Is Dravid record safe from jaya?

[Crookbond]

Is it a sub-continent thing? Really? Nope, but the sub-continent fans are the ones who most talk about this and self-loathe when the entire world does this Aussies revere Don Bradman's average to a bigger extent than any sub continent fans has ever done for any player. Taylor even famously declared on 334, as a homage to Bradman and intentionally did not surpass his highest score. Can you think of any other cricketing decision being taken for pure sentiment, like this? Was Bradman's record not a factor in declaring of a team's score in a test match? This was a retired player who should not have had any influence on an ongoing match. Yet, the main reason for the declaration at that point, and not before or after, was that record. This happens throughout all sports and countries. Records are a means of respecting players and admiring them. This is the legacy they leave behind. If we cannot respect the players and the legacy they left behind, we cannot respect the game either or have any kind of emotional attachment with it. Not to mention, every time Dravid's records are mentioned, the fact that he was an Indian and that the record belongs to India also comes up. This brings ten times more name for the country than any win against Bangla or WI or SL, which one will not even remember after a month, can do Since history, records have been a facet of sports. Sports go much beyond mere wins or losses, otherwise, we would just win the toss and declare the winners. Sports is also about a fan's bonding with the players. The love they have, the respect they have, even the hate they have. This is why human beings follow sports. And records are a good way to remember a player and pay respect to the facet he excelled in And I have only heard sub-continent people try to put down their own who have excelled in a facet, and talk of achievements with self-loathing. Communism doesn't work, in life or in sports. Individuals also need to shine and be applauded and encouraged. Which makes others want to follow them and be like them. This is why today we have a batting legacy (and not bowling). Neither human nature, nor human mind can comprehend things on a group level. We are not designed for that.

Taylor declared so that he could have more time to win the Test match. Typical Mark Taylor, it had got nothing to do with Bradman. In fact, he was praised that despite having Lara's record in sight he chose to put team over individual.

[Sachin=GOD]

That is a cultural problem. You win as a team and lose as a team. Individual glory means nothing. If it is tennis or chess I will give you that but' date= cricket, hockey, football it means nothing. Lot of sports realize that. In basketball they keep stats for scoring and but do not ignore assists, blocks etc as they all add up. Nothing is more demanding than basketball but focus should be on team.

Then why do we have Batsman/Bowler/Player of the Tournament in cricket WC and Golden Ball/Boot/Gloves in Football WC?

[Crookbond]

Then why do we have Batsman/Bowler/Player of the Tournament in cricket WC and Golden Ball/Boot/Gloves in Football WC?

To appreciate individual performances. Appreciation of individual performances doesn't imply that the individual has taken over the team. It is to signify that the individual had a high value impact on that day(s) of the event. Players who tend to have high impact values over time are recognized as greats. Over time, it is ONLY the team records would have long lasting value and this cuts through sports. We always say the West Indies team of the 70s and 80s was great rather than the team in which Viv Richards played. We use the Australia team of the 1999-2007 rather than the team in which Warne & McGrath played. In team sports, over time it is the team records overall that continue to stand the test of time. Individual records are always appreciated, no doubt but team records are the most significant achievement.

[Sachin=GOD]

To appreciate individual performances. Appreciation of individual performances doesn't imply that the individual has taken over the team. It is to signify that the individual had a high value impact on that day(s) of the event. Players who tend to have high impact values over time are recognized as greats. Over time' date=' it is ONLY the team records would have long lasting value and this cuts through sports. We always say the West Indies team of the 70s and 80s was great rather than the team in which Viv Richards played. We use the Australia team of the 1999-2007 rather than the team in which Warne & McGrath played. In team sports, over time it is the team records overall that continue to stand the test of time. Individual records are always appreciated, no doubt but team records are the most significant achievement.[/quote'] Nopes. It is the individual records that are almost always remembered more than team records. People remember Kumble's 10 wicket haul or Lara's 400 way more than team performance in those matches. The 2003 India-Pak WC match is remembered mostly for that remarkable 98 by Goddy while the 2004 Test in Rawalpindi is remembered for Dravid's 270. The Aus-Pak 2003 WC match is remembered for Symonds' 143 etc etc...A good team has to play well for many years to reach a stage where people would remember it for years to come - in case of players, even a single match is remembered for years and years. Similarly in football, people have been saying that Messi didn't play well in the Final while the German TEAM played well - now, unless this German team goes on to play such football for the next 5-6 years, the "team" won't be remembered as well but people will remember for years to come that the generation's greatest player Messi did not play well in the WC Final. In the 1966 WC Portugal were trailing 3-0 against North Korea when their greatest player Eusabio scored 4 goals - people remember that match even now ONLY for Eusabio's performance.

[Crookbond]

Nopes. It is the individual records that are almost always remembered more than team records. People remember Kumble's 10 wicket haul or Lara's 400 way more than team performance in those matches. The 2003 India-Pak WC match is remembered mostly for that remarkable 98 by Goddy while the 2004 Test in Rawalpindi is remembered for Dravid's 270. The Aus-Pak 2003 WC match is remembered for Symonds' 143 etc etc...A good team has to play well for many years to reach a stage where people would remember it for years to come - in case of players, even a single match is remembered for years and years. Similarly in football, people have been saying that Messi didn't play well in the Final while the German TEAM played well - now, unless this German team goes on to play such football for the next 5-6 years, the "team" won't be remembered as well but people will remember for years to come that the generation's greatest player Messi did not play well in the WC Final. In the 1966 WC Portugal were trailing 3-0 against North Korea when their greatest player Eusabio scored 4 goals - people remember that match even now ONLY for Eusabio's performance.

This is NOT either/or. Both team records and individual records are remembered with great fervor. But. in a team sport - the team records is what matter more significantly than individual ones. Why? Because it is a team sport. The argument flips when it is an individual sport like tennis or badminton. It is India won the WC in 1983, 2011. India won the T20 in 2007. TL;DR - Individual performances are appreciated but team performances are the most significant.

[yoda]

Nopes. It is the individual records that are almost always remembered more than team records. People remember Kumble's 10 wicket haul or Lara's 400 way more than team performance in those matches. The 2003 India-Pak WC match is remembered mostly for that remarkable 98 by Goddy while the 2004 Test in Rawalpindi is remembered for Dravid's 270. The Aus-Pak 2003 WC match is remembered for Symonds' 143 etc etc...A good team has to play well for many years to reach a stage where people would remember it for years to come - in case of players, even a single match is remembered for years and years. Similarly in football, people have been saying that Messi didn't play well in the Final while the German TEAM played well - now, unless this German team goes on to play such football for the next 5-6 years, the "team" won't be remembered as well but people will remember for years to come that the generation's greatest player Messi did not play well in the WC Final. In the 1966 WC Portugal were trailing 3-0 against North Korea when their greatest player Eusabio scored 4 goals - people remember that match even now ONLY for Eusabio's performance.

This is total BS. The 2003-2004 Ind-Pak series is remembered for the historic 2-1 series win. Yes, the Sehwag 300+ and Dravid's 270 are also remembered, but to say that it is remembered only for individual milestones is spoken like a true goddy fan. Same this WC. Messi didn't play well, but guess what the German WC win is what the world will remember it for. In the process if an individual had shined like Maradonna did, they will talk about that as well.

[Sachin=GOD]

This is total BS. The 2003-2004 Ind-Pak series is remembered for the historic 2-1 series win. Yes, the Sehwag 300+ and Dravid's 270 are also remembered, but to say that it is remembered only for individual milestones is spoken like a true goddy fan. Same this WC. Messi didn't play well, but guess what the German WC win is what the world will remember it for. In the process if an individual had shined like Maradonna did, they will talk about that as well.

Did you even read my post? I said that that particular test is remembered for Dravid's inning. And about the WC I said that its the German TEAM that has won it but unless the team plays very well for the next 5-6 years, they won't be remembered that much while the fact that Messi did not play well in the Final will be remembered for a long time.

[Crookbond]

Did you even read my post? I said that that particular test is remembered for Dravid's inning. And about the WC I said that its the German TEAM that has won it but unless the team plays very well for the next 5-6 years, they won't be remembered that much while the fact that Messi did not play well in the Final will be remembered for a long time.

You are making an exception a rule and this is the reason "Proof By Example" is bad. Messi is a great player and hence, people will remember it. No one will remember Fred not playing well for Brazil or Di Maria's awful performance against Switzerland for a "long long time".

[Sachin=GOD]

You are making an exception a rule and this is the reason "Proof By Example" is bad. Messi is a great player and hence' date=' people will remember it. No one will remember Fred not playing well for Brazil or Di Maria's awful performance against Switzerland for a "long long time".[/quote'] In case of great players, even their failure is remembered. In case of ordinary players, they are usually remembered if they do well in a certain match (Nehra 6-23 in 2003 WC against Eng) but nobody would remember if they didn't play that well because nobody expected them to play well in the first place, no?

[Crookbond]

In case of great players' date=' even their failure is remembered. In case of ordinary players, they are usually remembered if they do well in a certain match (Nehra 6-23 in 2003 WC against Eng) but nobody would remember if they didn't play that well because nobody expected them to play well in the first place, no?[/quote'] Exactly but because their performances are remembered doesn't mean they take precedence over an individual.

[Midfielder]

So why are some basketball players still bigger than others and not the teams? Why does one player get adored by everyone more than his team? How is it a cultural problem again, when every country and in every sports this happens? You do win and lose as a team, just like an entire army wins or loses each war. But we still find heroes and people who stand out and whom we support There is nothing cultural or problematic about this, this is the way human nature simply works. You can cry all about being as a team and it makes sense for some time, but you will still have the Messi's who will stand out and win golden balls and boots for their individual performances

Michael Jordan is remembered the most because he has 6 rings. It is not about individual glory. He also was better than others but his championships are celebrated more than individual achievements.

[Sir john]

mtc is sachu spokesperson/lawyer for life :hehe:

[CSK Fan]

Taylor declared so that he could have more time to win the Test match. Typical Mark Taylor' date=' it had got nothing to do with Bradman. In fact, he was praised that despite having Lara's record in sight he chose to put team over individual.[/quote'] In that case why didn't he declare 10 runs before that score? Or after he scored 300? It had nothing to do with Bradman when he and the press said he was paying homage to him? He didn't overhaul Lara, but he made sure his declaration at exactly Bradman's top score would be a talking point and make his name, which it did

[CSK Fan]

To appreciate individual performances. Appreciation of individual performances doesn't imply that the individual has taken over the team. It is to signify that the individual had a high value impact on that day(s) of the event. Players who tend to have high impact values over time are recognized as greats. Over time' date=' it is ONLY the team records would have long lasting value and this cuts through sports. We always say the West Indies team of the 70s and 80s was great rather than the team in which Viv Richards played. We use the Australia team of the 1999-2007 rather than the team in which Warne & McGrath played. In team sports, over time it is the team records overall that continue to stand the test of time. Individual records are always appreciated, no doubt but team records are the most significant achievement.[/quote'] Wrong analogy. We say the WI teams and Aus teams were great while comparing teams. We say that Sachin and Lara were great while comparing individuals and their records. To say an apple is appreciated more than an orange is a logical fallacy. If the players whom you mentioned like Warne, Richards etc played in weaker teams, they would still stand out and be remembered just like Lara is despite no major trophies because they were that good. If over time only team records are remembered, why is Lara or a Sachin or a Bradman remembered and honoreed individually? When many brilliant players come together and play as a team, that team achieves greatness. But in a team game, when a team has only only or 2 strong players (WI in late Lara era) or are only strong in one aspect(batting in India) then the team itself might not go on to achieve great things. However, this does not mean than those greats did not give everything for thier team and hence should not be appreciated Using your logic, in the period from 99 to 2007, only the Aussie team should be appreciated and remembered and every other player from every other team who did not achieve great victories are useless jerks who should be forgotten. Despite them doing what they are supposed to do, score runs, take wickets, take catches. Thankfully, humankind is more mature than that

[CSK Fan]

Michael Jordan is remembered the most because he has 6 rings. It is not about individual glory. He also was better than others but his championships are celebrated more than individual achievements.

So all the players who played with him in those tournaments, why are they not remembered equally? Surely he didn't play alone in them? will a Gillespie be remembered and appreciated as much as a Lara or a Dravid despite featuring in world cup wins?

[Crookbond]

In that case why didn't he declare 10 runs before that score? Or after he scored 300? It had nothing to do with Bradman when he and the press said he was paying homage to him? He didn't overhaul Lara' date=' but he made sure his declaration at exactly Bradman's top score would be a talking point and make his name, which it did[/quote'] I was wrong on Taylor.

[Crookbond]

Wrong analogy. We say the WI teams and Aus teams were great while comparing teams. We say that Sachin and Lara were great while comparing individuals and their records. To say an apple is appreciated more than an orange is a logical fallacy. If the players whom you mentioned like Warne, Richards etc played in weaker teams, they would still stand out and be remembered just like Lara is despite no major trophies because they were that good. If over time only team records are remembered, why is Lara or a Sachin or a Bradman remembered and honoreed individually? When many brilliant players come together and play as a team, that team achieves greatness. But in a team game, when a team has only only or 2 strong players (WI in late Lara era) or are only strong in one aspect(batting in India) then the team itself might not go on to achieve great things. However, this does not mean than those greats did not give everything for thier team and hence should not be appreciated Using your logic, in the period from 99 to 2007, only the Aussie team should be appreciated and remembered and every other player from every other team who did not achieve great victories are useless jerks who should be forgotten. Despite them doing what they are supposed to do, score runs, take wickets, take catches. Thankfully, humankind is more mature than that

NO NO NO! You got me wrong. I repeatedly said "Individual records are ALWAYS appreciated but team records matter the most in ANY team sport".

[Sir john]

jaya completes 200 catches but dravid record is safe :nice: