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
Because SRT would have faced Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop , McGrath,and Warne whereas BCL would have the obvious advantage of not having to face the 3 great West Indian fast bowlers. Same thing for Waugh. Common sense. Teri to mast julaab lagi huyi hay ... Here enjoy this stat ... a whole bunch of Pakis and Angrezi players will come up as better players than SRT and BCL in facing the "Greatest ATG phasht baller i.e : McGrath http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=2;orderby=batting_average;player_involve=2101;qualmin2=500;qualval2=runs;template=results;type=batting Khush ho ja aur phoot yahan sey.
Some players did better against SRT's daddy Mcgrath..than SRT and Lara himself so it is an anomaly...or the other players fault. Kya mast logic hai. Perhaps you have nothing to do with cricket apart from running some stat tools and pursuing an agenda..you may not know much about cricket in reality. MCgrath became permanent opening bowler 99 onwards and thats when he peaked as a bowler. Earlier he was first change for alot of matches. And how he performed since 99 ! Pietersen and Vaugh played stunning knocks in 2005 Ashes and therefore are up there in the list...unse galti hogayi kya....hehehehe. Lagta hai, too much heat and exposure has burnt you my little friend. Abhi bardhast nahi ho raha.hehe. For the n+1 th time , 3 decades se khel raha hai, par sirf 3 saal ICC ratings mein top batter tha. Bechare ka rankings graph baaki ATG players se sabse ghatiya hai. lagta hai poora ICC ranking cricteria hi bogus hai . hehehehehehe
Link to comment
pensionplan Newbie

pensionplan

Posted
Posted
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.
PP:Help me understand something. Are you suggesting that SRT is not among the best of the best in a list of great players? Ofcourse you are entitled to your opinion but please help clarify that.
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted

Hopefully the debated has ended w/ SRT fanatics finally realizing that they are shooting with fake bullets and accept deep down that they had been done in by the hype esp. w/ emotions (typical for an Indian) getting better of rational thinking. No hard feeling .... and ofc SRT is one of the ATGs This probably will be my last post of 2011 on cricket talk so would summarize some of the stuff that I said here for quick reference:

In the absense of any response, we take the following: * Based on facing and doing well against better bowling attacks: Lara is the best test batsman of his generation 

vs Aus: McGrath+Warne
vs Pak: Waqar+Wasim
vs SA: Donald+Pollock
vs SL: Murali+Vaas
vs WI: Ambrose+Walsh 

	M	I	No	R	Avg
BCLara	36	68	3	3370	51.85
sWaugh	42	66	7	2745	46.53
Inzama	33	56	3	2365	44.62
Anwar	20	33	0	1402	42.48
Sachin	29	49	1	2020	42.08
mWaugh	39	63	2	2408	39.48
Flower	24	44	7	1396	37.73
Dravid	33	58	4	2034	37.67
* Based on the theory of evolution and how the greats have gone about: Bradman is the greatest For ref, see below: Bradman - 1928-1948 Hutton: 1937 - 1955 Sobers: 1954-1974 Richards: 1974-1991 Tendulkar: 1989-present case closed
For reference only: "Away (home of the opposition)" stats against those attacks: 
	M	I	No	Runs	Avg
sWaugh	14	23	4	1227	64.58
BCLara	20	39	0	1818	46.62
Sachin	17	28	1	1204	44.59

* Waugh did not play SL with both Murali-Vaas on away basis

brian_lara_.jpg365-days-cricket-don-bradman.jpg
EPILOGUE There was a famous quote by Shivaji "Ghad aya per Sher gaya" .... for the Sachin Fanatics wrt this thread, they can say "Ghad toh gaya per Sher bhi gaya" :hysterical:
Happy new year to all in advance :icflove:
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
Theek hai baap Anwar >>> BCL and SRT ... because they PWNED the Greatest Phashht baller ... chalo Khush ho jao and run to the Wagah border tera Paki citizenship tayar rahega ( if you didnt already have one )
Why you self loathing, my friend ? Another failed attempt at " anomaly" ? I follow and support Indian cricket like a fanatic..I am not a one player fanatic like you. You are not even a one player fanatic...you sound more like a mercenary on some payroll. try as you can, you cannot defend what is not defendable. Samjhe ? happy New year.
Link to comment
akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
Posted
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.
That is where you have to accept that it is not objective assessment - and what you see/consider is not the absolute truth. Same applies to other side. And hence, no need to show the attitude - "ohh you fools" - There is one certain guy, who has got so much time that even goes on to quote others posts and edit out the "quote from" to replace with some personal remark - completely off the context. And that is where the debate turns ugly, in technical sports terms I would say - "unforced leap of rettardedness". And it is not un-natural for other side to subconsciously take the bait and change the playing field to their home ground of trolling. Solid evidence of - fools will bring down you to their level and beat you at their game (interestingly they themselves keep assuming virtual trophies of pwnage or something)
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
PP:Help me understand something. Are you suggesting that SRT is not among the best of the best in a list of great players? Ofcourse you are entitled to your opinion but please help clarify that.
SRT is among the best of the best. Even his sternest critics cannot deny that. But there are a handful of them clearly superior to him. Holding a record tally of test runs and tons is a sign of longetivity and quality. but not the be all and end all ..not by a long shot.
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
That is where you have to accept that it is not objective assessment - and what you see/consider is not the absolute truth. Same applies to other side. And hence, no need to show the attitude - "ohh you fools" - There is one certain guy, who has got so much time that even goes on to quote others posts and edit out the "quote from" to replace with some personal remark - completely off the context. And that is where the debate turns ugly, in technical sports terms I would say - "unforced leap of rettardedness". And it is not un-natural for other side to subconsciously take the bait and change the playing field to their home ground of trolling. Solid evidence of - fools will bring down you to their level and beat you at their game (interestingly they themselves keep assuming virtual trophies of pwnage or something)
Very good post again Akshay. I like you bringing in objectivity here. ICC test rankings are an objective indicator. Guys who are standouts, top it or ateast are among the top tier there.
Link to comment
Crookbond Newbie

