Raghav_12 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Glad you've realized it - you might start from enrolling in some Stats 101 course at the nearest community college where you and your BossBhai can study together about some fundamental concepts before spouting garbage. I am India and would not like to travel all the way to US to take admission in some community college. Can you recommend some Indian college?
The Outsider Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I am India and would not like to travel all the way to US to take admission in some community college. Can you recommend some Indian college? Quite a few if you want to learn, but nothing if you want to continue your Sachin bhakti - sorry you are doomed to an existence of stupidity. Enjoy the ride!
Raghav_12 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Quite a few if you want to learn' date=' but nothing if you want to continue your Sachin bhakti - sorry you are doomed to an existence of stupidity. Enjoy the ride![/quote'] You are better in wit than stats and logic :cantstop:
1983-2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 the study is about similarity in batting style not whos better batsman, no need to get offended srt fanatics;)
1983-2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 the guy used used economic theory:hmmm: should have used his common sense and cricket theory
pensionplan Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 But how does that add up to Bradman's average of 100 (International games*) to Tendulkar's 45 average (International games* minnow adjusted). * :- International game(Tests + ODI's + 20-20) is a yard stick picked by the SRT fanatics to suit their argument. So I am just using that same yardstick here to show the average of both SRT and DGB in the "international" games they played in.Sabki Bolti Bandh!!!!!.
The Outsider Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Sabki Bolti Bandh!!!!!. Sirf shatak add ho sakte hain international. International average mat lena - why? Simple, it doesn't suit the agenda.
mishra Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 the study is about similarity in batting style not whos better batsman' date=' no need to get offended srt fanatics;)[/quote'] Problem is their superhero has been caught redhanded for god knows why :nice: Or hang on ... He had no clue about what he was talking at the time.....
carnish Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 :cantstop: we now just have to prove that SRT is greater than Inzi.. :cantstop:
carnish Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Inzy=Bradman Tendulkar>Inzy So Tendulkar>Bradman Hence Proved Outy Take This :two_thumbs_up:
carnish Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Leaving Inzi out from what I have seen in footage of Bradman I couldn't see many similarities between him and Tendulkar. Tendulkar is a freak the way he plays according to coaching manual. Tendulkar is a dream for any coach. I might be wrong but from the available footage Bradman looks a bottom handed player who was good square of the wicket. In my 25 years of watching cricket I have not a player anywhere close to Tendulkar the way he plays. Best thing about Tendulkar is his mastery of all the shots. Be it cover drive on the up, upper cut, late cut of spinners, straight drive, on drive,dancing down to spinners, flick through square leg, sweep shot Tendulkar plays them all equally good. The only shot I can't recall him playing with perfection is pull/hook shot. He must be good at it otherwise he would have been found out after playing for so long. Tendulkar actually pulls better than Ponting himself when he decides to go for it which is not that often because he actually doesnot have so much confidence on that shot... that video in this thread of the six against Caddick is the trademark of him as very few righty batters in intl. cricket can play that shot in that manner... however i would accept he is not very good with the hook but he is pretty capable of leaving or ducking against the bouncing ball and hence doesnot needs to play the hook shot with risk that often..
pensionplan Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Bradman will always be the Don --Nirmal Shekar Column Bradman will always be the Don For cricket's sake, and sanity's sake, dear researchers, please leave the Don alone, writes Nirmal Shekar IMAGINE a Top Ten list of all-time great composers that does not include the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Imagine a Top Ten list of all-time great painters from which Vincent Van Gogh is missing? Well, when gimmicky, infantile exercises are undertaken, such things do happen. It did a few months ago when the International Cricket Council came up with its all-time best World XI. But what is worse came three days ago, when Dr. Nicholas Rohde from Australia's Griffith University got his No.1 wrong in a list of batting greats in cricket. That is unpardonable and doesn't say much for the researcher's analytical acuity. To think that any human being who ever picked up a cricket bat was greater than Don Bradman no matter who that person may be, no matter how many hundreds of millions of fans happen to worship him is nothing but puerile phantasm. You think this is laughable and unthinkable and preposterous? It is none of these, actually. You just do not employ simplistic research methods to rank sporting greats. Or ask lay fans to vote, as did ICC, if you are serious about conducting what might be an interesting if ultimately pointless exercise. Instead, you appoint a panel of experts former cricketers, journalists and officials to debate the issue and come up with names. This is especially so in a sport played with any kind of seriousness in less than a dozen countries and one whose fan base is dominated by citizens of a single nation India. It is obvious that a vast majority of voters who chose the ICC all-time best World XI were Indians, for four of their countrymen found themselves in the list. This is not to take anything away from the merits of Sachin Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar and Virender Sehwag. But how can Kapil Dev get in ahead of Gary Sobers, or Virender Sehwag ahead of Jack Hobbs? Of course, the cruel joke was, Viv Richards, arguably the most destructive of post-war batsmen, did not find a place in this list. Defying all logic While all lists, including those put together by the best of experts, are bound to have an element of subjectivity involved, online polls make a mockery of common sense. And the latest dished out by Dr. Rohde defies all logic. Even Sachin would laugh at it. What is more, the Australian researcher's Top Ten does not feature the names of Viv Richards, George Headley, Jack Hobbs and Barry Richards. But, somehow, Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Javed Miandad are in it. But the point of this column is this: how can a batsman who played in an era of uncovered wickets and without modern protective gear most of all, one who missed playing international cricket during his peak years because of the Second World War and ended up with a batting average of 99.94 in 52 Tests with 29 hundreds, be ranked below anyone else who ever played the game? A school-kid couldn't have got that wrong. For, in no other sport has one player stood so far above the rest. The word 'incomparable' is often used carelessly in sports journalism. But if there is one batsman who is beyond comparison, it is most certainly Bradman. For cricket's sake, and sanity's sake, dear researchers, please leave the Don alone! When he did what he did which is, bat like no man ever did, before or after the Don didn't appear to be human. Could a mortal, a mere mortal, do all this, people wondered in the 1930s and 1940s as the greatest batsman in history rewrote record after record. And the passing of time has done nothing to diminish Bradman's greatness, or take the sheen off his image as a superman. He was a freak of nature who functioned consistently at an altitude no other batsman could dream of rising to. In an ephemeral world where everything has a limited appeal, where every sports accomplishment has a limited shelf life when it comes to popular appeal, the Bradman legend outgrew itself with each passing era. And the arrival of a Viv Richards or a Brian Lara or a Sachin Tendulkar did nothing to take anything away from the Don, or displace him from his pedestal. Nobody ever had the aura of invincibility that Bradman did. Had the Second World War not intervened, the greatest cricketer of all time would have perhaps scored over 12,000 runs and averaged over 100. In an era of helmets and protective gear and batsmen-friendly pitches, at a time when 50-plus is still a true yardstick of greatness, one can surely get an idea of where the Don stands alone and apart. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/nirmal_shekar/article2742076.ece
pensionplan Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 The above article if from today's edition of The Hindu. At the onset I admit I never am big with Nirmal Shekar's over the top writings on Tennis for which he is primarily employed back in the day. But he makes some interesting observations in this piece here.
surajmal Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 "The self hating jew" syndrome in full effect. You would seriously find more Bradman backers in India than Australia now.
99.94 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 "The self hating jew" syndrome in full effect. You would seriously find more Bradman backers in India than Australia now. There are also more English speakers in India than in Australia :winky:
ravishingravi Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Self hater. How can any human be better than God ?
bulbul Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 is Nirmal shekar's age 99? may be the guy didnt watched cricket after 1989 :banghead:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now