Jump to content

A list of some utterly Asinine and Hideous statements made by the Bradman Fanatics

Guest BossBhai

By Guest BossBhai
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
Take Lurker for an example. He has been on this forum since 2006 and has participated in many threads like this one. What makes you think you will convince him towards your cause now if every try has failed in last 5 years?
What cause ? Is there an implicit agenda in place ? Or is this an open cricketing forum ?
Thanks for standing up taking a stand but these numbskulls thrive because they are allowed to thrive. You can't expect everybody to keep ignoring these lowlifes. Strict moderation is the only answer.
What ? Strict moderation if someone disagrees with an agenda ? Or has a difference of opinion ? Wow..its like an authoritarian regime, with " strict moderation " of opinions and views.
Link to comment
Lurker Newbie

Lurker

Posted
Posted
Dude you don't have to prove to us on a daily basis that your mental age is still in single digits ... We get it.
Who is this "us" you speak of? You, your bs, and RSS? :haha: I kinda liked you better when you had some facts and a sense of humor. Atleast he stood up for himself. Kinda sad to see you grow into a bitter old git who has developed a mob mentality. So how does it feel to..well feel stupid? :hehe:
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
Some people insist on dying by their own sword .... I dunno if its a fashion these days but hey you asked for it so here it is : vs McGrath + Warne ( In AUS ) BCL : 37.14 SRT : 46.33 vs McGrath OR Warne ( In AUS ) BCL : 42.75 SRT : 56.12 Now wait and watch how suddenly performing at home becomes a more important criteria. BTW : Welcome back Patriot :laugh:
Why don't you try SRT's luck with Mcgrath+ Warne at 37.8 C in Melbourne+ Perth..say SRT vs Donald + Pollock when sunrise at 6.32 AM etc.. ..he may win a cookie or two there also perhaps. Haha Unfortunately the little man gets owned comprehensively against ATG fast bowlers. Proved and dusted. Poor " ATG" could not top ICC rankings for more than 3 years despite spending 3 decades in the game. WHo is Patriot ?
Link to comment
SachDan Newbie

SachDan

Posted
Posted

yep big time! proved by stats below..:winky:

Why don't you try SRT's luck with Mcgrath+ Warne at 37.8 C in Melbourne+ Perth..say SRT vs Donald + Pollock when sunrise at 6.32 AM etc.. ..he may win a cookie or two there also perhaps. Haha Unfortunately the little man gets owned comprehensively against ATG fast bowlers. Proved and dusted. Poor " ATG" could not top ICC rankings for more than 3 years despite spending 3 decades in the game. WHo is Patriot ?
LOL, what a thread. Since everyone's a statistician, here's one from my side - The following batsmen against the best fast bowlers of their generation Ambrose Walsh Donald Pollock Steyn Wasim Waqar McGrath but AWAY from home - :winky: Tendulkar - 46 innings, 6 100s @46 Ponting - 19 innings,3 100s@42 Lara - 53 innings, 5 100s@38 Dravid - 37 innings, 1 100@32 Sehwag - 17 innings,1 100@27
Link to comment
pensionplan Newbie

pensionplan

Posted
Posted
dumbass first try to develop some reading comprehension before you decide to bark. I said I feel stupid to have spent so much time on this site thanks to numbskulls like you and that clown whose sidekick you are. I also said that the site is going down the tube because of supposedly sensible posters shutting up and putting up with this chethyagiri ... unless ofcourse you think rettards like rett and co are taking this site to glorious heights never before seen. ***king idiots.
Apologies accepted. I ask you to take a chill pill and go on a break. Someone can cover for you here while you are gone. Still SRT 78 centuries and Viv 114 centuries. Chew upon it.
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
STFU and GTFO idiot ... cant handle the outcome of your own stupid stats but pata nahin kahan sey chale aatey hai lecture marne yaha ... Ego trip and Agenda ehh ? Want some more stats ?
Mr. Bossbhai, passing on looney churlish personal remarks is nothing but an indication of your frustration. One gets frustrated when all efforts go in vain. Frustration mein aadmi apni asliyat pe aata hai. And you are frustrated. The reason is for all to see you. Do more cherry picking and you may earn some more crums for you hero. For the nth time..3 decades ka player.. but sirf 3 year ka ICC top batsmen..kya bakwaas " ATG" batsmen. Hehehe..
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
Ohh really ... looks like the previous stat got you badly ... Want more stats ? Speaking of cherry picking I told you upfront that your stat was bogus but you didnt listen now that it has come back to bite you in the butt why are you howling ? Fat Ego perhaps ?
Why is about 50 tests of sample using Waugh, SRT and Lara Vs the 7 ATG Fast bowlers bogus ? Chaddi gul hogayi SRT ki isliye ? 20-25 point se bechare ki avg gir gai vs overall average. That is where his true class was exposed. Kya mast ATG hai. 3 decades khel ke sirf 3 saal ICC rankings top kar saka. Kamaal ka ATG hai banda yeh,
Link to comment
akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
Posted
Why don't you try SRT's luck with Mcgrath+ Warne at 37.8 C in Melbourne+ Perth..say SRT vs Donald + Pollock when sunrise at 6.32 AM etc.. ..he may win a cookie or two there also perhaps. Haha Unfortunately the little man gets owned comprehensively against ATG fast bowlers. Proved and dusted. Poor " ATG" could not top ICC rankings for more than 3 years despite spending 3 decades in the game. WHo is Patriot ?
based on what ? - that RPT-esque logic - average against so and so bowler? Since this stat is still being persisted with - What do you have to say about - relative performance against similar bunch of fast bowling greats "IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD"? Do you actually believe that it is relatively non-nonsensical to the root-stat ( relative performance against similar set - including home bullying). And before newly hired trolls like you ignore/attack my query about your self-fvck(loophole) logic - as coming from a fanatic. Here is my stand on the key ATG crap-points a) Cross era comparison just does not make sense. Not yet, with today's statistical methods/algorithms, data available so far. b) Neither side can be too wrong in assuming one's supremacy over the other (DGB vs SRT) - both of these guys have done enough that other guy could have done - but of course there are no real-world numbers to support the undisputed claim. Anyway, I always suggest not to get into the supremacy business at all. c) I never subscribe to time-travel logic - DGB would have averaged 70-80s today, or SRT/Ponting would have averaged 100s - it is just not possible to arrive at some such number/range - undisputedly. d) I never subscribe to - "DGB's numbers are meaningless as he faced inferior bowlers". It is much more complex than even a chicken egg situation. I would care to elaborate only if anyone is willing to discuss sincerely. e)Only fair comparison is against one's own peers. In terms of that metric DGB is peerless. HOWEVER, this can not be the only criteria to assume uber-supremacy over every one else forever. Peer dominance is a decent measure, but it is a double edged sword. An outlier can be a reflection of inefficiencies of the system/setup under observation - their are countless examples of that. Similarly this particular case of DGB being statistical outlier can very well be interpreted as the cricket setup of that era being amateurish - as compared to today's setup. Level of cricket, skills, technology, rules etc. have changed slowly - but eventually so drastically, that test cricket from 30s isn't same sport as today's test cricket - technically speaking. Back to over all level of competition in 30-40s era - search around a bit - in the very same era - there were few other sports where people were able to dominate peers by almost similar margins. What does it prove, it was relatively and probabilistic-ally easier to dominate your peers during that era. In other words, observed distance from the mean ( # of standard deviations away from mean) - is magnified due to level of competition. Allow me to put a hypothesis here - peer domination has to be normalized against peer domination in other similar subsets from population of same era ( as if comparison within sports within same era was easy enough :)) ). Anyway, I am not saying that peer dominance does not mean anything at all to judge individual's greatness - but overall truth lies somewhere between - extent of being outlier is a mixed function of level of competition and individual's greatness over peers + few more parameters. And we are not yet there where we can have truely objective assessment of that - clue - weights assigned to various metrics are still "subjective". So, it (peer dominance) can not the be THE GOLD STANDARD to warrant undoubted dominance across eras. Both sides have been guilty of selective filtering, just to bring down the other side. But, more often than not, there is one side which keeps coming up with absurd comparisons and whenever gets countered - resorts to typical derogatory trolling... and the game continues.