Crookbond

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 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.
Awesome sensible post. Personally, I liked the highlighted parts
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
lol ... why you have problem accepting that Anwar & Ijaz >> BCL as your own stat is trying to suggest ? Why are you afraid brah ? You have the stamp of approval from the CI stats. Go on be brave say Anwar & Ijaz >> BCL and SRT. So it is now a requirement to be a fanatic of more than one player in order to be considered as a Indian Cricket fan ? Yeh rule kab change hua ? :((
" Afraid " LOL . baat thi 7 ATG fast bowlers thi against most worthy peer great batters of their era. you are the one running helter skletter...getting guys who played a couple of series...10 innings...8 innings... , a single bowler...etc . These silly tactics don't work my friend. Jahaan dhhod ka dhhod pani ka pani hona tha ho chuka.
Link to comment
akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
Posted
Very good post again Akshay. I like you bringing in objectivity here. ICC test rankings are an objective indicator. Guys who are standouts, top it or ateast are among the top tier there.
The same rankings which people start finding loop holes in? when they do not see their dear ones on the top... - sometimes with some selective filtering, and sometimes with valid metrics that should have been considered. My take on that - it is just another metric, but not indisputable GOLD Standard. Honestly, even though I do not appreciate much of Vijay Sharma's understanding of science/mathematics methods - but his "Virtuoso Analysis" was quite comprehensive and sincere attempt (I am using word sincere and not accurate)..., He tried to cover more metrics than guys keep discussing here, or ICC Rankings take care of- with obvious flaws - some metrics do not make sense and then there is always the problem with relative weights to metrics. More folks with similar level of sincerity but better understanding of statistical tools and stuff could have peer reviewed it and help it evolve from there, it was decent starting point. But what did we see, troll attacks, and we are back to personalized gold standards - which is as objective as it gets here.
Link to comment
akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
Posted

a recent example to point out the flaws in Test Rankings. somewhere I read today that SRT is ranked above Dravid in test batsman ratings. Now, if you chose the window of last year - this looks absurd, but if you look at window of 4 years.. IIRC SRT is above all (Indians at least, as I did not bother to check stats guru). So, effectively test rankings are just another moving average of some selective metrics with some 'random' weights, over some 'random' time window. And if you still insist, it is most objective assessment - well then carry on - good luck.

Link to comment
akshayxyz Newbie

akshayxyz

Posted
Posted
Iam willing but not on here on this Indiantrollfansrus.com ... you know my email addy. Ping me. We can talk araam sey.
Sure - we can discuss sometime.. but can not commit now. And until then let me clarify - I 'believe' that against serious quality bowling/competition his/anyone's level of peer dominance would have gone down than what its there... but one can not say, by what margin. And I also believe w/o a doubt, that in today's era he would have been among tops - but one can not claim definitively he would have averaged in 70s/80s. and one can not say he would have been clearly better//worse than today's best.
Link to comment
Patiala Peg Newbie

Patiala Peg

Posted
Posted
Then who was the guy that was barking about "McGrath is the big daddy of SRT" ... he owns him in big games yada yada yada ?
2 World Cup matches, one a final, the other a knockout, 2 first over dismissals, all expected .. All backed up by a MASSIVE reduction in his avg vs Aus with Mcgrath playing vs without Mcgrath playing. Over nearly 25 tests of SRT vs Aus. When cat ( Mcgrath ) is away...mice ( SRT ) . will play.. Hehehe.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...