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

zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Has got nothing to do with "Core Cricketing Skills" ... in any case this has been done to death in many other threads. So not having faced any really great fast bowlers is irrelevant in deciding a batsman's cricketing skills .... No sh!t Einstien :laugh:
^ :hysterical: then answer the questions that are on this thread :dontknow: till then :picsorstfu: (read that as answers or ....)
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted

^ :picsorstfu: **** Btw, does anything think that the action captured in that "short" clip is by combining clips from video captured at bowlers end and the batsman's end? At the bowler's end the camera is capturing: ImgRetrieve.php?img=40&media_urn=92855 and at the batsman's end this: ImgRetrieve.php?img=45&media_urn=92855 And then in editing, the two clips are combined to show action video watch 00:40 to 00:45 (or even till 00:52) IF the above is true, we have folks here not only judging things from these clips but also asking others to do the same .... If true, this would be one of the dumbest :facepalm: moments on ICF .... :hysterical:

Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
So brah ... you saying that those clips are showing fake action to make Bradman look like he is beating minnows whereas in reality it was the opposite as certified by that random dude on the web you quoted in a different thread ? :hmmm:
:hysterical: trying so hard .... Get the answers first In the meantime, we ll laugh at your idea of posting videos where two clips are joined to convey the action and asking folks to judge from that :giggle:
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted

I will quote a dialog from don 2 "don apne dosto ki Khabar rakhe na rakhe, apne dushmano ki Khabar zaroor raktha hai". In short, I m ok with being alone :p And it's fun to see you try so hard and post comical stuff .... Not to forget the fun watching the likes of Mtc howl as if I hv stepped on his tail :hehe:

Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
So is that why you are running away with your tail between your legs when asked a simple question ? Some bleddy don :hehe:
keep trying :--D answer the questions first and we will see how relevant 'the list' is :P talking abt movies, you are asking for 'list' like these guys are asking for gold: E8mH94G2c4k
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Chalo since you are soo shy I will answer your question out of turn .... but promise me that you will answer my question about list of fast bowlers without making proclamations that it is irrelevant or some such thing. I want a list of names and no nonsense. Deal ?
OK, I ll give the list And you will have to answer: yes or no to the question below. Please read the implications properly: 1. SRT avg 56 in test cricket and is considered to be the greatest ever by you, but based on facing and doing well against better bowling attacks (as discussed previously) per the table below: 
	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	14	21	1	971	48.55
mWaugh	12	18	0	770	42.78
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Sachin	16	31	0	1257	40.55
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26

Would you say that either Waugh (based on avg) or Lara (based on the number of tests played) is the best test player of his generation and ahead of Tendulkar? Please read the implications below: If YES ----> it implies that you don't consider Sachin to be the greatest batsman. It's either Waugh or Lara. This closes the SRT chances of being considered as the greatest in any discussions. In your opinion, it would be someone else (either DBG or someone else, but NOT definitely SRT) If NO ----> it implies that you cannot say that DBG is not the greatest because in your opinion he faced crap bowlers. DBG's runs or avg will NOT be undervalued .... It also means that the 'list' you are asking for becomes irrelevant . since his runs are not undervalued, DBG automatically is the greatest. And this closes this debate. Next Step(s): A - If the response to the above is 'yes', then SRT is out of debate. The main focus would be on will is the previous generation be able to adjust to the standards of the next. * if 'yes' , then DBG is the greatest * if it is 'no, then it casts a serious doubt on not only evolution but also on the greatness of all the greats and whether there is any point in even discussing this. Who would even want to bother with ATG list, just pick from the current players :P

Link to comment
CSK Fan Newbie

CSK Fan

Posted
Posted
:omg: more shocking news .... Added Ambrose and Walsh and Murali and Mendis to the 3 bowling combinations and .... 
	M	I	No	R	Avg
sWaugh	37	61	6	2562	46.58
BCLara	30	57	2	2342	42.58
Dravid	22	39	3	1483	41.19
Anwar	10	19	0	765	40.26
mWaugh	34	57	2	2207	40.13
Sachin	24	42	1	1585	38.66

Dude do you have any idea what these number even imply? This is the very reason amaueters with no experience of handling numbers should never try data analysis because they make random conclusions without context. How does the numbers show that the average was caused by the presence of those bowlers, please explain. If you cannot explain this please stop quoting thse numbers I will cite two examples. Both Wasim ansd Waqar have got Sachin out ONLY once in tests. In the matches involving Waqar and Wasim, Sachin got out to Saqlain most of the time. How does this imply that Wasim and Waqar bowled well against him? Second example, hypothethical. Sachin plays 5 matches against Sami. He gets out run out thrice and out to Afridi twice cheaply. Sachin's average against Sami is only 10 then. Does it imply his average is 10 because od the presence of Sami? Average with a bowler in the opposition does not in any way imply that the average was caused because of the presence of that bowler.
Link to comment
CSK Fan Newbie

CSK Fan

Posted
Posted
Nope they dont. Above Dravid yes. Above Ponting yes Above Kallis hell yes. Above (Viv) Richards?? Nope thats only in SRT fan's dreams. Comparison are subjectives are hence if somebody feels SRT > Viv thats perfectly fine, but to assume experts widely acknowledge that as as fact is ridiculous. Personally having seen SRT, Viv and Sunny I would say Sunny was always a better batsman than SRT. Of course back then cricket was mostly Tests. And Viv was a maverick Sunny really. To me both these gents would beat SRT but hey thats nostalgia kicking in a self-loather :hehe::hehe: (just saving us both some times if you are gonna go that route).
Show me an alltime XI where Richards is picked above Sachin. Go ahead
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...