Lara V Tendulkar

[Precambrian]

:hysterical::hysterical: Difference of 5 points is comparable when it's India and Zimbabwe, now applying that logic India's attack was comparable to Pakistan and West Indies, extending it further Srinath and Prasad were comparable to Akram and Waqar or Ambrose and Walsh.

Oh am sorry... I wasn't aware India's stats were included in the original set of stats put forth by Rett... Oh wait.... Get a clue as to what is being argued about before jumping in...

[Precambrian]

Nothing I am on your side...just extending your logic/truth/whatever it is a bit further. To make it clearer' date=' if 39 and 33 is comparable. Then so should be 33 and 27, isn't it?[/quote'] Yes and it is at the moment. rett is bundling in comfortably the stats and performances against Aus, SA and NZ together despite the fact that SA's and NZ's differ by about 9 points... but is laughing out loud at the suggestion of including Zim, which is just 3 points from NZ and 5 from India, Eng etc. Hypocrisy?

[Precambrian]

just checked the stats , two of the strongest team in the era is SA and Aus. Pak is distance third. Played aussies once and saffers 5 times.. they played 12 games vs pak but we whole world know how good their batsmen are , esp when they travel.. check the bowling average of zim , 44 vs india , 43 vs aussies , 42 vs nz, 58 vs saffers and 41 vs sl :-D their bowling was decent only vs pak which is 30.24 .. and if you still argue that their bowling is non-minnosique i rest my case :angelic: IMHO sachinstas either boost the worse bowlers to make sachins record look good ( aka Lee in tests ) and tarnish the greats to make they are worse than sachin ( aka viv , sachin , too some extent Dravid ( other forums ) .. ) anyway this is my general observation and not directed at you :angelic:

In short, they did good against the better teams. There is no concept as a minnow in the 90s if you exclude zimbabwe (and before Rett and Co. jumps at my throat, minnow as in overall, including batting, not just bowling)

[velu]

yes, because then the batsmen get to face Zim in same unhelpful conditions.... I mean WTF are you onto about? Zimbabwe from 90s through 02 were comparable to the likes of SL, Ind, NZ etc... that's plain truth... as a bowling unit alone.... You may put whatever no. of smileys to counter that but unfortunately it's not going to change the truth...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;home_or_away=1;spanmax1=05+Mar+2002;spanmin1=18+Oct+1992;spanval1=span;team=9;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team;view=opposition your stat for you ?? are you saying this bowling attack is awesome ??:whack: zim home bowling stats

[Precambrian]

I can't even click on this thread without laughing out load :hysterical: I need to find a more serious thread to ease myself up

You gave me a few laughs to be honest... like your bundling of Murali-Mendis in a group and then Murali-Vaas :haha: the latter is agreeable.. but the former was clear case of WTF. And loved the exclusion of Srinath-Kumble, hoggard-caddick, Lee-MacGill... :cantstop:

[The Outsider]

Oh am sorry... I wasn't aware India's stats were included in the original set of stats put forth by Rett... Oh wait.... Get a clue as to what is being argued about before jumping in...

Thanks for the invitation, but I was just making a guest appearance to laugh at the inane manner in which statsguru is being abused in this thread. Don't let my brief visit stop you.

[velu]

In short' date=' they did good against the better teams. There is no concept as a minnow in the 90s if you exclude zimbabwe (and before Rett and Co. jumps at my throat, minnow as in overall, including batting, not just bowling)[/quote'] they did well as bowling unit only vs india and paksitan.. check my previous post

[Precambrian]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;home_or_away=1;spanmax1=05+Mar+2002;spanmin1=18+Oct+1992;spanval1=span;team=9;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team;view=opposition your stat for you ?? are you saying this bowling attack is awesome ??:whack: zim home bowling stats

averaging 27 against Ind 27 vs pak 33 vs Eng 34 vs Eng not exactly dire is it? Minnowseque is it???

[Precambrian]

Thanks for the invitation' date=' but I was just making a guest appearance to laugh at the inane manner in which statsguru is being abused in this thread. Don't let my brief visit stop you.[/quote'] Well you wasted a few posts of mine.. apart from that I didn't see anything insightful from your end than a motherhood statement... well done...

[Precambrian]

they did well as bowling unit only vs india and paksitan.. check my previous post

And this India didn't include Tendulkar? So if Zimbabwe averaged 27 against india, which included Tendulkar who inspite of that averaged over 50, does that not count to Tendulkar's credit? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

[saneindian]

just checked the stats , two of the strongest team in the era is SA and Aus. Pak is distance third. Played aussies once and saffers 5 times.. they played 12 games vs pak but we whole world know how good their batsmen are , esp when they travel.. check the bowling average of zim , 44 vs india , 43 vs aussies , 42 vs nz, 58 vs saffers and 41 vs sl :-D their bowling was decent only vs pak which is 30.24 .. and if you still argue that their bowling is non-minnosique i rest my case :angelic: IMHO sachinstas either boost the worse bowlers to make sachins record look good ( aka Lee in tests ) and tarnish the greats to make they are worse than sachin ( aka viv , sachin , too some extent Dravid ( other forums ) .. ) anyway this is my general observation and not directed at you :angelic:

Just accept that you tried to pass a blatant lie as a fact and got caught.

[velu]

averaging 27 against Ind 27 vs pak 33 vs Eng 34 vs Eng not exactly dire is it? Minnowseque is it???

add 27 vs India too .. ( you know i always try to be neutral ) :sherlock: but all the three SC teams suck when they travel ( ind , pak and sl ) and eng was next to bottom in the test rankings in those period.. but still zim bowling looks decent but not great.. another point here is that sachin averages 40 in Zimbabwe in 4 tests , but he averaged 113 vs zim in india shows he feasted when they are in india :headshake:

[zen]

Still going on :hysterical: can someone explain to him that: Sachin avgs 26 against Zim in 90s so his avg will go down. so what's the point in "even attempting" that Zim was decent :facepalm: The concept of relying on Zim is itself pathetic esp. for someone considered to be the greatest of all time :cantstop:

[tothepoint]

Yes and it is at the moment. rett is bundling in comfortably the stats and performances against Aus, SA and NZ together despite the fact that SA's and NZ's differ by about 9 points... but is laughing out loud at the suggestion of including Zim, which is just 3 points from NZ and 5 from India, Eng etc. Hypocrisy?

Hypocrett why you do such bad things! Australia's W/L ratio is just 2 points more than that of Zimboks. Hardly 0.5 less than that of NZ. Very much comparable. Precambrian has exposed you right here in front of everyone. :beee:

[velu]

Just accept that you tried to pass a blatant lie as a fact and got caught.

so what is the blatant lie you found ?? :sherlock:

[Raghav_12]

Murali Mendis? :hysterical: So Lara faced Mendis? :two_thumbs_up: and why include Mendis in the list' date=' and why not Caddick-Hoggard? Why not Kumble Srinath? Oh is it that it doesn't suit your convenience?[/quote'] :haha: Tendulkar is benchmark, so any bowler becomes great as soon as he performs against Sachin.

[velu]

And this India didn't include Tendulkar? So if Zimbabwe averaged 27 against india, which included Tendulkar who inspite of that averaged over 50, does that not count to Tendulkar's credit? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

post #592 will show who shot whom and where :--D Edit:- Stats to help you where sachin faced those tough bowlers. :-D

[velu]

Still going on :hysterical: can someone explain to him that: Sachin avgs 26 against Zim in 90s so his avg will go down. so what's the point in "even attempting" that Zim was decent :facepalm: The concept of relying on Zim is itself pathetic esp. for someone considered to be the greatest of all time :cantstop:

dude but but .. first time i am hearing in ICF that Zimbabwe has got the awesome bowling attack :icflove: on the other hand viv's 138 in the WC finals is an average innings :hysterical: surely i missed ICF

[Precambrian]

add 27 vs India too .. ( you know i always try to be neutral ) :sherlock: but all the three SC teams suck when they travel ( ind , pak and sl ) and eng was next to bottom in the test rankings in those period.. but still zim bowling looks decent but not great.. another point here is that sachin averages 40 in Zimbabwe in 4 tests , but he averaged 113 vs zim in india shows he feasted when they are in india :headshake:

Away bowling avg of teams in the 90s... http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;opposition=9;orderby=team_average;spanmax1=28+Feb+2002;spanmin1=1+jan+1990;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;team=9;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team No huge differences there between Zim, Ind, SL and NZ there...

[Precambrian]

Hypocrett why you do such bad things! Australia's W/L ratio is just 2 points more than that of Zimboks. Hardly 0.5 less than that of NZ. Very much comparable. Precambrian has exposed you right here in front of everyone. :beee:

India won nothing away from home in the 90s, so can we classify all stats against India away as minnow?