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
based on what ? - that RPT-esque logic - average against so and so bowler? Since this stat is still being persisted with - What do you have to say about - relative performance against similar bunch of fast bowling greats "IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD"? Do you actually believe that it is relatively non-nonsensical to the root-stat ( relative performance against similar set - including home bullying). And before newly hired trolls like you ignore/attack my query about your self-fvck(loophole) logic - as coming from a fanatic. Here is my stand on the key ATG crap-points a) Cross era comparison just does not make sense. Not yet, with today's statistical methods/algorithms, data available so far. b) Neither side can be too wrong in assuming one's supremacy over the other (DGB vs SRT) - both of these guys have done enough that other guy could have done - but of course there are real-world numbers to support the undisputed claim. Anyway, I always suggest not to get into the supremacy business at all. c) I never subscribe to time-travel logic - DGB would have averaged 70-80s today, or SRT/Ponting would have averaged 100s - it is just not possible to arrive at some such number/range - undisputedly. d) I never subscribe to - "DGB's numbers are meaningless as he faced inferior bowlers". It is much more complex than even a chicken egg situation. I would care to elaborate only if anyone is willing to discuss sincerely. e)Only fair comparison is against one's own peers. In terms of that metric DGB is peerless. HOWEVER, this can not be the only criteria to assume uber-supremacy over every one else forever. Peer dominance is a decent measure, but it is a double edged sword. An outlier can be a reflection of inefficiencies of the system/setup under observation - their are countless examples of that. Similarly this particular case of DGB being statistical outlier can very well be interpreted as the cricket setup of that era being amateurish - as compared to today's setup. Level of cricket, skills, technology, rules etc. have changed slowly - but eventually so drastically, that test cricket from 30s isn't same sport as today's test cricket - technically speaking. Back to over all level of competition in 30-40s era - search around a bit - in the very same era - there were few other sports where people were able to dominate peers by almost similar margins. What does it prove, it was relatively and probabilistic-ally easier to dominate your peers during that era. In other words, observed distance from the mean ( # of standard deviations away from mean) - is magnified due to level of competition. Allow me to put a hypothesis here - peer domination has to be normalized against peer domination in other similar subsets from population of same era ( as if comparison within sports within same era was easy enough :)) ). Anyway, I am not saying that peer dominance does not mean anything at all to judge individual's greatness - but overall truth lies somewhere between - extent of being outlier is a mixed function of level of competition and individual's greatness over peers + few more parameters. And we are not yet there where we can have truely objective assessment of that - clue - weights assigned to various metrics are still "subjective". So, it (peer dominance) can not the be THE GOLD STANDARD to warrant undoubted dominance across eras. Both sides have been guilty of selective filtering, just to bring down the other side. But, more often than not, there is one side which keeps coming up with absurd comparisons and whenever gets countered - resorts to typical derogatory trolling... and the game continues.
Hello Akshay, Nice post. I do not subscribe to the hype surrounding him. A great player but his greatness is more a function of his longevity and records. I would consider someone who wins the Olympic and World Championship Gold for 100 meters and 200 meters a bigger champion then someone who holds world record times for both but won Gold in none. Maybe not the perfect analogy, but point is , he belongs more to the second category. He has a lot in his favor and yet not been a standout batsmen year on year for any longer than his golden period between mid to late 90's.
Link to comment
Sooda Proficient

Sooda

Posted
Posted
LOL, what a thread. Since everyone's a statistician, here's one from my side - The following batsmen against the best fast bowlers of their generation Ambrose Walsh Donald Pollock Steyn Wasim Waqar McGrath but AWAY from home - :winky: Tendulkar - 46 innings, 6 100s @46 Ponting - 19 innings,3 100s@42 Lara - 53 innings, 5 100s@38 Dravid - 37 innings, 1 100@32 Sehwag - 17 innings,1 100@27
Gambo :adore: the single good thing this thread has done is to get you to post. Hope youre well brah.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...