ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[thongale]

you tell me .... you were the one that certified that the videoof Arthur Mold I posted had a lowsy frame. So feel free to enlighten us similarly for the video posted in post#209 :winky:

Care to show me where I CERTIFIED that? As far as I know, I said it COULD be a cause for it.

[thongale]

And FTR, do you think Larwood / Trueman / Tyson were trundlers?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Marut]

Akhtar's speed is not necessary to be a good bowler. Take McGrath, he was not as fast, but was a much better bowler. It is not difficult to believe that the fastest bowlers of the war times were atleast as fast as McGrath. In an era of little or no protective gears, these speeds were not easy to handle.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

Akhtar's speed is not necessary to be a good bowler. Take McGrath' date=' he was not as fast, but was a much better bowler. It is not difficult to believe that the fastest bowlers of the war times were atleast as fast as McGrath. In an era of little or no protective gears, these speeds were not easy to handle.[/quote'] Akhtar was no inferior test bowler save for his antics he was as good as any. Average of 25 and SR in 40s. How many bowlers who have played 40 plus tests have such record, especially strike rate. SR tells how good a wicket taker he was.

[panther]

Akhtar was no inferior test bowler save for his antics he was as good as any. Average of 25 and SR in 40s. How many bowlers who have played 40 plus tests have such record' date=' especially strike rate. SR tells how good a wicket taker he was.[/quote'] he was very smart too as a bowler who can forget his slower balls.

[Ultimate_Game]

because someone said that the frame rate was the main reason why the guy in the video looked like a trundler. So since you so stoutly believe in the words of "Experts" the video that I have posted is either a fake or the bowler was intentionally bowling crap and as soon as the video filming was over returned to bowling phasht stuff just like modern bowlers ... Right ? Cue : Something says this is when you will disappear again.

So what do you think is the better way to judge a player... Approach A: Look at the player's stats, look at his peers' stats to make sure he didn't fill in his boots with easy runs/wkts, look at the conditions/rules prevalent at the time, read articles and books by "experts" and his peers at the time and then decide how the player fared or whether he was a great of the game. Approach B: Ignore all the stats and numbers stating everyone was a trundler or that fielding/batting/bowling standards were not good, call the opinion of experts and his peers as "biased", come up with a 30 second clip from early 1900s stating the player's technique was poor based on the frame rate/fps (I can't even be bothered to figure out how it is even possible to do so) and then proclaim that all players before you started watching the game were shyte and someone like Bradman would average less than 10, and even likes of Samaraweera or Younus Khan are greater than Bradman. I, and majority of cricket fans go with the former whereas you bury your head in the sand and keep on going on with the latter approach. And when people run out of patience as they have no appetite to argue with you regarding the technique of a player based on frame rates and quit you proclaim yourself as the winner of the debate when probably most of the folks on the forum laugh at your rants and logic, or lack thereof. And this is what I am gonna do as well after likes of Thongale, Marut, mcenley, Lurker, Outsider etc. And this probably should tell you why people "disappear" from the threads frequented by you after sometime. No sane person can go through groundhog day time and again. maybe you need to read my earlier post fully and instead of focusing on just the first part, read the whole post, especially the part about being unbiased and sufficient cricketing knowledge.

[Marut]

horribly wrong .... I will give you a hint you can see the frame rate. so how did you know that the footage of Mold in the video was shot at a lesser rate ... which is what you were alluding to in your posts earlier ?

Old cameras were manually cranked. They were not reliable for the frame rate and depended on the operator. Please do not try to argue that old videos are as good or reliable as the videos today. No one will beleive you.

[Marut]

Akhtar was no inferior test bowler save for his antics he was as good as any. Average of 25 and SR in 40s. How many bowlers who have played 40 plus tests have such record' date=' especially strike rate. SR tells how good a wicket taker he was.[/quote'] If speed is everthing, Lee, Tait and Akhtar would have been better than McGrath. S/R by itself tells nothing, the bowling average is a better indicator of the bowling stats.

[Crookbond]

So what do you think is the better way to judge a player... Approach A: Look at the player's stats, look at his peers' stats to make sure he didn't fill in his boots with easy runs/wkts, look at the conditions/rules prevalent at the time, read articles and books by "experts" and his peers at the time and then decide how the player fared or whether he was a great of the game. Approach B: Ignore all the stats and numbers stating everyone was a trundler or that fielding/batting/bowling standards were not good, call the opinion of experts and his peers as "biased", come up with a 30 second clip from early 1900s stating the player's technique was poor based on the frame rate/fps (I can't even be bothered to figure out how it is even possible to do so) and then proclaim that all players before you started watching the game were shyte and someone like Bradman would average less than 10, and even likes of Samaraweera or Younus Khan are greater than Bradman. I, and majority of cricket fans go with the former whereas you bury your head in the sand and keep on going on with the latter approach. And when people run out of patience as they have no appetite to argue with you regarding the technique of a player based on frame rates and quit you proclaim yourself as the winner of the debate when probably most of the folks on the forum laugh at your rants and logic, or lack thereof. And this is what I am gonna do as well after likes of Thongale, Marut, mcenley, Lurker, Outsider etc. And this probably should tell you why people "disappear" from the threads frequented by you after sometime. No sane person can go through groundhog day time and again. maybe you need to read my earlier post fully and instead of focusing on just the first part, read the whole post, especially the part about being unbiased and sufficient cricketing knowledge.

Holy Mother of GOD! We have a winner of the post here - ladies & gentlemen! :bow:

[Marut]

So what do you think is the better way to judge a player... Approach A: Look at the player's stats, look at his peers' stats to make sure he didn't fill in his boots with easy runs/wkts, look at the conditions/rules prevalent at the time, read articles and books by "experts" and his peers at the time and then decide how the player fared or whether he was a great of the game. Approach B: Ignore all the stats and numbers stating everyone was a trundler or that fielding/batting/bowling standards were not good, call the opinion of experts and his peers as "biased", come up with a 30 second clip from early 1900s stating the player's technique was poor based on the frame rate/fps (I can't even be bothered to figure out how it is even possible to do so) and then proclaim that all players before you started watching the game were shyte and someone like Bradman would average less than 10, and even likes of Samaraweera or Younus Khan are greater than Bradman. I, and majority of cricket fans go with the former whereas you bury your head in the sand and keep on going on with the latter approach. And when people run out of patience as they have no appetite to argue with you regarding the technique of a player based on frame rates and quit you proclaim yourself as the winner of the debate when probably most of the folks on the forum laugh at your rants and logic, or lack thereof. And this is what I am gonna do as well after likes of Thongale, Marut, mcenley, Lurker, Outsider etc. And this probably should tell you why people "disappear" from the threads frequented by you after sometime. No sane person can go through groundhog day time and again. maybe you need to read my earlier post fully and instead of focusing on just the first part, read the whole post, especially the part about being unbiased and sufficient cricketing knowledge.

:hysterical::hysterical:

[Lurker]

And this is what I am gonna do as well after likes of Thongale' date=' Marut, mcenley, Lurker, Outsider etc. [b']And this probably should tell you why people "disappear" from the threads frequented by you after sometime. No sane person can go through groundhog day time and again. maybe you need to read my earlier post fully and instead of focusing on just the first part, read the whole post, especially the part about being unbiased and sufficient cricketing knowledge.

Fantastic. But do remember that the next time you are going to be participating in a discussion on Kolkatta Rasgulla vs Amritsari Lassi, you would be asked if you really want an answer or if you will disappear again...:cantstop::cantstop:

[Crookbond]

Fantastic. But do remember that the next time you are going to be participating in a discussion on Kolkatta Rasgulla vs Amritsari Lassi' date= you would be asked if you really want an answer or if you will disappear again...:cantstop::cantstop:

Some really epic pawnage going in here! :hatsoff:

[Ultimate_Game]

Fantastic. But do remember that the next time you are going to be participating in a discussion on Kolkatta Rasgulla vs Amritsari Lassi' date=' you would be asked if you really want an answer or if you will disappear again...:cantstop::cantstop:[/quote'] The winner can't be determined unless you provide me 1080p video clips from all angles for both Rasgulla and Lassi :winky: And they better have the same frame rates/fps :--D

[Lurker]

Some really epic pawnage going in here! :hatsoff:

That is a small price to pay. After all history is replete with follower of Prophets being mocked, ridiculed and laughed at. Why should the fate of followers of Shri shri 1008 shri Tendlya baba be any different?

[Lurker]

The winner can't be determined unless you provide me 1080p video clips from all angles for both Rasgulla and Lassi :winky: And they better have the same frame rates/fps :--D

Here is a serious question though - Do you have fire insurance for your home? If not please do so soon.:nervous:

[Ultimate_Game]

Here is a serious question though - Do you have fire insurance for your home? If not please do so soon.:nervous:

Naah... BB won't do it to a fellow Tendulkar fan :--D Though I don't think Tendulkar is better than Bradman and think he occasionally is selfish but I have Tendulkar in my All Time team and consider him one of the top 3 cricketers India has produced along with Kapil & Gavaskar

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --