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

[Jimmy Cliff]

Guys like Steyn should not be taken into account when comparing Lara vs SRT as we mainly have to take bowlers that both of them faced. 2008 onwards is mainly for the new crop of batsmen when we will be doing this for folks 10 yrs later Also if we take the new crop of bowlers, SRR vs other Indian batsmen:

Vs steyn-morkel, murali-mendis, anderson-board					
	M	I	No	R	Avg
Gautam	12	22	0	1135	51.59
Sehwag	15	27	1	1339	51.50
Dravid	15	28	3	1187	47.48
Sachin	15	27	2	963	38.52
Laxman	16	28	3	941	37.64

Taking bowlers that mainly both Lara and Tendulkar played, with two best from each team playing (to signify the strength of the bowling attack), we get the below:

	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

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

Arre bhai ab Lara 2006 mein retire ho gaya toh is mein Sachin ki kya galti hai? Steyn is one of the ATG phaaast bowlers he's faced and his stats against him are as important as his stats against Mcg/Donald/Akram et all. As for SRT and Lara's stats against great pairs of bowlers, yeh stats dekhein Against almost all of these combos, SRT averaged better than Lara in live Tests. Haan dead rubbers mein Lara ka koi muqabla nahin, that l'll concede. And the Murali-Vaas pairing is just not in the same class as McWarne, Ws, AD/Pollock. Toh use door hi rakho toh acha hai. Baaki kal discuss karte hain....

[zen]

Decent Proposal: Why don't we have the thread esp. designed for the srt fanatics and something only they can see (for prevailed members only) .... on this thread: * you can do srt's bhakti * say how everyone else sucks * post 2 mins clips which show action by combining two clips and present it as some kind of evidence :hehe: .... see below for more on clips: "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: and at the batsman's end this: 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: " * write stuff like how imp 100 100s are and how it is equivalent to an avg of 100 * discuss strategies to show srt is the greatest * discuss how bad guys like rett are ... a hater, a troll, ..... * and everyone (the fanatics) can unilaterally agree that srt is the greatest over here the discussion offers little value and the pawnage of the srt fanatics is constant to almost one-sided /pawnage

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gambit]

Arre bhai ab Lara 2006 mein retire ho gaya toh is mein Sachin ki kya galti hai? Steyn is one of the ATG phaaast bowlers he's faced and his stats against him are as important as his stats against Mcg/Donald/Akram et all. As for SRT and Lara's stats against great pairs of bowlers, yeh stats dekhein Against almost all of these combos, SRT averaged better than Lara in live Tests. Haan dead rubbers mein Lara ka koi muqabla nahin, that l'll concede. And the Murali-Vaas pairing is just not in the same class as McWarne, Ws, AD/Pollock. Toh use door hi rakho toh acha hai. Baaki kal discuss karte hain....

Oh, so Lara scored big in dead games when there was no pressure? Interesting.

[Kriterion]

Part I Ultimately, after all is said and done, its the run-scoring ability of a batsman that determines his greatness. It doesn't matter how good he looks, or how ugly his gloves are, but if he can score runs a player helps his team towards the goal of winning. Therefore, assuming a statistically significant sample size of innings, the batting average is of paramount importance because it measures the runs scored per trip to the crease. Its futile to compare Tendulkar to Bradman. As BB pointed out, quality of bowling was less. But quality of equipment and professionalism in general was also less. Bradman didn't have helmets or arm guards. Which one of these factors outweighs the others? We don't and can't know for sure. Would Bradman have averaged less than 56 had he played for India the last 20 years? We don't know. Would SRT have averaged more than a 100 had he played for Australia in the 30s and 40s? We don't know. Instead we can compare each player to his contemporaries. Bradman's case is moot. Tendulkar is great. He's an all time great. Is he the greatest ever? I personally don't think so. He's amongst the greatest, and he's the prettiest to watch. But is he the greatest run scorer or the most dependable run scorer in tough times? No. Batting averages, in my opinion, are the final answer if all other things are held constant. If you look at calendar stats since Tendulkar has debuted (excluding 1989), you see that SRT has ranked first in the world Test batting averages once, finished second-ranked twice, and finished in the top 10 another five times. Ten times he's ranked 20th or lower. Out of a 22 year career, thats not very impressive given that only 10 teams play the game. His ranks in order are as follows: 24 57 29 2 5 55 32 10 1 7 7 11 18 122 2 25 87 16 22 10 5 24 Now if Viv Richards can be discounted for averaging 45 for 70% of his career, how does a player who topped the rankings once in 22 attempts, or alternatively ranked 20th or worse 45% (10/22) of the time earn a cumulative rank as not only greatest of his era but of all time? Next, I'll look at the player v player figures of SRT, Dravid, Lara, Ponting, and Kallis against legendary bowlers of Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Asif, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, McGrath, Gillespie, Ambrose, Walsh, Bond, Warne, and Muralitharan. I think that will be quite an interesting [and tedious] study.

[Gambit]

Next, I'll look at the player v player figures of SRT, Dravid, Lara, Ponting, and Kallis against legendary bowlers of Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Asif, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, McGrath, Gillespie, Ambrose, Walsh, Bond, Warne, and Muralitharan. I think that will be quite an interesting [and tedious] study.

Its an interesting study already. :giggle:

[Patiala Peg]

Instead we can compare each player to his contemporaries. Bradman's case is moot. Tendulkar is great. He's an all time great. Is he the greatest ever? I personally don't think so. He's amongst the greatest, and he's the prettiest to watch. But is he the greatest run scorer or the most dependable run scorer in tough times? No. Batting averages, in my opinion, are the final answer if all other things are held constant. If you look at calendar stats since Tendulkar has debuted (excluding 1989), you see that SRT has ranked first in the world Test batting averages once, finished second-ranked twice, and finished in the top 10 another five times. Ten times he's ranked 20th or lower. Out of a 22 year career, thats not very impressive given that only 10 teams play the game. His ranks in order are as follows: 24 57 29 2 5 55 32 10 1 7 7 11 18 122 2 25 87 16 22 10 5 24 Now if Viv Richards can be discounted for averaging 45 for 70% of his career, how does a player who topped the rankings once in 22 attempts, or alternatively ranked 20th or worse 45% (10/22) of the time earn a cumulative rank as not only greatest of his era but of all time?

Common maan, don't you know Official ICC test ratings that apply to one and all and vindicate all other ATG's standing but expose SRT's true aaukat viz other ATG's are an anomaly. Hehehe.. The right way to go about following cricket is to pretend to understand 40's cricket by watching some 7 decade old black and white clips from British Pathe.LOL. ( Courtesy :Some underpaid IT coolie bhai who makes a secondary income by doing some PR work for the master choker )

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[akshayxyz]

Oh' date=' so Lara scored big in dead games when [b']there was no pressure? Interesting.

Wrong. especially when series is already gone - team morale is very low, there is no motivation to perform, it takes superhuman effort to lift your game up, and make up for the lost stats - selflessly.

[Kriterion]

you will have to rank the likes of Sanga and kallis as better than BCL , Viv and ofcourse SRT who you dont care ...

Actually, Kallis might be better than SRT. Again, we're not talking about who is the prettier batsman to watch, or who has been playing longer. We're talking about who scores more runs and can do so when the game is on the line. Kallis has the best stats of any current batsman in overall 2nd innings scores, and his 4th innings average is solid as well. SRT, by comparison is relatively mediocre. Compared to tailenders like Chris Martin, Chaminda Vaas, and Anil Kumble his figures do look rather Bradman-esque. Thats a pretty big deal, in my opinion. But compared to other top batsman of the current era, he's quite far from the top. Even Laxman, who averages some 9 pts lower than Tendulkar, has a 10+ advantage in 4th innings and match saving/winning efforts. Sanga is an interesting case. On the one hand he hasn't scored as well away from home as he has in lanka. But still, the fact that he still owns an average comparable to SRT's is proof that SRT isn't a statistical outlier. I mean, can anyone honestly argue that teams only bowl net bowlers to Sanga? He might be a home track bully, but he still has to score those runs against Test bowlers. Do I rate him as highly as SRT? F**k no. But the very fact that he averages, what, 57 kinda puts Sachin's numbers in perspective. BCL is another over-rated batsman, in my opinion. His average is not that great, despite the fact that he scored 375 and 400*. What does that say about his consistency? Just like Sachin, people fell in love with his style of play. Hell, a lot of people rate his style over Sachin's!

Save yourselves some time ... its already been dismantled more than one way right here in this thread.

I don't think its been done in absolute detail.

I can tell you how the equipment thingy is a red-herring ... in the generation preceeding Bradman there used to be few batsmen who played without gloves. why don't we nominate them as the greatest ?

Gloves and helmets are two totally different things. A 80 mph ball to the knuckles can't kill you, but a 40 mph off break that causes a subdural hematoma certainly can.

The protective equipment come into picture if there are bowlers willing to drop it short and go for the teeth. This sort of bowling was severely frowned upon and Larwood eventually never played a single Test after that supposedly mother of all series - Bodyline. Why ? Because the then establishment pretty much got told that they wouldnt tolerate such "unsportsmanlike" conduct. Larwood was asked to apologize - which is so hilarious with benefit of hindsight - which he did not and that was that. I have tremendous respect for Larwood in standing his ground and Iam glad he lived to see faaar more lethal bowlers like Michael Holding, Croft, Garner, Roberts and Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, Walsh, Bishop, Imran,Thommo etc openly go for the kill and mock at Bradmans position on short pitch bowling without saying a word. On the other hand we have bowlers who do this (see below) ... its like they are saying you go get all the protection you want but I will still PWN you ... in short there is day and night difference between bowling of 80 yrs ago and today.

Which is why we should probably drop the Tendy vs Bradman comparison. We might as well compare Tendy vs Babe Ruth. We should compare players within a generation or within an era. In in his time, SRT only led the average tables once in 22 years. How can he be the absolute greatest? Look at it this way, Kareem won 6 MVP awards and is the all time scoring champ and nobody in their right minds thinks he's the greatest basketball player of all time. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqu79CaqbEo]**OUCH!** JUSTIN LANGER vs NTINI - a bit of batting fail really......2006 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=

BRETT LEE KILLS SHIVNARINE CHANDERPAUL 2008 1st test - YouTube[/ame]

[bulbul]

Actually we are seing couple of new logics... 1.Scoring in Dead rubber doesnt matter.. 2.except few everyone else got Brainwashed..i guess even great player like Dravid can be easily brainwashed by seing his Lecture last month great start to new year

[Jersey #10]

shots to die for sX_wHl4CHDs Who cares about statistics when you can play like this?

[youngindia]

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

do you first of understand the illogic and absurdity of reducing five man or four man attack into two and then irrationally declaring bcl or so and so averaged "against these bowlers" when it actually shud mean "against the attack"?? there is a huge difference in what are these one or two bowlers more relevant for "these numbers" ? superior stature or greatness or quality does not translate into greater relevance for these so called "data" (trash anyway because you didn't do basic stat right) Neither guys like you can do basic stat right. and you have all been perpetrating a massive fraud putting forth unreliable garbage data and irrationally relating great bowlers to these "data" without any proper basis.

[youngindia]

^^ Good writeup by Bumper. But his bottomline But it is factually incorrect In Tennis, which is a far far more competitive global sport Federer was unstoppable till like 3 years ago. And mind you, a top flight tennis player's career is generally no more than 10-12 years or a little over half of a top flight batter. Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt come to mind immediately.

the siimple mistake you have made here is that you are talking about individual sport. The nature is of tennis is you have to beat the best players often(not always) to win grand slam titles. runs are not made at the expense of the better player. kallis the best?:hysterical: only somoen with third rate taste would say that.

[bulbul]

shots to die for sX_wHl4CHDs Who cares about statistics when you can play like this?

then why so much obsession for 100th 100 even some people prefer 100 over India win

[akshayxyz]

then why so much obsession for 100th 100 even some people prefer 100 over India win

It is natural for some people to be obsessed over certain numbers, but its even worse when someone is obsessed over others' obsession, and preaching about obsession/fanaticism. Sure, you can extend it another to level- that I have no business to be obsessed over your obsession over others' obsession. But I do not see any other way to break it up on you that so called anti-fanatics of this forum are as much (and perhaps more) of a fanatic than they claim other side is.

[bulbul]

It is natural for some people to be obsessed over certain numbers, but its even worse when someone is obsessed over others' obsession, and preaching about obsession/fanaticism. Sure, you can extend it another to level- that I have no business to be obsessed over your obsession over others' obsession. But I do not see any other way to break it up on you that so called anti-fanatics of this forum are as much (and perhaps more) of a fanatic than they claim other side is.

i quoted what BB posted in one of the threads..atleast he is honest with his preference.. As long you maintain u r 'neutrality' by commenting about both sides is fine...but some time it looks like you lean towards one side...may be my misunderstanding i dont know exactly..

[akshayxyz]

i quoted what BB posted in one of the threads..atleast he is honest with his preference.. As long you maintain u r 'neutrality' by commenting about both sides is fine...but some time it looks like you lean towards one side...may be my misunderstanding i dont know exactly..

if you remember that long post from me, I highlighted the flaws from both sides. - even BB politely requested to discuss against one of my points, and that ended right there with polite exchange.. w/o need of any labeling or anything.. ..That should have clarified my neutral stand..(And IIRC many times before I commented on BB's arguments, expressing my disagreement) I do not have to comment on every post, every time, for every side to maintain my reputation on the matter. I am not the one who has time and energy to go and dig the stats to bring down greats. And whenever I come across some impressive numbers - I openly admire it, regardless of the whether its DGB, SRT, Kallis or Murali or whoever.... e.g. from the top of my head I remember commenting somewhere - a tidbit about number of innings / 100.. I clearly mentioned there, that DGB's numbers were on another level... (SRT, Kallis, Ponting etc were all around .37 or something, DGB was ~0.45-0.5 or something like that)..but you wont remember such things (if seen), as I do not go around defending DGB openly or specially attacking SRT...combined that with the fact you want to label every one as one or other. Also, in that long post itself I mentioned the flaws about outlier theory - why one should be skeptical about it. But - people like you will take it as I am attacking DGB the great... whereas in the same post I mentioned, one can't be too wrong, if ones prefers DGB over SRT or otherwise.. It is just the kind of arguments/filters that people come up with "to bring down greats" - that I find annoying. And lastly, why you might notice my posts defending SRT more frequently than otherwise is for: a) I like to enjoy the present, and not dwell on past, esp ancient stuff. b) I do not like to bring down, proven greats - by pulling out stats from *****holes. But, I do enjoy and admire all the stats that are put in appreciation - regardless of who it is, unless again that is some crap stat like "better match winner than xyz, better pressure than abc on so and so day, in such and such situation"...and most of such stuff is started with "SRT vs fill_in_the_blanks" comparisons. c) I happen to argue against dumb stats, as mostly people come out with dumb stats claiming to "open the eyes" of "fanatics". d) Once an anti-fanatic labels someone as a fanatic - they always filter their posts from that perspective, combined that with random out of context references/mentions by rettards.

[akshayxyz]

In short - trying to bring down someone (esp by bogus/selective stats) is more of a sign of fanaticism than merely appreciating someone's achievements or contribution.