ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

to highlight how notoriously inaccurate the written accounts of older era players can be .... Arthur Mold "Fast" bowler :hysterical:

Errr...no. It only shows how your brain typically operates :giggle: Most folks who enjoy written accounts of yore, and that includes yours truly, would rarely have read abour Arthur Mold. So quit moaning as if he is deemed as Bradman of fast bowlers.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Err no ... it only shows how your brain is soo horribly brainwashed ... And ? Did anybody claim that ? No . Did a whole bunch of the usual suspects get bent out of shape and try to wiggle out of a tight situation when confronted with that video clip : Damn right. Now why don't you enlighten us how these "Written Accounts" that you keep reading from your nearby library and drool over were so frikkin wrong that it is hilarious ?

Considering you are heavy on statistical analysis, would you try to compile stats of how many posts you have raked in about Arthur Mould in an openers thread? That should answer your cricketing acumen, or lack thereof. By the by has there EVER been a poster, aside from you, who has invoked Arthur Mould in a discussion? And I really mean EVER! I would reallyyyyyyyy want to know

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Dude' date=' I am talking about technique of playing a sports. What has that to do with gravity? A similar question would be ,"Is Schumaker a better driver than the person who invented the internal combustion engine?". We are not talking about who invented the game or who set the rules. we are talking about who plays it better[/quote'] Just try to think once, the concept which I am alluding to. I am just drawing parallels from a different field to explain. We sometimes forget them while rushing into foregone conclusions we have made in our minds. Here's a more relevant question in the example you have given - Is Schumacher a better driver than Juan Manuel Fangio?

[Crookbond]

yes... but i dont want to discuss abt this like mcenley here says ... no but bud thts exactly the reason im against comparing but if u forget abt this and compare with them bowlers of today is he a tundler or not ? i know thts now how things work u can say forget abt being first but still hope u get wht im trying to say :wall:

Sabinder - What exactly do you mean by a "comparison". In my understanding, a comparison can only be done when there are common denominators. Basic math, ain't it? If two fractions don't have a common denominator, we make their denominators common and then compare. Now, what you're asking me to do is ignore the denominator and just compare the fractions. In this scenario, Arthur Mold is definitely no where close to modern day bowlers but hey - Who told he was a better bowler than the ones we currently have? Certainly, I didn't. But, even making a judgment on this is conjecturing 1/2 is greater than 999/1000. That's surely not the case and we have to make the denominators common while performing a comparison. How one would do that makes for an interesting discussion which in my books has "no answer".

[Old guy]

Sabinder - What exactly do you mean by a "comparison". In my understanding' date=' a comparison can only be done when there are common denominators. Basic math, ain't it? If two fractions don't have a common denominator, we make their denominators common and then compare. Now, what you're asking me to do is ignore the denominator and just compare the fractions. In this scenario, Arthur Mold is definitely no where close to modern day bowlers but hey - Who told he was a better bowler than the ones we currently have? Certainly, I didn't. But, even making a judgment on this is conjecturing 1/2 is greater than 999/1000. That's surely not the case and we have to make the denominators common while performing a comparison. How one would do that makes for an interesting discussion which in my books has "no answer".[/quote'] first my name is not sabinder gaurav stop confusing everybody! :whack: 2nd thts exactly wht i said ... its wrong to compare like this like i said and i totally agree with ur newton comment i get it im not even the one in favour of comparison in first place .. why i asked u to ignore tht it was played before and compare to new bowler was to show tht camera recorded pretty reasonably a...after all tht was the discussion..i normally dont even come close to these comparisons u can read my comments here.. all of them are concerning camera.. but yes if some one says this guy is fast bowler by comparing to today's bowler then he is wrong and thts exactly wht i said .. why are u guys discussing its clear enough to see he is no way near fast even with bad fps or any possible angle it was shot at :cantstop: i know u cant compare in vacuum by saying lets ignore they played cricket 100 years ago when it was still developing to judge player worth..thts wrong.. i agree ..i dont htink today player would play like they now a days if they were born in 1920's they will play with same bad technique and tundleer speeds :P but i compared it for topic of camera fps hope im clearer now.. really tired traveled a lot need some sleep will pm ya when i have time no need to derail this thread any more and if u want to talk to me seriously and use my name.. my real name is abhijeet :giggle: g92:finger:

[gaurav92]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Old guy]

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

hope u go bankrupt ! :mad:

[rkt.india]

Just try to think once' date=' the concept which I am alluding to. I am just drawing parallels from a different field to explain. We sometimes forget them while rushing into foregone conclusions we have made in our minds. Here's a more relevant question in the example you have given - Is Schumacher a better driver than Juan Manuel Fangio?[/quote'] That is why I said don't compare players across eras and that is why players from those eras cannot be taken into consideration now and in present scenarios.

[gaurav92]

hope u go bankrupt ! :mad:

Bad dua mat de yaar, main toh aiveyi mazaak kar raha tha :(( :icflove:

[The Outsider]

now with same old cameras he looked quick but other guy slow from all angles :giggle: well jsut proves my point tht even with low fps things will move be normal pace

Same cameras? Trueman played in the 50s and 60s and Arthur Mold a good 50 years back - just for perspective there wasn't even the internet 25 years back from now. Same cameras? Anyhow, the point has been repeatedly made by numerous posters - Arthur Mold is a red herring because no one claimed him to be a great fast bowler in the first place. How about "proving" Lindwall to be a trundler?

[The Outsider]

so anyone that doesn't agree is dishonest ... facts and evidence be damned to highlight how notoriously inaccurate the written accounts of older era players can be .... Arthur Mold "Fast" bowler :hysterical:

What are these written accounts? I've never read of anything superlative Mold accomplished as a bowler in any of the many cricket books I've read. You go to one cricket website, see him classified as a "fast" bowler, and start digging videos on him. And yeah, Gillespie looks like a trundler in the clip you posted and Tendulkar as someone who can't hold a bat correctly.

[Crookbond]

That is why I said don't compare players across eras and that is why players from those eras cannot be taken into consideration now and in present scenarios.

:stupid: Did you understand my point about equalizing denominators?

[rkt.india]

:stupid: Did you understand my point about equalizing denominators?

Yes. I understood, but cannot pick them based on your point of equalizing denominators.

[Crookbond]

Yes. I understood' date=' but cannot pick them based on your point of equalizing denominators.[/quote'] Phirse :shot: If you have to pick an "All Time" XI you have to consider "All Time" players by equalizing denominators else it's not an "All Time" XI. Comprende?

[The Outsider]

Phirse :shot: If you have to pick an "All Time" XI you have to consider "All Time" players by equalizing denominators else it's not an "All Time" XI. Comprende?

The guy thinks Underwood - a bowler whom Gavaskar gave almost a chapter in his book, Idols - was a pie chucker. :hysterical:

[The Outsider]

Considering you are heavy on statistical analysis' date=' [i']would you try to compile stats of how many posts you have raked in about Arthur Mould in an openers thread? That should answer your cricketing acumen, or lack thereof. By the by has there EVER been a poster, aside from you, who has invoked Arthur Mould in a discussion? And I really mean EVER! I would reallyyyyyyyy want to know

Arthur Mold - I've read more cricket literature on this board than 90% of the posters and have never come across Arthur Mold beyond a few sentences here or there. And this isn't some retrospective memoirs, pick up writings from his time and there would hardly be anything on him besides his name being figured in chucking controversies. If you want a serious discussion on Arthur Mold, PM me because I am too embarrassed to have one in open forums. :hysterical: