ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[Ultimate_Game]

this is what you are capable of frikkin mindless trolling ... why don't you stand up like a man and debate properly with facts ?

Kya karun, I don't have access to 10 fps clips from a century ago :dontknow: The only facts I have access to are stats, articles/opinions from the players' peers and experts at that time but I hear that they are not admissible as facts in your court of law

ohh wait that would be too hard and difficult ehh fkin moron ? bleddy chewthya

Now now a learned professor of stats who has been watching cricket from 60s or 70s shouldn't really be using such language Aisi gandi zubaan appko shobha nahin deti :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

Don't have access or don't want to have access ? Why don't you come up with some scientific explanation as to why you think that film is a 10 FPS film ? Let me guess : it would mean that you will have to admit that you were wrong and that would be unacceptable for your fat ego ? I don't understand why do you lot turn up into such discussions when you are unwilling to look at things exactly as they are. A case of "have keyboard have time shall vomit to hearts content "? Now go ahead make another childish and peurile attempt to save your face. Hey BTW what happened to the quotes around Expert ?

Back to fps are we :haha: You really need to look at a century old clip of Bradman and analyze fps & frame rates to see he was good? How can I hold a candle against you regarding "scientific explanations"? Aap to udti chidiya ke par gin lete hain, woh bhi 2 km door se... your thesis on how likes of Larwood was a trundler and how poor Bradman was by simply looking at century old 30 second clips and analyzing the clips fps & frame rates is legendary :hatsoff: If it were in my hands I would have nominate you for a noble prize, or at the very least for "lifetime achievement award to the contributions made to the field of cricket".

Maybe you should learn how to talk decently ? The next time you use language like bhains ke aage been and such like ... I will most certainly heap a lot more filthy abuse. Entirely upto you as to how you want the conversation to proceed.

I was simply using a muhawra "bhains ke aage been bajana" which if you ask anyone from Northern part of India is not really an abuse. Par aap to gyaani hain, gyaani hi nahin main to kehta hun ki aap purush hi nahin... maha-purush hain You can certainly heap as much "filthy abuse" as you desire but I was concerned about your online legacy :--D Log kya kahenge ki itne vidhwaan mahapurush gaali galauch pe uttar aaye hain :haha: But personally I won't take your abuse seriously as I know that as a fellow Tendulkar fan you don't really mean it :icflove: But I can feel your pain... these ignorant fools on the forum simply can't see what you can by looking at these 30 sec clips at 10 fps :mad: These fools are obsessed by stats and numbers like Bradman's average of 99.94 when they should really be focusing on more important things like the quality of the clip and how good they look in a clip at 10 fps. But keep up the good work and I can see you turning the folks around :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

yeah lets go fap at fictitious written account of "experts" .

As I said our definition of "scientific" and "facts" vary :winky:

nor are you covering me with glory and your only intention is to needle and provoke ... my way of stopping this nonsense is to heap filthy abuse. Don't like it do you ? Poor thing.

You can go right ahead... main badon ki baaton ka bura nahin manta :--D As regards to covering with glory, who am I to do so? Even if I try for ages I don't think I can come within touching distance of doing so. As I said earlier, if you have come up with a "scientific" way of judging a player and determining how good or great he was based on a few seconds clip based on fps & frame rates of the clip I, or anyone on this forum for that matter, can't hold a candle against you I am not brilliant enough to see how good or bad a player is by watching a 30 sec century old clip and like ordinary mortals have to rely on other things such as stats/numbers of the player, stats/numbers of his peers, accounts from cricket writers and his peers from that age etc. I know it's an exhaustive or time consuming process and I wish I could be as brilliant as you at coming up with scientific methods :sight: But who am I deluding as I can't expect to match you or come anywhere close, after all kahaan raja bhoj kahaan gangu teli :((

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ultimate_Game]

those quotes again .... very good .. now STFU and stop yapping ... :cantstop:

You are right, my bad! I should soak all this wisdom instead of yapping :(( On public demand or special request pls enlighten me with the "Gauging a player's greatness based on a 30 sec 10 fps clip" I missed some parts of the thesis as it was spread across too many threads and posts. Pls provide the details here and I will request mods to make it a sticky.

[The Outsider]

There is a kahavat in Hindi : Gadha kya jaane adrak ka swad. You are that gadha.

Kya karein' date=' bhains aur been wali baat ho gayi :giggle: Waise I did nail the approach (Approach B) perfectly in an earlier post :winky:[/quote'] Looks like a case of BB karein to chamatkaar, U_G kare to balatkaar. :hatsoff: Out before "filthy abuse" EDIT : The kahaavat in Hindi is Bandar kya jaane adrak ka swad.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

heres the origin of the nonsense : http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2021570&postcount=159 in b4 you pretend that time runs backwards

No philthee abooje? :omg:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

are you suggesting that the clip is not missing any frames? what do you mean by "missing frames" are proper?

:haha: I cannot understand your wisdom! In a film with 1000 frames, you can miss 100 frames. a. once in every 10 frames: which will not alter the action much other than making it jittery b. 100 frames chunk (4s cut): which will make the film funny.

which would make the frames per second to be less than 1 and its called a slide show not a film. You were the one that wanted a 10FPS clip in the desperate hope that it will transform modern day fast bowler into a trundler.

:hysterical::hysterical:

yeah because you don't understand the concept of what constitutes "THIS" thread. pointless exercise and all that you know ...

:hysterical: My god, is this getting so bad. Just film the modern players with old equioment and we'll compare and get in to a conclusion. Why are you running away from the suggestion?

[thongale]

yeah because the batsmen would simply gift their wkts to Hoggie because Warne and Mumu werent playing .... that makes perfect sense :hysterical:

Looks idiotic. It was not because batsmen would gift wickets, he would have got more chances when he was younger and would have learnt more, if Warne and MacGill wan't there. You must be thinking there are more than one Aussie first XI playing simultaneously.:hysterical: And he has got that chance in ODIs. What are his ODI stats?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Old guy]

ok plz can any one clear me wht u guys are talking about ? so lower fps will lead to slower videos ? or what? i dont have time to go in multiple theads and read from start

[Crookbond]

^ :hysterical:

[Old guy]

^ :hysterical:

u can explain! :wall: kenley ur suppose to be serious poster... im dissapointed man :mad:

[gaurav92]

Sabinder :hello: How have u been pal ?

[thongale]

So YOU are claiming that in the Gillespie/Lee clip that I posted ... I did what you suggest in item a. whereas you actually wanted the clip modified as per item b ? So if I take out 100 frame chunks from the clip it would look closer to the Arthur Mold clip. Is that your point ?

No it's not and Arthur Mold is totally irrelevant about points I made. It was you who dragged me in to Arthur Mold discussion. I have acknowledged that Arthur Mold could not be in the same category as "fast" because it was used loosely during his time. What I was interested was in general what was the representative nature of the vintage clip of old action. And repeatedly, you have been evading the discussion about the point, dragging Arthur Mold in to it.

News flash : No one has that equipment. Certainly not me. Even if someone did have that sort of camera and filmed a modern day fast bowler you would then want a certificate of authenticity from a Judge that it was filmed using the EXACT same camera / model.

Now giving excuses to run away from the task. :hysterical:

I know your type. You will go to sad extremes to just save your face on a anonymous forum. In reality you and the rest of the cheer leaders already know that the clip is a reasonable representation of Arthur Mold

Bingo, this shows the pathetic frame of your biased mind. :finger:

and that most of the Bradman era (and beyond) footage was filmed at a rate that is sufficient to capture cricketing action based on which we can form opinions of bowlers and batsmen.

Can we have "expert" evidence on it. BTW, you are no ****ing expert on this.

So the next best thing to do is either prove that older cameras had sufficient frame rates or as you suggested in post# 196 to artificially reduce the frame rate of a modern day video to what YOU considered to be the Frame rate of that video ( i.e 10 FPS ) .

This will not do either because of the difference in angles etc. How about asking a person who has actually seen the action?

[Old guy]

Sabinder :hello: How have u been pal ?

i think i broke my hand playing cricket today w/o gloves other then tht awesome bro!