaurav92]

I haz a sad :((