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
Ohh trust me I am in doubt about the abilities of you and your tribesmen in hurling inane smilies and indulging in peurile actions at what you percieve to be stupid in your own mind thereby silencing the rest. But the assumption here was that we go by logic now feel free to tell me using logic (not the lahori wala logic ) how what I said is wrong from a purely cricketing perspective.
Below is your assumption: ' "But based on simple cricketing common sense (and having seen what WI bowlers could do ) I would bank on someone who could make a measly 50 against the likes of Marshall , Ambrose and Walsh in their backyard while opening the batting. ( Now don't start exercising the SG and come up with a list of players who have done this the most no.of times and proclaim that Batsman as the best and start hurling smilies" Based on the cricketing common sense, it would have been difficult for you to assume that a 16 years old Tendulkar would do well in Pakistan? esp. considering he did not face such quality before.
Pls tell me why you consider this to be true with evidence.
It was based on your logic of rating batsman based on the bowling attacks they faced. If your are asking me for evidence then to me it implies that your logic isnt spot on *smiley avoided*
Why don't you tell us how this isn't applicable to SRT and that his greatness is merely a function of No.of tests and ODI's played?
Because neither Gavaskar and Border nor Haynes were rated higher than some of the greats in tests and ODIs respectively based on runs scored and/or 100s :winky: ..... and it is taken that SRT is a great but not the greatest, which is what's been discussed (in case you forgot)
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
whats this got anything to do with what we are discussing (RR vs WH) ? instead of twisting and turning Why don't you put up a list of bowlers faced by Hammon who you consider to be equivalent in bowling skills as Ambrose,Marshall and Walsh ? Lets see some names. Or that I can easily make blanket statetements to the opposite . Now what ? In any case this has nothing to do with SRT vs DGB so feel free to bump up the SRT vs thread. News flash buddy ... I don't go by what any Expert rates X,Y,Z.(and this includes Bradman rating SRT) I trust my own eyes and judgement and I will give you a cricketing reason for my views. If you are interested in talking on those terms feel free to respond else this ends here.
If that^ is a serious post I don't know what to say: It is implied that based on potential if we can say that a 16 yrs old ten can be picked to play in Pak, we can also say that Hammond > raja and would hv done better than raja based on hammonds numbers, his reputation as an atg, .... So when your own theory doesn't work, ur eyes come in and logic takes a back seat / thread
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Since when did Tendulkar being picked on potential (this isnt true but whatever ) and then going on to succeed implies that this would be true for anyone else ?
That has been the case for most atg. And you have done an analysis on sobers FC vs tests too. See any atg batman and see the bowlers they faced before getting picked and what they faced at international level .... You can do ur own bowlers list and see how relevant that is In holidays, I don't want to devote much time on this. *smileys on*
Link to comment
Malcolm Merlyn Collaborator

Malcolm Merlyn

Posted
Posted
On one hand, you are assuming that Aus and Eng batsmen wouldn't have done well in sub continent conditions based on how the later teams fared despite knowing Ind was a minnow then and not a minnow later on and on the other hand, you are suggesting we cannot 'assume' .... and based on your analysis, are we to assume no batsman from Aus or Eng or whatever hasn't done well in India? If not then again a moot point
I am not assuming anything.I am telling you thefact.They never played in the SC.They never toured outside Aus and Eng.They never had to face the variety of pitches etc.So you just cannot say they were better than post 1950 batsman just on basis of their avg.Their avg has been inflated by te fact that they never had to play outside their comfort zone. For me the post 1950 batsmen were simply better. Regarding Bradman,i would like to know who were the great bowlers he faced?Please mention them and by great i mean bowlers avging less than 25.Also please mention the good spinners he faced.Then we can carry on the discussion. well, there can be so many examples for pros and cons. I wouldn't use SR to extrapolate because of link .... extrapolating is not only done by extending your retirement date but also if you play more games in a given period. For e.g. Wasim and Waqar played together at 5 tests per year, if they had played more (say 8 tests per year), they could have got more wkts .... and since both have finished their career, their numbers averages for both ups and downs. We know they were both great bowlers. And when we extrapolate, we do that based on the potential too
PS coming back to the root question(s): * were gavaskar and border, the greatest at the point of getting the most runs/100s? * in odis: is haynes > richards for getting more runs and 100s than richards?
Were Gavaskar and Border the highest run getters in both forms of the game and also the highest 100 scorers in both forms?Did they both 40+ in every country and againist every country? Lol Border doesnt even avg 40 againist the WI,the best team of his era. Also Tendulkar has avgd 50+ in 2 different decades and has now entered a third one. What has been the record of Border et al in that respect?
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
I am not assuming anything.I am telling you thefact.They never played in the SC.They never toured outside Aus and Eng.They never had to face the variety of pitches etc.So you just cannot say they were better than post 1950 batsman just on basis of their avg.Their avg has been inflated by te fact that they never had to play outside their comfort zone. For me the post 1950 batsmen were simply better. Regarding Bradman,i would like to know who were the great bowlers he faced?Please mention them and by great i mean bowlers avging less than 25.Also please mention the good spinners he faced.Then we can carry on the discussion. well, there can be so many examples for pros and cons. I wouldn't use SR to extrapolate because of link .... extrapolating is not only done by extending your retirement date but also if you play more games in a given period. For e.g. Wasim and Waqar played together at 5 tests per year, if they had played more (say 8 tests per year), they could have got more wkts .... and since both have finished their career, their numbers averages for both ups and downs. We know they were both great bowlers. And when we extrapolate, we do that based on the potential too Were Gavaskar and Border the highest run getters in both forms of the game and also the highest 100 scorers in both forms?Did they both 40+ in every country and againist every country? Lol Border doesnt even avg 40 againist the WI,the best team of his era. Also Tendulkar has avgd 50+ in 2 different decades and has now entered a third one. What has been the record of Border et al in that respect?
Based on your logic, Poor Gavaskar hasnt played tests in bd and africa so he cannot be rated vs those who did, I guess By your blah blah stuff, you are saying that highest runs, 100s etc doesn't matter .... So thanks If facing and doing well against better bowlers is a criteria then there are better batsmen than SRT .... Why don't you read the list of gems I gv on the previous pg. the points you make hv been made by others and thrown out a long time ago by many. They are not even worth reading, let alone replying to :winky:
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Like when DGB's avg got chopped down when Larwood decided to introduce a new variable into the equation ? Is this why you are shying away from naming the great phashhht ballers faced by Hammond? So at this point you are claiming victory based on a imaginary "fact" that in your mind Hammond would do much better than Rameez against the likes of Marshall, Ambrose and Walsh while admitting at the same time that you do not have any names of fast bowlers anywhere close to the class of Marshall, Ambrose and Walsh to back up your "theory" ?
And all that hasn't been replied to including the irrelevance of bowlers list to Sachin himself not being ahead if we bring in facing good bowlers into the equation ....
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
so you are saying Iam lying ?
Yes, you are lying if you are implying that the data below is false or non existent :P
when in the opposition, you have McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock combination: 
	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

:winky:

Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
can you show me the no.of balls Tendulkar faced from each bowler in this test : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63921.html I want it in this format : http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/engine/match/463148.html?view=pvp
The data is when those bowlers are in the opposition .... If your claim is that he did not face those bowlers or got out to others than it is even worse
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Or that the other batsmen in your list that are ahead of Tendulkar beat up the other bowlers in the lineup.
Doesn't matter .... As long as they did well against such an bowling attack Your arguments are blowing the lid of your points. If these stats don't mean much what's the point of asking for a bowlers list? If you don't hv the ability to judge based on the stats I gave, how are you going to judge batsmen based on the bowlers list unless you can magically calculate by just looking at the list :giggle: As I said the points you make probably wont even show ten to be the greatest /thread
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...