ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[The Outsider]

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

That's 4 stones you have cast on BB - now in his own words he will burn down your entire neighborhood and rape your online existence. :hysterical:

[Ultimate_Game]

duplicate

[Ultimate_Game]

Who said anything about Old camera being as reliable as modern ones ? The issue is whether frame rate is the culprit. thongale said that if we film modern day players at 10 fps they will similarly look like trundlers ... ( so there another hint for you )

We are backto talking about cameras and fps, are we? :hysterical: By the way based on the following clip I think there's a case for Monty Panesar to be a great batsman. I am sure Hobbs is turning in his grave with envy looking at Panesar's skill & technique with the bat... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c830SAQBbrw]Monty Panesar lovely on drive - YouTube[/ame] And given the fact Monty can fox the best batsmen as well as witnessed in this clip, we can safely agree that Panesar is a greater all-rounder than Sobers :hatsoff: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liQ0qnnJ7fs]Monty Panesar Vs Sachin Tendulkar - YouTube[/ame]

[Ultimate_Game]

That's 4 stones you have cast on BB - now in his own words he will burn down your entire neighborhood and rape your online existence. :hysterical:

Even if I agree that Tendulkar's 98 against Pak in 2003 WC and his 136 against the same opponent in Chennai Test are two of the best innings I have seen Plus I do have a soft corner for Tendulkar for winning 3 MOMs against Pak in WCs :--D You gotta give BB the benefit of doubt... it's tough to get up everyday at 4 in the morning, paint your whole body with tri-color with Tendulkar's name and 10 written on the chest, go to the stadium, cheer India & Tendulkar, come back home late in the night and spend 2 hrs removing the body paint, maybe say a prayer or two for Tendulkar's upcoming milestone and go to bed. Ditto the next day. And did I mention that blowing those conch shells and waving the flag the whole day does take a lot out of you. After such a regimen I can understand BB's frustration and anger issues a bit. BB from one Tendulkar fan to another RESPECT!!! :hatsoff: Keep up the good work and keep that flag flying high :isalute:

[The Outsider]

Even if I agree that Tendulkar's 98 against Pak in 2003 WC and his 136 against the same opponent in Chennai Test are two of the best innings I have seen Plus I do have a soft corner for Tendulkar for winning 3 MOMs against Pak in WCs :--D

"Of" the? "Of" the? You really don't care about your home, do you? At least care about the homes of your neighbors which will be set ablaze as well.

[Ultimate_Game]

"Of" the? "Of" the? You really don't care about your home' date=' do you? At least care about the homes of your neighbors which will be set ablaze as well. [/quote'] It hurts me to do so but I couldn't really put Tendulkar's innings above Kapil's 175* in 83 WC, though I didn't witness it in 24 fps, or Laxman's 281, and a few others which come to mind but I will refrain from mentioning those for fear of hurting public sentiments. I am sure BB will understand

[Marut]

Who said anything about Old camera being as reliable as modern ones ? The issue is whether frame rate is the culprit. thongale said that if we film modern day players at 10 fps they will similarly look like trundlers ... ( so there another hint for you )

I think you are confusing between frame rate capture and frame rate playback. Slow motion is achieved when each film frame is captured at a rate much faster than it will be played back. I was talking of the frame rate of capture.

[The Outsider]

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'] :hysterical::hysterical: But how can I decide between Kolkatta Rasgulla and Amritsari Lassi without videos from British Pathe? :hmmm:

[The Outsider]

It hurts me to do so but I couldn't really put Tendulkar's innings above Kapil's 175* in 83 WC' date=' though I didn't witness it in 24 fps, or Laxman's 281, and a few others which come to mind but I will refrain from mentioning those for fear of hurting public sentiments.[b'] I am sure BB will understand

Yaar, better check with him - today he is exposing agendas, Tehelka style. He has already exposed mine though even after the exposure I don't know what the agenda was. :((

[Sidhoni]

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.

Top post :hatsoff:

[The Outsider]

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.

:laugh: Though you missed the part about how the "nitty gritties" of cricket can be ascertained by these 5 minute video clips and anyone who does not give them too much weight does not have cricketing knowledge.

[thongale]

getting into semantics ehh? AFAIK you were the one that were proclaiming to be the knowledgible one and accusing me of hypocrisy ... so without any further delay pls enlighten us about the approximate frame rate of the video posted in post# 209. they would not be as successful ( as they were in their times ) if they bowled now. You can continue to believe otherwise. And as far as speed is concerned they most certainly were no-where near the likes of Akhtar.

You are running away now eh? I said to frame Donald at 10fps and then compare to old footage for what it looks like. You haven't found a single line of code to show that I CONFIRMED that Arthur Mold's funny run up is due to poor frame rate. But without comparing how modern players will look like when they are framed under old technology, you bring in stupid questions like what was the frame rate of that frikking film etc, which is totally irrelevant. Frame rate is ONLY ONE PARAMETER that has changed since then. Once again harping on frame rate of your doctored video proves nothing. What we want is how current players look when they are filmed with old equipment, and you have failed to bring anything in to discussion in this regard. The problem is that you've already made up your mind on the issue, where as I am open for verdict if proper evidence is given. And about Larwood etc, I have not asked whether they will be succesful or not, how fast were they. Now talk about semantics!:finger:

[thongale]

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.

OUCH!

[rkt.india]

If speed is everthing' date=' 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.[/quote'] ST tells you how frequently one takes wicket. He took wickets at 7.3 overs. It indicates he was taking ten wicket every 73 overs. He was a wicket taker and you need wicket takers to win tests. I dont agree only average decides greatness of a bowler. It is combination of both Average and strike rate. A bowler with better strike rate will help win a team more matches than draws.

[thongale]

ST tells you how frequently one takes wicket. He took wickets at 7.3 overs. It indicates he was taking ten wicket every 73 overs. He was a wicket taker and you need wicket takers to win tests. I dont agree only average decides greatness of a bowler. It is combination of both Average and strike rate. A bowler with better strike rate will help win a team more matches than draws.

The combination of SR and Avg is a myth. Average is part of the SR. Avg = SR / ER. So it's SR and ER to be considered or Avg as one parameter. Can't mix the variables from both sides of the equation.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

So you are not commenting on the clip I posted because it does not involve Allan Donald but instead Gillespie and Brett Lee ? Is this whats bothering you and stopping you from commenting ? And BTW here is what you said on that matter in post# 196 :

I need not comment because it's only one of your hogwashing exercises. From the onset I asked current players to be filmed under old equipment, but what you bring up is seperate parameter changes like fps, color and speed etc. And BTW your film has a normal frame rate but runs quick, and not under any circumstance a product of old equipment. You just want to divert the attention from the challenge.

Sure lets talk about semantics ... if you go do a search on this thread for who brought up the topic of Frame rate it will be you not me

And it's not me either. :finger:

But now that you are trying desperately to avoid that topic something tells me that you have realized the mistake and are now looking for ways to shift the topic elsewhere and look for a quiet exit. If not then start commenting on the frame rate of the video I posted.

Once again running back to fps, without going back to the original challnge:hysterical:

And lol at proclaiming yourself to be "Open minded" .. you are anything but open minded.

Says a guy who thinks Fred Trueman was a trundler:hysterical::hysterical:

Because you are so thoroughly brainwashed by written accounts of that era that your brain is now in a state of severe Cognitive Dissonance and will leave no stone unturned in an effort to restore the original belief that these cricketers you see on the video were in reality fantastic cricketers on par with any that we see today. This aspect was explained brilliantlly by Bumper in one of the previous threads on this topic.

This perfectly describes the state of mind you are, so pathetic it even doesn't deserve to be answered. I have given my reasons and examples not to base judgment solely using glorified accounts or 10s crap quality video clips. But it was YOU who is thoroughly brainwashed that you take every video clip as an entire career.:finger:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

Ahaha .... finally a response. But you are dead wrong about frame rate. The frame rate of that clip is just 6 FPS ( 5.994 to be precise ). You see those numbers scrolling on the right side ? Guess what they are? Yep the frame numbers. I did this by using AviSynth by forcing it to select every 5th frame and drop the rest. Now do tell us how your mind thinks that Gillespie and Brett Lee look like Arthur Mold. Yes I made it into B/W and increased the speed to 1.85x to create a more comical effect as was the take of Marut.

Once again running to this solitary clip of Mold, which I have already dismissed agreeing that "fast" is a misnomer. I am interested more on Larwood, Trueman and Tyson and their footage. Still you have not given a general answer to the question i've made. What you do is run back to a solitary vintage clip to generalize your point.

here : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2023627&postcount=193

Here is what I've said, and I am talking about how today's films are produced with uniform quality. Now show where did I say that Arthur mold ran funnily because of change of frame rate blah blah.

In today's cricket we know that the footage is recorded using a set of predefined parameters about placement of cameras, frame rates, type of cameras to use etc. Because of this we know most of the footage today taken are filmed under similar conditions.

[thongale]

And for your benefit, here is the first mention of frame rate in this thread post #62.:finger: