Kallis averages more than sachin in both forms of the game!
Neha
thats because he isn't equal to Bradman.
If anything, kallis is better than sachin.
Neha
SultanOfSwing
Not in ODI's. At present, Kallis averages marginally better than
Sachin in ODI's.
Kallis has an average of 45.84 with a Strike Rate of 72.77 versus
Sachin's ODI
average of 44.97 at a Strike Rate of 86.18. Notice the huge
differences in strike
rates and tell me how Kallis is a better ODI batsman than Sachin.
I've never
heard anyone on this newsgroup make such a ridiculous claim.
CDK
Have you never heard anyone claim Tendulkar is better than Bradman?
What rock have you been hiding under?
CDK
SultanOfSwing
Yes, Nirvanam and Don's claims are well known to anyone frequenting
this newsgroup. But that's no reason to belittle Sachin's
achievements
in ODI's. Just because Kallis averages more than Sachin in ODI's,
it
doesn't make him a better ODI batsman than Sachin. As you would
be well aware, averages alone are not the only determining factor
for
ODI batsmen. Strike rates are equally important as a statistical
measure
in ODI's.
Ravi
By your yardstick is Hussey better than Sachin? Avg 51.96 / SR 88.09
Would you agree that Viv is the greatest ODI batsman? Avg 47 / SR 90
Ravi
jzfredricks
> By your yardstick is Hussey better than Sachin? Avg 51.96 / SR 88.09
> Would you agree that Viv is the greatest ODI batsman? Avg 47 / SR 90
Can't we just move the yardstick?
SR and Average dont' count. All that matters is TotalRuns!
Gerrit
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b43c3e45-47c6-44c2...@k9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Shouldn't you have put a smiley with that?
Ravi
> "jzfredricks" <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Indeed. Getting rid of yardsticks and smileys :-)
jzfredricks
> Shouldn't you have put a smiley with that?
If only I was smiling...
CDK
I see the claim of Kallis as better than Tendulkar having more substance
than the Tendulkar is better than Bradman ones.
That being said I would prefer Kallis in my side to Tendulkar as he is a
very good batsman, but also a much better bowler than TEndulkar so
offers more to a team on a head to head basis.
CDK
Don speaks the truth
Kallis avg in your country: 45
Kallis avg in Eng: 29.xx
Case closed. Bye.
Don
SultanOfSwing
I have no problem in accepting that Viv Richards is probably the
greatest ODI
batsman of all time. Viv scored his runs at a superb average and at
a pretty
fast clip (SR of 90) when most batsmen of his era had strike rates
in the
late 60's/ early 70's. Sachin Tendulkar has exceeded Viv Richards
in terms of
ODI career longevity and aggregate runs scored, but these are not
the only
parameters on which a great ODI batsman is judged.
IMO, Hussey is a far better ODI batsman than Michael Bevan, who was
over-rated
as a finisher. Hussey is a far better finisher than Bevan for
Australia in ODI's.
SultanOfSwing
In ODI's or Tests? Please elaborate on why you would prefer Kallis
the ODI
batsman to Tendulkar the ODI batsman.
> That being said I would prefer Kallis in my side to Tendulkar as he is a
> very good batsman, but also a much better bowler than TEndulkar so
> offers more to a team on a head to head basis.
I agree that Kallis offers more to a team in Test matches due to
his all-round abilities.
But of late, he has bowling lesser number of overs in both Test and
ODI's. Also IMO,
Kallis is a far less attacking batsman than Tendulkar. To give you
an example, see
Kallis' innings in the 2007 World Cup semifinal match between
Australia and South
Africa. IIRC, South Africa were chasing 378 and got off to a flyer
due to a superb 160
run partnership between AB deVilliers. Then deVilliers got run out
and Smith went
off with cramps. For no apparent reason, Kallis went off into an
ultra-defensive mode.
By the time he was out, South Africa were 277 for 7 and had just
under seven overs
left to score 101 runs, which by then was well nigh impossible. Of
course, Sachin
himself has failed at the ultimate hurdle, a World Cup final, but
at least Sachin wouldn't
be unnecesarily watchful in a situation when the previous batsmen
had put the opposition
bowlers to the sword.
CDK
What was that you were saying about logic earlier?
Oh that's right you do not even know the meaning of the word, let alone
understand what it is.
CDK
CDK
Either comparatively.
There is not a huge difference between them in either form of the game.
Although Kallis's figures would be a lot better if he played as often
as Tendulkar does in India.
> Please elaborate on why you would prefer Kallis
> the ODI
> batsman to Tendulkar the ODI batsman.
Note I said the claim that Kallis is better than Tendulkar has more
substance than does the claim that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
Unless a personal milestone was in the offing.
Kallis has also had occasions where he has taken attacks apart, you only
have to go back to India last Feb to find an example of that
CDK
Vikram Padmanabhan
> There is not a huge difference between them in either form of the game.
> Although Kallis's figures would be a lot better if he played as often
> as Tendulkar does in India.
????
That's cherry picking stats. Do you therefore say that Ponting's
average would be a lot lower if he played as often as Tendulkar does
in India.
It's not necessarily easier to bat in India. SRT's own test numbers
show that (IIRC, he has a better average in England and OZ than he
does in India).
Nirvanam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17/01/2011 4:30 AM, SultanOfSwing wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 8:57 pm, Neha<neha.female.cricke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Yet no one compares him to Bradman! How unfair! Why is that so? Yes,
> > >> thats because he isn't equal to Bradman.
>
> > >> If anything, kallis is better than sachin.
>
> > > Not in ODI's. At present, Kallis averages marginally better than
> > > Sachin in ODI's.
> > > Kallis has an average of 45.84 with a Strike Rate of 72.77 versus
> > > Sachin's ODI
> > > average of 44.97 at a Strike Rate of 86.18. Notice the huge
> > > differences in strike
> > > rates and tell me how Kallis is a better ODI batsman than Sachin.
> > > I've never
> > > heard anyone on this newsgroup make such a ridiculous claim.
>
> > Have you never heard anyone claim Tendulkar is better than Bradman?
>
> Yes, Nirvanam
Wrong...I never said Sachin is better than Don or Don is better than
Sachin...my stance is that Sacin, Lara, and Don are
virtuosos...comparison between them is meaningless...neither of them
is lesser or greater than the other two. That's a huge difference from
saying Sachin > Don or believing Don > Sachin.
Just coz one person does not consider Don as greater than all else, is
no reason to forcibly say that the person is opining that Sachin is
greater than Don or Lara is greater than Don.
But I'll also acknowledge the only reason I have Don among the
virtuosos and not mere ATGs like the 17 other phenomenal bats is
because of his statistical dominance over his contemporaries.
But that's no reason to belittle Sachin's
> achievements
> in ODI's. Just because Kallis averages more than Sachin in ODI's,
> it
> doesn't make him a better ODI batsman than Sachin. As you would
> be well aware, averages alone are not the only determining factor
> for
> ODI batsmen. Strike rates are equally important as a statistical
> measure
> in ODI's.
In agreement
Nirvanam
Fail! Pure bullshit! Kallis is not in the same class as Sachin, Lara,
and Don. The former 2 have performed as among the best-in-class under
all conditions, against all teams, in all countries, in all varieties.
So cut the crap about Kallis being better.
Same shit, new day...first it was Inzi, then it was Saeed Anwar, then
it was Lara (and the only fellow to have stayed in the fray), then it
was Mark Waugh, then Steve Waugh, then Rahul Dravid, then Ricky
Pawning, flavor of the last couple of years is Kallis, flavor for 2012
and 2013 will be Sangakkara and Sehwag. All these fellows challenged
at various times for varied stretches of time, the Buddha of Batting,
Sachin Tendulkar. Only Lara can be spoken in the same breath along
with Sachin, not any other of these fellows
>
> Unless a personal milestone was in the offing.
>
> Kallis has also had occasions where he has taken attacks apart, you only
> have to go back to India last Feb to find an example of that
Rahul Dravid has taken apart attacks too. So did Navjot Siddhu, Carl
Hooper, David Boon, and Hashim Amla. What's the frequency?....how has
he performed WHEN IT MATTERS that great rsc criterion? Who compares to
Sachin Tendulkar in ODIs in finals, in chases, and think of all other
tougher-than-usual situations. Don't talk in the air, bring data, even
if you are going to claim Vivian Richards performed better than Sachin
WHEN IT MATTERS.
Don speaks the truth
How so, Kynoch? Have you started running away too with meaningless
verbiage?
You don't care that he averages so less in Aus and Eng. Tell me you
are not
a liar.
Don
Priya
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kallis would be my number one pick in test cricket and right up there
in ODIs. I have been saying that for at least 5 years. But let me
ask you this: Would you therefore prefer SRT in your test or ODI side
over say Lara because not only does he have an appreciably better
batting average, he also bowls much better than Lara (as these are 2
criteria that you say are very important in the Kallis vs. SRT
comparison).
Nirvanam
O I missed this gem...what's the effing basis for asserting that? Do
you have any, even mildly correlative evidence for this
crap?????????????????
Nirvanam
ODIs are concerned in spite of being aware of the fact that Viv's
average is marginally greater primarily because he has more not outs
(24 in 167) to Sachin (41 in 444). But on the other hand sachin has
the advantage as an opener to score more runs than Viv...so that evens
out.
But since claims are being thrown around for far lesser batsmen to
even stand a chance to compete with the Buddha, I thought why not look
at those "when it matters" stats and see how they compare.
When It Matters 1 - Tournament Finals
Name - Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50
Sachin - 39 38 5 1833 138 55.54 2097 87.41 6 10
Richards - 18 17 2 836 138* 55.73 986 84.78 1 9
Something ain't right here....strike rates seem to change their
favorite batsman in tournament finals. On cents there is no
comparison...however since Viv came at 1-down or 2-down or even 5-down
that some may claim, the number of 50+ scores restores the balance
When It Matters 2 - All kinda knock-outs
Sachin - 50 49 5 2300 141 52.27 2676 85.94 7 12
Viv - 24 22 3 1015 138* 53.42 1222 83.06 1 11
Again balance is maintained
When It Matters 3 - While chasing
Sachin - 230 220 26 8389 175 43.24 9478 88.51 17 50
Viv - 105 87 20 3010 119* 44.92 3484 86.39 3 21
Again balance is maintained but this SR is consistently unintuitive
When It Matters 4 - Away / Neutral
Sachin - 288 281 26 11107 163* 43.55 13060 85.04 28 57
Viv - 154 141 20 5916 189* 48.89 6597 89.67 11 38
Viv significantly ahead on average, Sachin restores balance with CpI/
FpI
When It Matters 5 - No minnows
Sachin - 384 376 31 14905 200* 43.20 17521 85.06 36 82
Viv - 174 158 24 6261 189* 46.72 6985 89.63 10 44
Same pattern as career
When It Matters 6 (that sly excuse which was being forwarded for
Pawning's inability of late) - As Cap
Sachin - 73 70 5 2454 186* 37.75 2939 83.49 6 12
105 91 11 3105 181 38.81 3370 92.13 3 22
Viv seems to have dipped a little more than Sachin on average which he
makes up by going ahead on strike rate. Again, balance is maintained.
So, again, why on earth is one of these two fellows better than the
other? O ok, "back in the day" - now you can't beat that one, can you?
So, my dear Kallis-pimps and erstwhile Pawning-pimps, Dravid-pimps,
Steve Waugh-pimps, Mark Waugh-pimps, Saeed Anwar-pimps, Inzi-pimps,
and just for this format, Lara-pimps...plus the future Sanga-pimps,
and Viru-pimps, a question to you: which one of you buggers can throw
up any other batsman that can match Sachin WHEN IT MATTERS?
Nirvanam
> When It Matters 4 - Away / Neutral
> Sachin - 288 281 26 11107 163* 43.55 13060 85.04 28 57
> Viv - 154 141 20 5916 189* 48.89 6597 89.67 11 38
>
> Viv significantly ahead on average, Sachin restores balance with CpI/
> FpI
Sorry, Sachin does not restore balance on CpI/FpI...Viv ahead on this
metric. And this is the main source of the 2 run career average
difference and the strike rate. As an aside, it's quite surprising
that for those 16 yrs that Viv played, WI played only about 27 games
at home in which Viv was there...so say max 35 games in WI between
1975 to 1991...so less? o ya...a few yrs of Packer and WI never had
any multi-nation tournament
Priya
Viv's SR though was in an era where SRs weren't very high.
I think that ViV and SRT are pretty close in ODIs with ViV having a
slight edge. Viv has the better ODI stats but SRT has the longevity
factor in his favour (IMO, it doesn't count for as much as say Ananth
on Cricinfo says it does but it certainly counts for something much
more than a de minimis level which is what a substantial minority on
this board say it is worth).
Overall, despite having only seen Richards play exactly once (WC '83
final), based purely on a statistical comparison and taking into
account the different playing eras, I would say that Viv pips SRT in
the ODI All time rankings.
Kallis is not in the same tier as those two as an ODI batsman for,
inter alia, reasons already given by the Sultan of Swing.
As for the "SRT can't deliver when it matters most" argument, I have
had that debate before with others like Eusebius and I do not see how
they get that impression unless they want to just base their opinions
on 2 specific games (WC '03 final against OZ and WC '07 against SL).
Writing off anyone as being unable to handle pressure - especially
when we are talking about a great batsman - on the basis of a sample
size of 2 matches is sheer folly.
As an aside and FWIW, Warne picked SRT as his No. 1 *primarily*
because of his ability to handle pressure yet you have guys on here
who are far more removed from the scene as compared to Warne
constantly saying that SRT can't handle pressure without any
persuasive evidence to back up their assertions.
Nirvanam
And you could do the same thing even in Test cricket and Sachin will
beat each and every one of them. The other day on another forum I was
pleasantly surprised to learn that Sachin's Away record in Tests is
equal to Sobers' entire Test career's....that ain't a joke!
Sachin - Away: 98 160 17 8145 248* 56.95 29 32
Sobers: Full - 93 160 21 8032 365* 57.78 26 30
And this guy is supposed to be lesser than a few other batsmen in the
history of the game...wow!
jzfredricks
> Wrong...I never said Sachin is better than Don or Don is better than
> Sachin...my stance is that Sacin, Lara, and Don are
> virtuosos...comparison between them is meaningless...
Yet every 3rd day you do it...
jzfredricks
> Fail! Pure bullshit! Kallis is not in the same class as Sachin, Lara,
> and Don. The former 2 have performed as among the best-in-class under
> all conditions, against all teams, in all countries, in all varieties.
> So cut the crap about Kallis being better.
Another double standard Nirv? When your crackpot SRT stats are
debunked, all you say is "there's no such thing as a wrong opinion,
leave me alone". Now you attack CDK?
CDK
Why would I encroach on your territory Don?
> You don't care that he averages so less in Aus and Eng. Tell me you
> are not
> a liar.
Don as per usual you miss the point.
Read what I said.
One could pick countries where Tendulkar averages less than Kallis, but
that doesn't alter the fact that as an all round player Kallis is
superior to Tendulkar.
CDK
CDK
Simple Bradman. As TEst cricket is where it really matters.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 17, 5:01 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> There is not a huge difference between them in either form of the game.
>> Although Kallis's figures would be a lot better if he played as often
>> as Tendulkar does in India.
>
> ????
>
> That's cherry picking stats. Do you therefore say that Ponting's
> average would be a lot lower if he played as often as Tendulkar does
> in India.
I refer you to Nirvanams cherry picking.
> It's not necessarily easier to bat in India. SRT's own test numbers
> show that (IIRC, he has a better average in England and OZ than he
> does in India).
Different tracks suit different batsmen. Some bat better at home some
away. Some on flat Sub continental track some on bouncier non sub
continental tracks.
CDK
jzfredricks
> Nirvanams cherry picking.
Tautology spotted!
CDK
Kallis is a lot closer to Tendulkar than Tendulkar is to Bradman.
Bradman was roughly 50% better than his peers. Tendulkar is not even
the clear best Test batsman of his era.
Therefore any claim that Kallis is better than Tendulkar has far more
validity
than any claim that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
> Same shit, new day...first it was Inzi, then it was Saeed Anwar, then
> it was Lara (and the only fellow to have stayed in the fray), then it
> was Mark Waugh, then Steve Waugh, then Rahul Dravid, then Ricky
> Pawning, flavor of the last couple of years is Kallis, flavor for 2012
> and 2013 will be Sangakkara and Sehwag. All these fellows challenged
> at various times for varied stretches of time, the Buddha of Batting,
> Sachin Tendulkar. Only Lara can be spoken in the same breath along
> with Sachin, not any other of these fellows
Thereby proving my point.
It was ALWAYS Bradman.
There was never any doubt.
Even during Bodyline his average was clearly the best amongst the
Aussies and was second overall. and his aggregate was third overall,
playing one test less than the two above him on aggregate.
I can't recall any team coming up with a strategy solely aimed at
blunting Tendulkar and utilising it against the whole team.
>> Unless a personal milestone was in the offing.
>>
>> Kallis has also had occasions where he has taken attacks apart, you only
>> have to go back to India last Feb to find an example of that
>
> Rahul Dravid has taken apart attacks too. So did Navjot Siddhu, Carl
> Hooper, David Boon, and Hashim Amla. What's the frequency?....how has
> he performed WHEN IT MATTERS that great rsc criterion? Who compares to
> Sachin Tendulkar in ODIs in finals,
Lets see Tendulkar in finals that matter.
4
although it was with a good SR of 80.00.
Losing Final
> in chases, and think of all other
> tougher-than-usual situations. Don't talk in the air, bring data, even
> if you are going to claim Vivian Richards performed better than Sachin
> WHEN IT MATTERS.
Lets see Richards in Finals that matter
5 SR 45.45 Winning Final
138* SR 87.89 Winning Final MOM
33 SR SR 117.85 Losing Final
So it is quite clear that Richards performed considerably better than
Sachin in ODs that really matter.
CDK
CDK
I consider Kallis and TEndulkar quite close wrt to batting in ODI. so
the bowling of Kallis would tip it in his favour.
Likewise I would prefer Tendulkar over Lara in ODI for similar reasons.
In Tests Ill take Lara over Tendulkar, when Lara got going he hurt the
opposition more often than Tendulkar has and he also is more likely to
score a really big hundred.
CDK
CDK
CDK
Bob Dubery
> On Jan 16, 8:57 pm, Neha <neha.female.cricke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yet no one compares him to Bradman! How unfair! Why is that so? Yes,
> > thats because he isn't equal to Bradman.
>
> > If anything, kallis is better than sachin.
>
> Not in ODI's. At present, Kallis averages marginally better than
> Sachin in ODI's.
> Kallis has an average of 45.84 with a Strike Rate of 72.77 versus
> Sachin's ODI
> average of 44.97 at a Strike Rate of 86.18. Notice the huge
> differences in strike
A fool uses statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support and
not for illumination.
> I've never
> heard anyone on this newsgroup make such a ridiculous claim.
That can't possibly be true. You've been hanging around RSC a while
now.
Why just the other day I read some piffle about Bradman being better
than both Kallis and Tendulkar, and Sobers being the best all-rounder
ever.
Vikram Padmanabhan
This is where you lose all credibility. If you really believe that
you can judge a batsman's ability to play important innings from one
innings, you are indeed something special.
>
> > in chases, and think of all other
> > tougher-than-usual situations. Don't talk in the air, bring data, even
> > if you are going to claim Vivian Richards performed better than Sachin
> > WHEN IT MATTERS.
>
> Lets see Richards in Finals that matter
>
> 5 SR 45.45 Winning Final
>
> 138* SR 87.89 Winning Final MOM
>
> 33 SR SR 117.85 Losing Final
>
> So it is quite clear that Richards performed considerably better than
> Sachin in ODs that really matter.
Yup, every match that led India to the WC final in 03 mattered not one
iota. Good night, CDK.
CDK
The OP said to compare when it really matters. The only ODI's that
matter are WC and the ones that really matter there are the Finals, so I
compared Tendulkar and Richards when IT MATTERED.
>>> in chases, and think of all other
>>> tougher-than-usual situations. Don't talk in the air, bring data, even
>>> if you are going to claim Vivian Richards performed better than Sachin
>>> WHEN IT MATTERS.
>>
>> Lets see Richards in Finals that matter
>>
>> 5 SR 45.45 Winning Final
>>
>> 138* SR 87.89 Winning Final MOM
>>
>> 33 SR SR 117.85 Losing Final
>>
>> So it is quite clear that Richards performed considerably better than
>> Sachin in ODs that really matter.
>
> Yup, every match that led India to the WC final in 03 mattered not one
> iota. Good night, CDK.
Remind me how the 53rd incarnation of Vishnu did there?
4 BWAHAHAHAHA
CDK
Vikram Padmanabhan
wow...so mature.....
StraightDrive
"Neha" <neha.femal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:696e30e2-faf9-4fc5...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
> Yet no one compares him to Bradman! How unfair! Why is that so? Yes,
> thats because he isn't equal to Bradman.
>
> If anything, kallis is better than sachin.
>
Yep....you are right.......Now its time for you to get fucked by those WHITE
DICKS you WORSHIP so much.....
Vikram Padmanabhan
> On 18/01/2011 2:43 AM, Vikram Padmanabhan wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 5:01 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
> >> There is not a huge difference between them in either form of the game.
> >> Although Kallis's figures would be a lot better if he played as often
> >> as Tendulkar does in India.
>
> > ????
>
> > That's cherry picking stats. Do you therefore say that Ponting's
> > average would be a lot lower if he played as often as Tendulkar does
> > in India.
>
> I refer you to Nirvanams cherry picking.
What does that have to do with your cherry picking particularly when
the statement you made was in a dialogue you were having with the
Sultan of Swing? You were suggesting to the Sultan that Kallis would
have even better stats if he played in India. A couple of years ago,
when we were discussing Ponting vs. Tendulkar, the idea that Ponting
would have way worse stats if he played in India as much as SRT
somehow didn't occur to you. Tht I suggest is cherry picking.
Anyway, I gather yiy agree that it is cherry picking but I amnost sure
why you want to say that you are doing so because of Nirvanam.
i
>
> > It's not necessarily easier to bat in India. SRT's own test numbers
> > show that (IIRC, he has a better average in England and OZ than he
> > does in India).
>
> Different tracks suit different batsmen. Some bat better at home some
> away. Some on flat Sub continental track some on bouncier non sub
> continental tracks.
>
Well yeah. But that's my point. I have no idea why you are throwing
it back at me. Your assertion was that somehow SRT had an advantage
over Kallis in that he played for India. I am saying that it is not
necessarily true that it is easier to bat in India. And by your own
statement, it is clear that SRT bats well at home, away, on sub
continental conditions and in non sub continental conditions given his
averages in the various countries.
jzfredricks
> Your assertion was that somehow SRT had an advantage
> over Kallis in that he played for India.
Well he does have access to magical bats. Drawn from stones, or
something like that.
CDK
Tendulkar has played in one really important ODI. he scored 4.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 17, 3:40 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 2:43 AM, Vikram Padmanabhan wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 17, 5:01 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>>> There is not a huge difference between them in either form of the game.
>>>> Although Kallis's figures would be a lot better if he played as often
>>>> as Tendulkar does in India.
>>
>>> ????
>>
>>> That's cherry picking stats. Do you therefore say that Ponting's
>>> average would be a lot lower if he played as often as Tendulkar does
>>> in India.
>>
>> I refer you to Nirvanams cherry picking.
>
> What does that have to do with your cherry picking particularly when
> the statement you made was in a dialogue you were having with the
> Sultan of Swing? You were suggesting to the Sultan that Kallis would
> have even better stats if he played in India. A couple of years ago,
> when we were discussing Ponting vs. Tendulkar, the idea that Ponting
> would have way worse stats if he played in India as much as SRT
> somehow didn't occur to you.
I think that if Ponting had the time to play more in India he would have
worked his game out.
Kallis clearly has no problem batting there.
>Tht I suggest is cherry picking.
> Anyway, I gather yiy agree that it is cherry picking but I amnost sure
> why you want to say that you are doing so because of Nirvanam.
Huh?
> i
>>
>>> It's not necessarily easier to bat in India. SRT's own test numbers
>>> show that (IIRC, he has a better average in England and OZ than he
>>> does in India).
>>
>> Different tracks suit different batsmen. Some bat better at home some
>> away. Some on flat Sub continental track some on bouncier non sub
>> continental tracks.
>>
> Well yeah. But that's my point. I have no idea why you are throwing
> it back at me. Your assertion was that somehow SRT had an advantage
> over Kallis in that he played for India. I am saying that it is not
> necessarily true that it is easier to bat in India.
It is for Kallis.
> And by your own
> statement, it is clear that SRT bats well at home, away, on sub
> continental conditions and in non sub continental conditions given his
> averages in the various countries.
He is passable in Australia and South Africa (clearly he is not as good
on those sort of decks), he doesn't seem to like the Pakistani wickets
as much either. OTOH he clearly loves batting in Zimbabwe, but does a
lot worse against them when they play away.
CDK
>
CDK
Shh the BCCI has put a curse upon the stone so that anyone not of noble
Indian birth will always score ducks when taking a bat from said stone.
Must have been where Chris Martin got his.
CDK
SultanOfSwing
Those are obvious truths. Personally, I feel that Sobers is the
best *batting*
all-rounder ever, while Kallis comes a close second. Both are once
in a
generation kind of players, as are Tendulkar, Lara and Viv Richards.
SultanOfSwing
No, it's based on Hayden's famous assertion that Indian batsmen are
only
interested in personal milestones, and slow down tremendously when
they
reach their 90's. Hayden also claimed that Aussie batsmen are never
interested
in personal landmarks, and maintain the same tempo of scoring, even
when they
are in their 90's. Obviously, somebody needs to do a statistical
analysis of
Indian and Australian batsmen in ODI's, to determine whether there
is any
scientific basis for Hayden's claim, or whether he was bull-shitting
as usual.
Don speaks the truth
Tendulkar has not fared poorly in any of the countries unlike Kallis.
Isn't that the mark of a great test player or is it just the final
avg?
And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
Don
>
> CDK
Don speaks the truth
LOL, don't you listen to your own countrymen when they rever
Tendulkar's
performance every time he tours Australia?
Don
CDK
Well if you want to use that basis then Tendulkar does not hold a candle
to Bradman as Bradman had a stellar average in every country in which he
played.
Although not quite in the league of Kallis' average in Zimbabwe.
Another mark would be having scored 500 in a series something Kallis has
done twice, and something Tendulkar has never done. Bradman did it more
often than not.
> And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
> we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
Again I would select Kallis ahead of Tendulkar in either format of the
game. Just to make that clear
CDK
CDK
Rever?
is that the French to be lost in vague thoughts?
> Tendulkar's
> performance every time he tours Australia?
I don't think Australia has really seen Tnedulkar at his best in Australia
CDK
CDK
The lack of that analysis in this ng would suggest it has been done and
the evidence supports Hayden's hypothesis, as with all the rabid Indian
fans who hate Aussies on this ng, there is no way they would have missed
that sort of opportunity.
CDK
Nirvanam
> On Jan 18, 2:13 am, Nirvanam <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrong...I never said Sachin is better than Don or Don is better than
> > Sachin...my stance is that Sacin, Lara, and Don are
> > virtuosos...comparison between them is meaningless...
>
> Yet every 3rd day you do it...
o yes, mostly in response to idiots who claim one of them is in a
different league than the others
Nirvanam
> On Jan 18, 2:27 am, Nirvanam <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fail! Pure bullshit! Kallis is not in the same class as Sachin, Lara,
> > and Don. The former 2 have performed as among the best-in-class under
> > all conditions, against all teams, in all countries, in all varieties.
> > So cut the crap about Kallis being better.
>
> debunked, all you say is "there's no such thing as a wrong opinion,
> leave me alone". Now you attack CDK?
What fuckl are u on about, JZ? If cdk was just opining then obviously
his opinions are no more true or false than mine. But if he is stating
it as some kinda truth then it is pure fucking bullshit! Yes, my
mistake is in assuming that he was claiming it as fact...but hey I
responded with an intent to prove it if he comes back and asks for
proof.
You and yous stupid fucking double standards rant...understand this, I
have infinite standards, deal with it. At least I don't go around
charging people with character and moral wretchedness.
jzfredricks
> You and yous stupid fucking double standards rant...understand this, I
> have infinite standards, deal with it.
Well, I guess some good is done - you've finally admitted it.
Nirvanam
> On 18/01/2011 5:06 AM, Nirvanam wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I still believe that Viv is in the same breath as Sachin as far as
> > ODIs are concerned in spite of being aware of the fact that Viv's
> > average is marginally greater primarily because he has more not outs
> > (24 in 167) to Sachin (41 in 444). But on the other hand sachin has
> > the advantage as an opener to score more runs than Viv...so that evens
> > out.
>
> > But since claims are being thrown around for far lesser batsmen to
> > even stand a chance to compete with the Buddha, I thought why not look
> > at those "when it matters" stats and see how they compare.
>
> > When It Matters 1 - Tournament Finals
> > Name - Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50
> > Sachin - 39 38 5 1833 138 55.54 2097 87.41 6 10
> > Richards - 18 17 2 836 138* 55.73 986 84.78 1 9
>
> > Something ain't right here....strike rates seem to change their
> > favorite batsman in tournament finals. On cents there is no
> > comparison...however since Viv came at 1-down or 2-down or even 5-down
> > that some may claim, the number of 50+ scores restores the balance
>
> > When It Matters 2 - All kinda knock-outs
> > Sachin - 50 49 5 2300 141 52.27 2676 85.94 7 12
> > Viv - 24 22 3 1015 138* 53.42 1222 83.06 1 11
>
> > Again balance is maintained
>
> > When It Matters 3 - While chasing
> > Sachin - 230 220 26 8389 175 43.24 9478 88.51 17 50
> > Viv - 105 87 20 3010 119* 44.92 3484 86.39 3 21
>
> > Again balance is maintained but this SR is consistently unintuitive
>
> > When It Matters 4 - Away / Neutral
> > Sachin - 288 281 26 11107 163* 43.55 13060 85.04 28 57
> > Viv - 154 141 20 5916 189* 48.89 6597 89.67 11 38
>
> > Viv significantly ahead on average, Sachin restores balance with CpI/
> > FpI
>
> > When It Matters 5 - No minnows
> > Sachin - 384 376 31 14905 200* 43.20 17521 85.06 36 82
> > Viv - 174 158 24 6261 189* 46.72 6985 89.63 10 44
>
> > Same pattern as career
>
> > When It Matters 6 (that sly excuse which was being forwarded for
> > Pawning's inability of late) - As Cap
> > Sachin - 73 70 5 2454 186* 37.75 2939 83.49 6 12
> > 105 91 11 3105 181 38.81 3370 92.13 3 22
>
> > Viv seems to have dipped a little more than Sachin on average which he
> > makes up by going ahead on strike rate. Again, balance is maintained.
>
> > So, again, why on earth is one of these two fellows better than the
> > other? O ok, "back in the day" - now you can't beat that one, can you?
>
> > So, my dear Kallis-pimps and erstwhile Pawning-pimps, Dravid-pimps,
> > Steve Waugh-pimps, Mark Waugh-pimps, Saeed Anwar-pimps, Inzi-pimps,
> > and just for this format, Lara-pimps...plus the future Sanga-pimps,
> > and Viru-pimps, a question to you: which one of you buggers can throw
> > up any other batsman that can match Sachin WHEN IT MATTERS?
>
> Simple Bradman. As TEst cricket is where it really matters.
>
> CDK
Alright u've thrown him up...now let;s see how he compares. O sorry,
forgot, he played only 1 serious team whose bowling comprised of those
great warriors like Voce, Bowes, etc. Anyway, let's see how he
compares with others in as much as the context that is possible for us
to evaluate. Go on present your case
Nirvanam
> Kallis is a lot closer to Tendulkar than Tendulkar is to Bradman.
Ghanta!
> Bradman was roughly 50% better than his peers. Tendulkar is not even
> the clear best Test batsman of his era.
Bull fucking shit! Any of these modern bats would have averaged over
100 against the opposition Bradman played. Why do I say that....there
is enough data to make such an inference. Here are 3 batsman I can
immediately think of who have already done it - MoYo, Kallis, Sachin
- against much tougher minnows than Bradman played against.
> Therefore any claim that Kallis is better than Tendulkar has far more
> validity
> than any claim that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
If you claim it, then you mist produce the scientific proof for it, Go
on, present your proof.
> > Same shit, new day...first it was Inzi, then it was Saeed Anwar, then
> > it was Lara (and the only fellow to have stayed in the fray), then it
> > was Mark Waugh, then Steve Waugh, then Rahul Dravid, then Ricky
> > Pawning, flavor of the last couple of years is Kallis, flavor for 2012
> > and 2013 will be Sangakkara and Sehwag. All these fellows challenged
> > at various times for varied stretches of time, the Buddha of Batting,
> > Sachin Tendulkar. Only Lara can be spoken in the same breath along
> > with Sachin, not any other of these fellows
>
> Thereby proving my point.
>
> It was ALWAYS Bradman.
Sorry, cut the 'always' part...maybe between 1930 and 2007. It's no
longer him, deal with it.
> There was never any doubt.
The doubts surfaced as early as 1996...sorry, deal with it.
> Even during Bodyline his average was clearly the best amongst the
> Aussies and was second overall. and his aggregate was third overall,
> playing one test less than the two above him on aggregate.
har har har har har har har har har....one fast bowler....fucking one
fast bowler and the whole yellow brigade showed why they are yellow
and made a moral issue out of it. What would have happened if instead
of Larwood, Voce, and Bowes it was Marshall, Roberts, Holding or even
Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib...his average would have cut down by half a
further two times....so cut that crap.
> I can't recall any team coming up with a strategy solely aimed at
> blunting Tendulkar and utilising it against the whole team.
That's ur problem....what was that English "masterstroke" to counter
Sachin...Giles, was it? What happened 1 100, 1 90 in 3 tests. Oh and
from your own land...that greatest of the leg spinners that played the
game...he thought he well stop sachin by going round the wicket and
bowl into the rough...the whole world wanted to see what would happen
next. What happened next, cdk? Your boy complained about some
nightmares or something like that?
> >> Unless a personal milestone was in the offing.
>
> >> Kallis has also had occasions where he has taken attacks apart, you only
> >> have to go back to India last Feb to find an example of that
>
> > Rahul Dravid has taken apart attacks too. So did Navjot Siddhu, Carl
> > Hooper, David Boon, and Hashim Amla. What's the frequency?....how has
> > he performed WHEN IT MATTERS that great rsc criterion? Who compares to
> > Sachin Tendulkar in ODIs in finals,
>
> Lets see Tendulkar in finals that matter.
So now the new argument is not just "when it matters", it is "finals
that matter". Fair enough. At least he played one final that
mattered...what about Bradman?
> > in chases, and think of all other
> > tougher-than-usual situations. Don't talk in the air, bring data, even
> > if you are going to claim Vivian Richards performed better than Sachin
> > WHEN IT MATTERS.
>
> Lets see Richards in Finals that matter
>
> 5 SR 45.45 Winning Final
>
> 138* SR 87.89 Winning Final MOM
>
> 33 SR SR 117.85 Losing Final
>
> So it is quite clear that Richards performed considerably better than
> Sachin in ODs that really matter.
>
> CDK
chuth nandan means chuth ka nandan. LOL LOL LOL LOL....what a hopeless
fucking crappy response is that.
First u jump up to use bradman at one place as the competitor then
jump up to use richards as the competitor at another place.
Don speaks the truth
He averages 57 in Aus. Thats not his best? HA HA. His career avg is
56.xx btw.
Don
Nirvanam
So let's see Bradman had a stellar average in all the countries he
played...that is 2.
But both his stellar averages are lesser than 1 stellar average of
Kallis in Zim and Sachin in Ban.
So, if Bradman has a stellar average in 1 of the countries he played,
how is it a great thing? There are so many players in the world who
have had stellar averages in one of the countries they played at...we
just mentioned 2 of them here...Sachin and Kallis.
> Another mark would be having scored 500 in a series something Kallis has
> done twice, and something Tendulkar has never done. Bradman did it more
> often than not.
>
> > And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
> > we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
>
> Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
>
> Again I would select Kallis ahead of Tendulkar in either format of the
> game. Just to make that clear
And I'll take Sachin over any other fellow in either format of the
game...just to make it clear.
Nirvanam
so u mean to say that he is even greater than the aussies have seen
him to be in their own country?
Nirvanam
Ghanta!!!! what a load of bollocks...at least have the fucking guts to
present some evidence for that crap you claim. Lemme guess u are cdk
i.e chuth ka dakkan...yep that makes it clear where u are talking from
Nirvanam
Good, so don't fucking come back with those rants again
CDK
No need to, as you have already admitted to being grossly inconsistent
CDK
Nirvanam
O ya...fucking coward, u are a true chuth ka dakkan...don't even have
the guts to bloody back up your claims
Don speaks the truth
We are comparing Tendulkar and Kallis here in case you forgot so soon.
> Although not quite in the league of Kallis' average in Zimbabwe.
>
> Another mark would be having scored 500 in a series something Kallis has
> done twice, and something Tendulkar has never done. Bradman did it more
> often than not.
So finding some stupid reason or other to put down Tendulkar eh?
He scored 493 runs in 4 tests in Aus last time around. So?
Dosen't make any difference to me as long as overall stats
for a series is good. Next what? Tendulkar scored 0 runs in Aus
batting
left handed or he averages poorly on a wet day in Brisbane and so on &
so forth??!!!
Now tell me why Kallis averages just 45 in Aus, again?
>
> > And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
> > we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
>
> Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
At least i am comparing them as batsmen and don't want meaningless
digression to who would you pick in a XI first!!! But it looks like
you
want to do this digression purposely to find another shitty reason why
Tendulkar could be any lesser than Kallis.
Don
CDK
> On Jan 18, 4:54 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> Kallis is a lot closer to Tendulkar than Tendulkar is to Bradman.
>
> Ghanta!
What do hindu or buddist bells have to do with it?
>> Bradman was roughly 50% better than his peers. Tendulkar is not even
>> the clear best Test batsman of his era.
>
> Bull fucking shit! Any of these modern bats would have averaged over
> 100 against the opposition Bradman played.
Unlikely to say the least.
> Why do I say that....there
> is enough data to make such an inference. Here are 3 batsman I can
> immediately think of who have already done it - MoYo, Kallis, Sachin
> - against much tougher minnows than Bradman played against.
England was hardly a minnow.
And I hardly think that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are a patch on the South
Africa, India or West Indies of Bradmans time.
For crying out loud Bangladesh is so minnowy that it didn't evenn have a
domestic first class competition when it was granted Test status.
And Zimbabwe is such a joke that they have played bugger all Test
cricket for a decade, and when they did Hayden smashed 380 against them,
this was the only TEst team to have two centuries scored against them in
the same session of a test, so please don't make yourself look like a
bigger idiot than you already have by suggesting that either of those
teams are as good as South Africa, India or West Indies of Bradman's time.
>> Therefore any claim that Kallis is better than Tendulkar has far more
>> validity
>> than any claim that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
>
> If you claim it, then you mist produce the scientific proof for it, Go
> on, present your proof.
Simple Bradman was 50% better than any other batsman of his era.
Tendulkar isn't even close to that on any metric wrt Test cricket.
His average is not the best of his peers, he does not have 50% more runs
than any of his peers, he does not have 50% more centureis than any of
his peers, his SR is not 50% better than any of his peers.
On no metric is Tendulkar 50% or even close to 50% ahead of any of his
peers.
Bradman's batting average is still 50% higher than any player who has
played more than 20 innings.
He scored 500+ in a series 7 times (since been equalled by Lara), which
is seven more times than Tendulkar.
He scored a century better than every third time he went into bat. the
next best is Headley with once every 4 times. Tendulkar does so in
17.59% of his innings which places him in 7th place of all time Hayden
and Kallis are just over 1% behind him so no 50% there, whereas Bradman
was almost 50% more likely to score a century than the next best of all
time and over twice as likely to score one as Tendulkar. If Bradman had
played as many innings as Tendulkar and scored at his career rate he
would have scored 105 Centuries, 47 half centuries and scored 25,360 runs.
One area where Bradman is closer to the pack is his conversion of 50's
to 100's here he still leads the pack with 69.05% of his scores over 50
becoming hundreds. Here Tendulkar ranks 36th of all time.
But when he reached 100 Bradman turned 41.4% of these into 200+ scores.
The next best on this metric is Marvin Attapatu with 6 from 16, of
those that have scored 3 or more double centuries.
Tendulkar on the other hand has scored 6 from 51 or 11.76% Not as high
as a number of his peers including Lara, Sehwag, Ponting, Yousef, Smith,
Sangakarra, Jayawardene, Dravid, Langer, Jayasuriya, Gayle, Flemming.
Now head to head Tendulkar v Kallis
Average T 56.95 K 57.44
Aggregate T 14692 K 11947
Innings T 290 K 246
Runs/Innings T 50.66 K 45.56
Ducks T 14 K 10
50's T 59 K 54
100's T 51 K 40
SR not included as it is not available for Tendulkars career.
On none of those metrics is Tendulkar 50% better than Kallis, although
he has had 40% more ducks.
Bradman has a number of metrics where he is not only 50% better than his
peers, but 50% better than any other batsman.
So I think it is quite easy to prove that there is more validity to the
claim that Kallis is better than Tendulkar than there is to the claim
that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
>>> Same shit, new day...first it was Inzi, then it was Saeed Anwar, then
>>> it was Lara (and the only fellow to have stayed in the fray), then it
>>> was Mark Waugh, then Steve Waugh, then Rahul Dravid, then Ricky
>>> Pawning, flavor of the last couple of years is Kallis, flavor for 2012
>>> and 2013 will be Sangakkara and Sehwag. All these fellows challenged
>>> at various times for varied stretches of time, the Buddha of Batting,
>>> Sachin Tendulkar. Only Lara can be spoken in the same breath along
>>> with Sachin, not any other of these fellows
>>
>> Thereby proving my point.
>>
>> It was ALWAYS Bradman.
>
> Sorry, cut the 'always' part...maybe between 1930 and 2007. It's no
> longer him, deal with it.
It is still him. When arguments can be made quite easily that Tendulkar
is not even the best of his era, it is ridiculous to claim he is the
best of all time.
There are two current batsmen with better averages than Tendulkar.
His number of centuries and number of runs is a measure of longevity, he
has played the most number of Tests so taking into account he is a very
good batsman he is quite likely to have the most number of runs.
If Kallis plays the same number of Tests as Tendulkar I would imagine he
will surpass Tendulkar's aggregate and possibly even the number of
centuries. Would that make you think Kallis is the greatest batsman of
all time? I doubt it as you wont even countenance the possibility that
he may be a better batsman now.
>> There was never any doubt.
>
> The doubts surfaced as early as 1996...sorry, deal with it.
Only to those who are deluded.
Wisden didnt even have Tendulkar in the 5 cricketers of the century in
2000. There were 4 batsman on that list.
There is no consensus that Tendulkar is even the best of his era, and no
compelling evidence that statisticaly shows him to be that either, so to
suggest he is the best of all time is absurd. He is certainly the
batsman who has played the most innings, but surely not even you would
argue that makes him the best of all time.
>> Even during Bodyline his average was clearly the best amongst the
>> Aussies and was second overall. and his aggregate was third overall,
>> playing one test less than the two above him on aggregate.
>
> har har har har har har har har har....one fast bowler....fucking one
> fast bowler and the whole yellow brigade showed why they are yellow
> and made a moral issue out of it.
One?????????????????
You are an imbecile.
I can imagine how fast you would run if faced by the bowling England had
and the tactics that were used.
England weren't so keen when they were on the recieving end of it a few
years later and hence we now have a rule stating only two fieldsman
behind square leg.
> What would have happened if instead
> of Larwood, Voce, and Bowes it was Marshall, Roberts, Holding or even
> Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib...his average would have cut down by half a
> further two times....so cut that crap.
That is mere conjecture and quite unlikely. Larwood was seriously fast
and would have been quite at home in the company you mentioned. Neither
Voce or Bowes were trundlers either and also would have been at home in
the company of the above bowlers. As for Shoaib, he never had the
discipline to have bowled Bodyline, I am not sure Waqar would have known
how to bowl that short for that long as he was much more of a bowler who
pitched it up. Marshall and Holding would have been a handful, and
Roberts less so. But there were batsman who did average above 50 (Greg
Chappell averaged 56 against the West Indies, and he played against the
best of the Windies) against the might of the WIPQ in its various guises
so I imagine Bradman would have been able to do as he did during his career.
>> I can't recall any team coming up with a strategy solely aimed at
>> blunting Tendulkar and utilising it against the whole team.
>
> That's ur problem....what was that English "masterstroke" to counter
> Sachin...Giles, was it? What happened 1 100, 1 90 in 3 tests. Oh and
> from your own land...that greatest of the leg spinners that played the
> game...he thought he well stop sachin by going round the wicket and
> bowl into the rough...the whole world wanted to see what would happen
> next. What happened next, cdk? Your boy complained about some
> nightmares or something like that?
And yet he couldn't score 500 runs in a series against either. Surely a
great batsman can score 500 in a test series once in his career.
Bradman did it a mere 7 times out of 11. One of Tendulkar's peers also
did it 7 times, took him a few more series than the Don though.
Kallis incidentally has managed to score 500+ more than once
>>>> Unless a personal milestone was in the offing.
>>
>>>> Kallis has also had occasions where he has taken attacks apart, you only
>>>> have to go back to India last Feb to find an example of that
>>
>>> Rahul Dravid has taken apart attacks too. So did Navjot Siddhu, Carl
>>> Hooper, David Boon, and Hashim Amla. What's the frequency?....how has
>>> he performed WHEN IT MATTERS that great rsc criterion? Who compares to
>>> Sachin Tendulkar in ODIs in finals,
>>
>> Lets see Tendulkar in finals that matter.
>
> So now the new argument is not just "when it matters", it is "finals
> that matter". Fair enough. At least he played one final that
> mattered...what about Bradman?
Well the only One Day cricket that matters is the WC the rest is dross.
And the only match that really matters in a WC is the final, so when
it matters is in WC finals.
>>> in chases, and think of all other
>>> tougher-than-usual situations. Don't talk in the air, bring data, even
>>> if you are going to claim Vivian Richards performed better than Sachin
>>> WHEN IT MATTERS.
>>
>> Lets see Richards in Finals that matter
>>
>> 5 SR 45.45 Winning Final
>>
>> 138* SR 87.89 Winning Final MOM
>>
>> 33 SR SR 117.85 Losing Final
>>
>> So it is quite clear that Richards performed considerably better than
>> Sachin in ODs that really matter.
>>
>> CDK
>
> chuth nandan means chuth ka nandan. LOL LOL LOL LOL....what a hopeless
> fucking crappy response is that.
Huh?
Is this another Hindu Bell ringing? Clearly you have been used as the
clapper in that bell for far too long.
> First u jump up to use bradman at one place as the competitor then
> jump up to use richards as the competitor at another place.
Bradman is the best TEst batsman of all time period.
You bought up ODIs and as Bradman has never played in one (the first one
was just over 40 years ago in the birthplace of botheh Test Cricket and
ODI cricket) and you were crapping on about when it really mattered and
really only WC finals matter in ODI cricket Richard was a reasonable
choice although Ponting woudl have done just as well.
Ponting in WC finals
45
24
140*
37
All way better than 4
And twice as winning captain.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 2:59 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:26 PM, SultanOfSwing wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> The lack of that analysis in this ng would suggest it has been done and
>> the evidence supports Hayden's hypothesis, as with all the rabid Indian
>> fans who hate Aussies on this ng, there is no way they would have missed
>> that sort of opportunity.
>>
>> CDK
>
> Ghanta!!!!
that Hindu Bell again, isn;t your head ring from being the clapper?
> what a load of bollocks...at least have the fucking guts to
> present some evidence for that crap you claim. Lemme guess u are cdk
> i.e chuth ka dakkan...yep that makes it clear where u are talking from
What do you want me to prove?
That there are a lot of rabid Indian fans who hate Aussies? That is
clear by anyone who has read this ng over the last decade.
Or do you want me to prove that no Indian has posted anything on that
statistical analysis. Well here is a link search to your heart's content.
https://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg
BTW I can't be bothered doing the stat work. I will leave that to one
of you Indian drones.
CDK
CDK
Clearly you have trouble that the evidence proves that Bradman is in a
different league.
CDK
CDK
Bradman's record speaks for itself. You present your case for anyone
being better than him.
I know you wont because there is none.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 2:55 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:38 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 4:37 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2011 3:45 AM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>>> One could pick countries where Tendulkar averages less than Kallis, but
>>>> that doesn't alter the fact that as an all round player Kallis is
>>>> superior to Tendulkar.
>>
>>> Tendulkar has not fared poorly in any of the countries unlike Kallis.
>>> Isn't that the mark of a great test player or is it just the final
>>> avg?
>>
>> Well if you want to use that basis then Tendulkar does not hold a candle
>> to Bradman as Bradman had a stellar average in every country in which he
>> played.
>>
>> Although not quite in the league of Kallis' average in Zimbabwe.
> Or for that matter Sachin's in Bangladesh
>
> So let's see Bradman had a stellar average in all the countries he
> played...that is 2.
Yep. Not his fault he didnt play anywhere else.
> But both his stellar averages are lesser than 1 stellar average of
> Kallis in Zim and Sachin in Ban.
And you suggest Bradman played against minnows. Zimbabwe and Bangladesh
would be regularly beaten by the worst Sheffield Shield side.
> So, if Bradman has a stellar average in 1 of the countries he played,
> how is it a great thing?
He had a stellar average in all countries he played in.
> There are so many players in the world who
> have had stellar averages in one of the countries they played at...we
> just mentioned 2 of them here...Sachin and Kallis.
But none of them have stellar averages in all countries they played in
and against all countries they played.
>> Another mark would be having scored 500 in a series something Kallis has
>> done twice, and something Tendulkar has never done. Bradman did it more
>> often than not.
>>
>>> And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
>>> we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
>>
>> Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
>>
>> Again I would select Kallis ahead of Tendulkar in either format of the
>> game. Just to make that clear
>
> And I'll take Sachin over any other fellow in either format of the
> game...just to make it clear.
I'd have Tendulkar as an opener in ODI cricket, but he wouldnt make my
all time TEst team.
CDK
CDK
My view is coloured as I live in Victoria and have only seen him live at
the MCG (where he averages 43). And aside from one innings in Sydney, I
dont think he has had the best of times in Australia.
That and his ODI form in Australia is well below his best.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 2:57 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:40 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>> Tendulkar's
>>> performance every time he tours Australia?
>>
>> I don't think Australia has really seen Tnedulkar at his best in Australia
>
> so u mean to say that he is even greater than the aussies have seen
> him to be in their own country?
His record would suggest so.
From what I have seen in Australia I would rank GS Chappell and RT
Ponting higher than Tendulkar, as batsmen in Australia. Chappell
particularly against the Windies, Tendulkar has never faced bowling like
that.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 2:55 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:38 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>>> Don as per usual you miss the point.
>>
>>>> Read what I said.
>>
>>>> One could pick countries where Tendulkar averages less than Kallis, but
>>>> that doesn't alter the fact that as an all round player Kallis is
>>>> superior to Tendulkar.
>>
>>> Tendulkar has not fared poorly in any of the countries unlike Kallis.
>>> Isn't that the mark of a great test player or is it just the final
>>> avg?
>>
>> Well if you want to use that basis then Tendulkar does not hold a candle
>> to Bradman as Bradman had a stellar average in every country in which he
>> played.
>
> We are comparing Tendulkar and Kallis here in case you forgot so soon.
Not so. I am contending that saying Kallis is better than Tendulkar has
more substance than a claim that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
>> Although not quite in the league of Kallis' average in Zimbabwe.
>>
>> Another mark would be having scored 500 in a series something Kallis has
>> done twice, and something Tendulkar has never done. Bradman did it more
>> often than not.
>
> So finding some stupid reason or other to put down Tendulkar eh?
Don't like that FACT Donny?
there have been numerous of Tendulkars peers that have managed this
feat. Surely if Tendulkar is so great he could have managed it once in
a 177 game test career.
> He scored 493 runs in 4 tests in Aus last time around. So?
Last time I checked 493 is not above 500.
> Dosen't make any difference to me as long as overall stats
> for a series is good. Next what? Tendulkar scored 0 runs in Aus
> batting
> left handed or he averages poorly on a wet day in Brisbane and so on&
> so forth??!!!
500 runs in a series is something most great batsman have achieved.
Bradman did it on 7 out of 11 series. Kallis has done it twice,
Tendulka has NEVER done it despite having the longest TEst career of the
lot.
> Now tell me why Kallis averages just 45 in Aus, again?
45 is not to be sniffed at.
When I was a kid 45 was considered a damn good Test average.
It has become easier to get a Test average of over 50 in the last 40
years, which is further reason to show that Bradmans feat is so stellar,
as this suggest that the bowling of the current era is not as effective
as the bowling in Bradman's era.
>>> And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
>>> we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
>>
>> Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
>
> At least i am comparing them as batsmen and don't want meaningless
> digression to who would you pick in a XI first!!! But it looks like
> you
> want to do this digression purposely to find another shitty reason why
> Tendulkar could be any lesser than Kallis.
As a cricketer there is no question Tendulkar is lesser than Kallis.
As a batsman it is line ball.
CDK
CDK
Says he who makes wild assertions sets up straw men and admits to being
grossly inconsistent. And hasn't the guts to make his insults in the
language of the forum in which he makes them.
If Nirvana is having you head embedded deeply in one's own rectum you
sir, have achieved Nirvana.
CDK
Don speaks the truth
> On 18/01/2011 11:33 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:> On Jan 18, 2:55 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2011 7:38 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >>>> Don as per usual you miss the point.
>
> >>>> Read what I said.
>
> >>>> One could pick countries where Tendulkar averages less than Kallis, but
> >>>> that doesn't alter the fact that as an all round player Kallis is
> >>>> superior to Tendulkar.
>
> >>> Tendulkar has not fared poorly in any of the countries unlike Kallis.
> >>> Isn't that the mark of a great test player or is it just the final
> >>> avg?
>
> >> Well if you want to use that basis then Tendulkar does not hold a candle
> >> to Bradman as Bradman had a stellar average in every country in which he
> >> played.
>
> > We are comparing Tendulkar and Kallis here in case you forgot so soon.
>
> Not so. I am contending that saying Kallis is better than Tendulkar has
> more substance than a claim that Tendulkar is better than Bradman.
You ran away from the main line of arguement as usual. How many times
are you gonna do this unless this is how you are by nature!!!
>
> >> Although not quite in the league of Kallis' average in Zimbabwe.
>
> >> Another mark would be having scored 500 in a series something Kallis has
> >> done twice, and something Tendulkar has never done. Bradman did it more
> >> often than not.
>
> > So finding some stupid reason or other to put down Tendulkar eh?
>
> Don't like that FACT Donny?
No, i don't like your stupid reasons.
>
> there have been numerous of Tendulkars peers that have managed this
> feat. Surely if Tendulkar is so great he could have managed it once in
> a 177 game test career.
>
> > He scored 493 runs in 4 tests in Aus last time around. So?
>
> Last time I checked 493 is not above 500.
Yes, and 4 is not equal to 5.
>
> > Dosen't make any difference to me as long as overall stats
> > for a series is good. Next what? Tendulkar scored 0 runs in Aus
> > batting
> > left handed or he averages poorly on a wet day in Brisbane and so on&
> > so forth??!!!
>
> 500 runs in a series is something most great batsman have achieved.
Means nothing to me. 500 is not some blanket figure. If someone has
got
499, will you hold this against him for not getting to the 500 figure?
C'mon be mature.
>
> Bradman did it on 7 out of 11 series. Kallis has done it twice,
> Tendulka has NEVER done it despite having the longest TEst career of the
> lot.
>
> > Now tell me why Kallis averages just 45 in Aus, again?
>
> 45 is not to be sniffed at.
45 << 57 in Aus.
> When I was a kid 45 was considered a damn good Test average.
>
> It has become easier to get a Test average of over 50 in the last 40
> years, which is further reason to show that Bradmans feat is so stellar,
> as this suggest that the bowling of the current era is not as effective
> as the bowling in Bradman's era.
>
> >>> And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
> >>> we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
>
> >> Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
>
> > At least i am comparing them as batsmen and don't want meaningless
> > digression to who would you pick in a XI first!!! But it looks like
> > you
> > want to do this digression purposely to find another shitty reason why
> > Tendulkar could be any lesser than Kallis.
>
> As a cricketer there is no question Tendulkar is lesser than Kallis.
What defines a cricketer? Ok let me make it easy for your head,
Kynochie...
How many times has Kallis figured(ie. done something of note) in a SA
win
in a ODI final? How many times has Kallis figured in a Test win of SA
in Eng
or Aus? Now do the same comparisons for Sachin.
>
> As a batsman it is line ball.
Same was told of Ponting a year back. Now where is he, Colin dear?
Don
>
> CDK
Don speaks the truth
Fair enuf. To each his own however stupid the reasoning may be.
Don
Don speaks the truth
Bradman's record is so minimal to be even compared. As he didn't
play in all formats, he should be debarred from any comparison
analysis.
Don
Nirvanam
> On 18/01/2011 11:20 PM, Nirvanam wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 5:17 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2011 10:56 PM, Nirvanam wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 18, 4:24 pm, jzfredricks<jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 18, 9:20 pm, Nirvanam<viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You and yous stupid fucking double standards rant...understand this, I
> >>>>> have infinite standards, deal with it.
>
> >>>> Well, I guess some good is done - you've finally admitted it.
>
> >>> Good, so don't fucking come back with those rants again
>
> >> No need to, as you have already admitted to being grossly inconsistent
>
> >> CDK
>
> > O ya...fucking coward, u are a true chuth ka dakkan...don't even have
> > the guts to bloody back up your claims
>
> Says he who makes wild assertions sets up straw men and admits to being
> grossly inconsistent. And hasn't the guts to make his insults in the
> language of the forum in which he makes them.
abbe chuth ke dakkan....here lemme explain chuth means vagina, 'ke/ka'
in this context means "of", dakkan means "lid" so chuth ka dakkan
means "lid of the vagina"
> If Nirvana is having you head embedded deeply in one's own rectum you
> sir, have achieved Nirvana.
O is that how YOU achieve nirvana?
Nirvanam
> On 18/01/2011 10:53 PM, Nirvanam wrote:> On Jan 18, 2:57 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2011 7:40 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Tendulkar's
> >>> performance every time he tours Australia?
>
> >> I don't think Australia has really seen Tnedulkar at his best in Australia
>
> > so u mean to say that he is even greater than the aussies have seen
> > him to be in their own country?
>
> His record would suggest so.
Why? How exactly is his record suggesting that?
I actually didn't wanna argue about it coz u seemed to present it like
an opinion which is fine but since u now bring in a reference to his
record, so why not go the full way
Snipped irrelevant
CDK
Minimal?
It took til 1983 for someone to surpass his tally of centuries. Noone
has come close to his average. He sits at the pinnacle of Test batsman
and needs binoculars to see the next best.
> As he didn't
> play in all formats,
He was probably a bit old for the first ODI given it was played 20 odd
years after his retirement, and I doubt someone of his stature would
have stooped to playing Smash and Bash
> he should be debarred from any comparison
> analysis.
Well on that basis Tendulkars One Smash and bash hardly qualifies him
for comparison either.
But then there are some who don't consider Smash and Bash to be cricket
anyway.
But maybe you think Tendulkar's 10 off 12 balls to be noteworthy.
It is interesting to note though that Tendulkar has only bothered to
play one International Smash and Bash.
CDK
Nirvanam
what evidence? do you even have an idea of how a proper proof is
established? If you had, you wouldn't have utterred such nonsense.
You present your case for anyone
> being better than him.
I have already done that. Here go read it again...http://
perceptz.blogspot.com/2010/05/test-crickets-virtuoso-batsmen.html
it is done in a very easily verifiable and testable way. So, lemme see
your rebuttal for that...and you know what a rebuttal is right? no
talking in the air...come back with verifiable data to prove that my
analysis is wrong
Nirvanam
what evidence? do you even have an idea of how a proper proof is
Nirvanam
Sorry this was meant in response for another of your posts... I got
confused...please ignore this
CDK
To open the batting it would be hard to go past Hobbs and Suttcliffe.
Number 3 is clearly Bradman.
Number 4 Pollock, that's RG
Number 5 BC Lara
Number 6 Kallis
Number 7 Adam Gilchrist
Number 8 Shane Warne
Number 9 Malcolm Marshall
Number 10 Lohmann
Number 11 Joel Garner.
From the above I would probably have Bradman as captain.
I reckon that team at its prime would beaten pretty much any other
potential XI
CDK
Nirvanam
>
> BTW I can't be bothered doing the stat work. I will leave that to one
> of you Indian drones.
Hey you mother fucker what do you mean by "one of you Indian drones"?
And yes you cannot do even simple rational thinking and low level
science...you are incapable of it
Nirvanam
>
> What do hindu or buddist bells have to do with it?
Arre idiot, they are not hindu or biddhist bells...they are just
bells...chuth ka dakkan
> >> Bradman was roughly 50% better than his peers. Tendulkar is not even
> >> the clear best Test batsman of his era.
>
> > Bull fucking shit! Any of these modern bats would have averaged over
> > 100 against the opposition Bradman played.
>
> Unlikely to say the least.
Speaking from your bottom, innit? On what basis do u say unlikely? Or
is it just an irrational stupid rant?
> > Why do I say that....there
>
> > is enough data to make such an inference. Here are 3 batsman I can
> > immediately think of who have already done it - MoYo, Kallis, Sachin
> > - against much tougher minnows than Bradman played against.
>
> England was hardly a minnow.
I didnt say England was a minnow...I have always said Bradman against
1 regular team and 3 minnows.
> And I hardly think that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are a patch on the South
> Africa, India or West Indies of Bradmans time.
Any fucking objective reason for why you think so.
> For crying out loud Bangladesh is so minnows that it didn't evenn have a
> domestic first class competition when it was granted Test status.
> And Zimbabwe is such a joke that they have played bugger all Test
> cricket for a decade, and when they did Hayden smashed 380 against them,
> this was the only TEst team to have two centuries scored against them in
> the same session of a test, so please don't make yourself look like a
> bigger idiot than you already have by suggesting that either of those
> teams are as good as South Africa, India or West Indies of Bradman's time.
Oh at least u have given some subjective babble...cut the crap and
talking in the air. What evidence do you have that SA, WI, and India
between 1928 and 1948 were better compared to Zimbabwe since 1989 and
Bangladesh since 2000? What scientific evidence do you have to even
say that the English team between 1928 and 1948 could be comparable to
any of the regular Test nations since 1989?
> > If you claim it, then you mist produce the scientific proof for it, Go
> > on, present your proof.
>
> Simple Bradman was 50% better than any other batsman of his era.
>
> Tendulkar isn't even close to that on any metric wrt Test cricket.
Are you really so dumb? Can you tell me why are Bradman's peers and
Sachin's peers stature equal? What is the basis for that stupid
fucking unscientific and totally ridiculous assumption?
Snipped out the rest of the crap coz it all rests on this one totally
stupid stupid unintelligent unscientific and frankly bordering on "the
earth is flat" kinda belief based assumption. First provide some
scientific basis to even begin to equate the skill level of peers of
Bradman to the peers of Sachin.
> > Sorry, cut the 'always' part...maybe between 1930 and 2007. It's no
> > longer him, deal with it.
>
> It is still him.
It is your opinion...and I'll leave it there. Just you wait and watch
and cry in your bed when in as few years Sachin will be recognized as
the best ever batsman of the game, whether equally or better than
bradman.
Again for the rest of the "better" averages and all that crap. If you
have even a little piece of logical and scientific knowhow you will
realize that the skill level of your competition has a bearing on your
statistics. So first establish that the peers of Sachin and that of
Bradman are equal in stature. Until you can do that you don't have a
case to even begin with. So, take my advice, go and find some ways to
firstly compare the peers and then figure out if they are equal. If
they are equal then come back and provide your reasons for believing
so...else go back into your age old notions.
> > The doubts surfaced as early as 1996...sorry, deal with it.
>
> Only to those who are deluded.
O really? And how are you not deluded in believing that the peers of
bradman and sachin are of equal skill?
> Wisden didnt even have Tendulkar in the 5 cricketers of the century in
> 2000. There were 4 batsman on that list.
Nice try...this argument will stay only when you can show that
Wisden's methodology to arrive at that list was scientifically done
and can be verified to test its scientific truth value.
> >> Even during Bodyline his average was clearly the best amongst the
> >> Aussies and was second overall. and his aggregate was third overall,
> >> playing one test less than the two above him on aggregate.
>
> > har har har har har har har har har....one fast bowler....fucking one
> > fast bowler and the whole yellow brigade showed why they are yellow
> > and made a moral issue out of it.
>
> One?????????????????
>
> You are an imbecile.
O who were the others sweetheart..O those great bullet trains Bowes
and Voce.
> I can imagine how fast you would run if faced by the bowling England had
> and the tactics that were used.
I never said I am the best batsman, did I...so why the fuck are you
talking about my cricketing skills...and u don't even know anything
about my cricketing abilities in the first place to even suggest that.
O lemme guess u will come back with some meaningless bullshit retort
like "o I know ur types and this and that" - fucking idiot!
> England weren't so keen when they were on the recieving end of it a few
> years later and hence we now have a rule stating only two fieldsman
> behind square leg.
So? How is it even relevant to Bradman-Sachin comparison?
> > What would have happened if instead
>
> > of Larwood, Voce, and Bowes it was Marshall, Roberts, Holding or even
> > Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib...his average would have cut down by half a
> > further two times....so cut that crap.
>
> That is mere conjecture and quite unlikely. Larwood was seriously fast
> and would have been quite at home in the company you mentioned. Neither
> Voce or Bowes were trundlers either and also would have been at home in
> the company of the above bowlers.
Oh really? Any evidence for that? Or is it again that bullshit belief
that the cricket and skill of cricketers who played in the 1930s is
equal to that of 1990s and 2000's?
I'll snip the rest of the irrelevant crap. Again, first establish that
Sachin's and Bradman's peers are equal. And then we can proceed
further.
> >> I can't recall any team coming up with a strategy solely aimed at
> >> blunting Tendulkar and utilising it against the whole team.
>
> > That's ur problem....what was that English "masterstroke" to counter
> > Sachin...Giles, was it? What happened 1 100, 1 90 in 3 tests. Oh and
> > from your own land...that greatest of the leg spinners that played the
> > game...he thought he well stop sachin by going round the wicket and
> > bowl into the rough...the whole world wanted to see what would happen
> > next. What happened next, cdk? Your boy complained about some
> > nightmares or something like that?
Irrelevant argument snipped. The question was did anyone do anything
specifically aimed at Sachin...the answer is yes. Rest is irrelevant
and if u think they are serious arguments, like I said above...wait
u'll already know by now, so first establish what?
> > So now the new argument is not just "when it matters", it is "finals
> > that matter". Fair enough. At least he played one final that
> > mattered...what about Bradman?
>
> Well the only One Day cricket that matters is the WC the rest is dross.
> And the only match that really matters in a WC is the final, so when
> it matters is in WC finals.
In your mind maybe that ain't but it is the general opinion of ICC
which matters. So again u prove yourself to be a one-eyed chuth ka
dakkan...sorry one eyed vaginal lid
CDK
Not just mine Donny. A lot of people think that is a glaring hole in
Tendulkar's resume.
And not just Aussies.
>> there have been numerous of Tendulkars peers that have managed this
>> feat. Surely if Tendulkar is so great he could have managed it once in
>> a 177 game test career.
>>
>>> He scored 493 runs in 4 tests in Aus last time around. So?
>>
>> Last time I checked 493 is not above 500.
>
> Yes, and 4 is not equal to 5.
>
>>
>>> Dosen't make any difference to me as long as overall stats
>>> for a series is good. Next what? Tendulkar scored 0 runs in Aus
>>> batting
>>> left handed or he averages poorly on a wet day in Brisbane and so on&
>>> so forth??!!!
>>
>> 500 runs in a series is something most great batsman have achieved.
>
> Means nothing to me. 500 is not some blanket figure. If someone has
> got
> 499, will you hold this against him for not getting to the 500 figure?
> C'mon be mature.
So anyone who got to 99 should be credited with a century (shae Warne
would be pleased)? That is the absurdity of your arguement Donny Boy.
>> Bradman did it on 7 out of 11 series. Kallis has done it twice,
>> Tendulka has NEVER done it despite having the longest TEst career of the
>> lot.
>>
>>> Now tell me why Kallis averages just 45 in Aus, again?
>>
>> 45 is not to be sniffed at.
>
> 45<< 57 in Aus.
I think you will find it is actually 58.
still 45 is not to be sniffed at.
>> When I was a kid 45 was considered a damn good Test average.
>>
>> It has become easier to get a Test average of over 50 in the last 40
>> years, which is further reason to show that Bradmans feat is so stellar,
>> as this suggest that the bowling of the current era is not as effective
>> as the bowling in Bradman's era.
>>
>>>>> And im sure we will stick to Test cricket in our discussion? BTW,
>>>>> we are comparing them as batsmen aren't we?
>>
>>>> Depending on which part of the thread yes and no.
>>
>>> At least i am comparing them as batsmen and don't want meaningless
>>> digression to who would you pick in a XI first!!! But it looks like
>>> you
>>> want to do this digression purposely to find another shitty reason why
>>> Tendulkar could be any lesser than Kallis.
>>
>> As a cricketer there is no question Tendulkar is lesser than Kallis.
>
> What defines a cricketer? Ok let me make it easy for your head,
> Kynochie...
> How many times has Kallis figured(ie. done something of note) in a SA
> win
> in a ODI final?
Like Tendulkar I don't think he has been in a winning WC final.
the rest are dross.
but here we go
v Ind in 1996/97 scored 49 in a win
v WI in the ICC CT in 1998/99 scored 37 and took 5/30
v Eng in 1999/2000 scored 0 and took 2/25
v Pak in 1999/2000 scored 11 and took 2/57
He has played in one other winning final in ODI with RSA.
problem is SA hasn't won that many finals.
Tendulkar
v WI in 1993/94 28* and 1/24
v WI in 1994/95 66 and 1/35
v SL in 1994/95 0/10 and 41
v SA in 1996/97 67
v Aus in 1997/98 0/12 and 134
v Ken in 1998 0/4 and 100* (you can claim this one if you want but
really it was a three way tournament with the other teams as Bangladesh
and Kenya. I imagine the trophy was engraved before theh tournament)
v SL in 1998 128 and 0/13
v Zim in 1998/99 1/16 and 124*
v SL in 2009 138
So Tendulkar has done so nine times and Kallis 4.
Tendulkar is helped by the number of totally meaningless three way
tourneys that India playes compared to Kallis in addition to playing
almost 50% more games than Kallis. Wow we finally have a metric where
Tendulkar is almost 50% better thna Kallis, pity itis only games played.
> How many times has Kallis figured in a Test win of SA
> in Eng
> or Aus? Now do the same comparisons for Sachin.
Kallis has played in two wins in Australia
0/65 and 3/24 and 63 and 57 in one
1/55 and 2/57 and 26 and DNB in the other
Tendulkar has also played in two wins in Australia
0/3 and 2/36 and 1 and 37 in one
71 and 13 in the other.
Think Kallis wins that comp he took six wickets and scored 146 in three
digs compared to Tendulkar who took 2 wickets and scored 122 runs in
four digs, pretty hard for anyone to mount an argument in Tendulkar's
favour there.
Kallis has played in four wins in England
0 and 1/8 and 4/24 in one
6 and 41 and 3/38 and 6/54 in the second
1/24 and 2/50 and 4 in the third
3/31 and 1/59 and 64 and 5 in the fourth.
Tendulkar has played in two wins in England
193 in one
0/9 and 0/29 and 91 and 1 in the other
This one is a little harder to pick for a couple of reasons firstly
Kallis has played in twice as many winning games.
secondly Kallis did very well with the ball and only had two decent
knocks with the bat, wheras Tendulkar had one great knock and one pretty
good one.
anyhow 20 wickets for Kallis and 115 runs
and 0 wickets and 285 runs for Tendulkar.
Kallis was the best batsman in his team in one inninsg and the best
bowler twice. Tendulkar was the best batsman in an innings twice.
neither won a MOM so hard to pick.
Overall I would suggest that Kallis has it in the combined set of stats.
>> As a batsman it is line ball.
>
> Same was told of Ponting a year back. Now where is he, Colin dear?
Still in the top 25 and not retired yet so could improve.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 6:49 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 10:53 PM, Nirvanam wrote:> On Jan 18, 2:57 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2011 7:40 PM, Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Tendulkar's
>>>>> performance every time he tours Australia?
>>
>>>> I don't think Australia has really seen Tnedulkar at his best in Australia
>>
>>> so u mean to say that he is even greater than the aussies have seen
>>> him to be in their own country?
>>
>> His record would suggest so.
>
> Why? How exactly is his record suggesting that?
In 51 tons he must have hit a few pretty good ones (certainly haven't
seen most of them). The only really memorable on in Australia is his
241*. he has hit half his tons on the most spin friendly track in the
country so that is not really a surprise.
His performances in Brisbane have been interesting to say the least.
I think Tendulkar has been greater against Australia in his own country
and more of his centuries there are memorable than his ones in Australia.
> I actually didn't wanna argue about it coz u seemed to present it like
> an opinion which is fine but since u now bring in a reference to his
> record, so why not go the full way
>
> Snipped irrelevant
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 7:00 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 11:20 PM, Nirvanam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 5:17 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2011 10:56 PM, Nirvanam wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 4:24 pm, jzfredricks<jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 18, 9:20 pm, Nirvanam<viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> You and yous stupid fucking double standards rant...understand this, I
>>>>>>> have infinite standards, deal with it.
>>
>>>>>> Well, I guess some good is done - you've finally admitted it.
>>
>>>>> Good, so don't fucking come back with those rants again
>>
>>>> No need to, as you have already admitted to being grossly inconsistent
>>
>>>> CDK
>>
>>> O ya...fucking coward, u are a true chuth ka dakkan...don't even have
>>> the guts to bloody back up your claims
>>
>> Says he who makes wild assertions sets up straw men and admits to being
>> grossly inconsistent. And hasn't the guts to make his insults in the
>> language of the forum in which he makes them.
>
> abbe chuth ke dakkan....here lemme explain chuth means vagina, 'ke/ka'
> in this context means "of", dakkan means "lid" so chuth ka dakkan
> means "lid of the vagina"
Vaginas have lids in India!!!! interesting.
is that like a chastity belt thing or an abnormal growth?
>
>> If Nirvana is having you head embedded deeply in one's own rectum you
>> sir, have achieved Nirvana.
>
> O is that how YOU achieve nirvana?
I am an atheist. I think nirvana is a silly concept
CDK
Nirvanam
What an idiot...what has nirvana got to do with one's belief in god?
This is what happens when u don't have a clue about the concept and
still try to make stupid jokes on others
Nirvanam
First things first....so you haven't bothered to bring in any
objective evidence for your stupid rant about Sachin's record
suggesting whatever you said it was suggesting. Look, if you are
incapable of arguing or discussing with at least some rational or low
level scientific knowhow then you shouldn't bother to talk to us
Indian drones. Next time around before you respond to me or any other
Indian make sure you have assessed yourself to have at least a little
bit of intellectual capability.
> > Why? How exactly is his record suggesting that?
>
> In 51 tons he must have hit a few pretty good ones (certainly haven't
> seen most of them). The only really memorable on in Australia is his
> 241*. he has hit half his tons on the most spin friendly track in the
> country so that is not really a surprise.
You mean memorable to you, right? Otherwise you are trolling...he
confirmed his announcement (at manchester 90) to the world with his
148 and 119 which had this from a certain correspondent to be said..
Extract from another article
It was 1992. The 18-year-old was up on his toes, carving bowlers like
cuts of prime Australian beef to all parts of Perth's WACA ground. The
murmurs around the press box grew. The boy had ability, potential,
even the makings of a world-class batsman. John Woodcock could bear it
no longer. The cricket correspondent of the London Times, wearing his
70s well, stood up, put out his hands and called for silence.
"Gentlemen," he declared, "he is the best batsman I have seen in my
life." A pause later: "And unlike most of you, I have seen Bradman."
I am not sure about this but the writer had one thing wrong...I think
Woodcock said this at Sydney not Perth but am not sure about it.
> His performances in Brisbane have been interesting to say the least.
how many games did he play in brisbane again?
> I think Tendulkar has been greater against Australia in his own country
> and more of his centuries there are memorable than his ones in Australia.
I think your thinking is wrong and I think I will be able to make a
more than decent case for it...I mean with evidence (not babbles based
on assuming peers of 2 different eras are equal in skill levels)
CDK
>>> Ghanta!
>>
>> What do hindu or buddist bells have to do with it?
>
> Arre idiot, they are not hindu or biddhist bells...they are just
> bells...chuth ka dakkan
Want to translate Arre?
there are numerous references to Ghanta being Buddhist and Hindi bells.
>>>> Bradman was roughly 50% better than his peers. Tendulkar is not even
>>>> the clear best Test batsman of his era.
>>
>>> Bull fucking shit! Any of these modern bats would have averaged over
>>> 100 against the opposition Bradman played.
>>
>> Unlikely to say the least.
>
> Speaking from your bottom, innit? On what basis do u say unlikely? Or
> is it just an irrational stupid rant?
In the current era when batsman are finding it more easy to get a TEst
average of over 50 none of them have managed to finish a career with an
average in excess of 60 and none look likely to.
Also the laws as they stand now are more weighted towards bastman than
they were in Bradmans day. there is now a front foot no ball rule
rather than the back foot rule that applied in Bradman's say.
Pitches weren't covered in Bradman's day now they are everywhere that
TEst cricket is played.
Also in Bradmans day the protective equipment was not even close to what
it is today and that makes batting a far easier prospect now than then
not to mention the fact that bat technology is such that shots taht
wouldnt have made the fence (which was where the boundary was in
Bradman's day) now comfortably clear the ropes.
If you put a current batsman in the same conditions Bradman played under
they would be all at sea and unlikely to contemplate many of the shots
they do now with the safety of the body armour most bat with.
Put a guy like Bradman under today's conditions and I imagine he would
do as well if not better as the conditions now are far more in the
batsman's favour.
>
>> > Why do I say that....there
>>
>>> is enough data to make such an inference. Here are 3 batsman I can
>>> immediately think of who have already done it - MoYo, Kallis, Sachin
>>> - against much tougher minnows than Bradman played against.
>>
>> England was hardly a minnow.
>
> I didnt say England was a minnow...I have always said Bradman against
> 1 regular team and 3 minnows.
The other three were not really minnows in the class of Bangladesh or
Zimbabwe.
India in the first test of the 1947/48 series had scored 188 before
dismissing Australia for 107 and were 7/61 in the second innings before
a draw was the rsult on the sixth day (three days were lost to rain)
To the end of Bradman's career India played 15 tests and drew 5 of them.
South Africa had played 94 Tests and had won series against England and
New Zealand whilst winning 15 Tests.
West Indies had played 26 TEsts with 6 wins Including one against
Australia with Bradman.
Zimbabwe have won 8 tests ever and 4 of them were against fellow minnow
Bangladesh
Bangladesh are even more stellar having won three 2 v WI (against a very
much second string West Indies due to the original team pulling out over
contract disputes) and the other over Zimbabwe.
So as far as minnows go Tendulkar has had a far easier ride than Bradman.
>> And I hardly think that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are a patch on the South
>> Africa, India or West Indies of Bradmans time.
>
> Any fucking objective reason for why you think so.
Yep results.
South Africa has won a couple of Test Series including one against
England by that stage, and the West Indies beat Australia in Australia
in a Test match with Bradman playing.
>> For crying out loud Bangladesh is so minnows that it didn't evenn have a
>> domestic first class competition when it was granted Test status.
>
>> And Zimbabwe is such a joke that they have played bugger all Test
>> cricket for a decade, and when they did Hayden smashed 380 against them,
>> this was the only TEst team to have two centuries scored against them in
>> the same session of a test, so please don't make yourself look like a
>> bigger idiot than you already have by suggesting that either of those
>> teams are as good as South Africa, India or West Indies of Bradman's time.
>
> Oh at least u have given some subjective babble...cut the crap and
> talking in the air. What evidence do you have that SA, WI, and India
> between 1928 and 1948 were better compared to Zimbabwe since 1989 and
> Bangladesh since 2000?
Bangladesh has only beaten Zimbabwe and a second string (if you are
generous) West Indies. The West Indies team won a Test in Australia
against a team in which Bradman played.
Zimbabwe has beaten Pakistan twice (one wonders how much, how many
Pakistan players made from that) and India twice (hmmmm interesting) and
Bangladesh (hardly anything to write home about as Zim v Bang Test
matches are like a blind person and a deaf person arguing over who has
the greater disability)
> What scientific evidence do you have to even
> say that the English team between 1928 and 1948 could be comparable to
> any of the regular Test nations since 1989?
England had during that time period Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond (somewhat
of an all rounder) , Hutton, Paynter, Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Verity,
Hendren, Tate, Gubby Allen, Bedser and Laker.
>>> If you claim it, then you mist produce the scientific proof for it, Go
>>> on, present your proof.
>>
>> Simple Bradman was 50% better than any other batsman of his era.
>>
>> Tendulkar isn't even close to that on any metric wrt Test cricket.
>
> Are you really so dumb? Can you tell me why are Bradman's peers and
> Sachin's peers stature equal? What is the basis for that stupid
> fucking unscientific and totally ridiculous assumption?
Bradman's peers had amongst them batsmen with some of the top averages
of all time, and at a time when batting was harder than it is today
(laws and technology have made batting much easier and safer today)
Bradman was clearly the best batsman of his era, something that is not
the case for Tendulkar. The only metrics Tendulkar is ahead of his
peers on are number of centuries and runs scored, both of which are
largely measures of longevity.
Lara scored much bigger centuries than TEndulkar, there are a couple of
current batsmen with better averages than Tendulkar, there are quicker
scorers than Tendulkar there are good arguments for saying that Lara was
a better batsmand than Tendulkar, there are arguments for Kallis. So
there is not even a clear cut case that TEndulkar is the best of his own
era.
He is certainly not the stand out head shoulders and waist above the
rest of the batsman in his era. So to suggest he is the best of alltime
is ridiculous.
He is a great batsman in an era of great batsman who are of a similar
level to him. He has played the most tests that does not mean he is the
best batsman.
> Snipped out the rest of the crap coz it all rests on this one totally
> stupid stupid unintelligent unscientific and frankly bordering on "the
> earth is flat" kinda belief based assumption. First provide some
> scientific basis to even begin to equate the skill level of peers of
> Bradman to the peers of Sachin.
Bradman's peers had to deal with uncovered pitches with scant protective
equipment, and a no ball rule taht meant bowlers could be well in front
of the crease when they let the ball go.. Tendulkar and his peers have
the luxury of covered pitches and full body armour as well as bats that
are orders of magnitude better than they were in Bradman's day. Also it
is far easier to score runs in the current era as the boundaries are
ridiulously shorter than they were in Bradman's day. For example the
MCG has a rope a good 10 meters in from the fence that was the boundary
in Bradman's day, the straight boundaries at the Adelaide Oval have the
boundary ropes even further in from the fence, gone are the days when
you could run 5 for a well timed straight hit at the Adelaide Oval.
>
>>> Sorry, cut the 'always' part...maybe between 1930 and 2007. It's no
>>> longer him, deal with it.
>>
>> It is still him.
>
> It is your opinion...and I'll leave it there. Just you wait and watch
> and cry in your bed when in as few years Sachin will be recognized as
> the best ever batsman of the game, whether equally or better than
> bradman.
Best he get his skates on and improve that average and make sure he is
clearly better than his peers, something which is not clear at the
present time. He needs to hurry as he isn't getting any younger.
> Again for the rest of the "better" averages and all that crap. If you
> have even a little piece of logical and scientific knowhow you will
> realize that the skill level of your competition has a bearing on your
> statistics.
Yep and there was nothing wrong with the skill level in Bradman's time.
They did it in harder conditions with far less effective tools than the
current batsmen.
> So first establish that the peers of Sachin and that of
> Bradman are equal in stature.
I don't think they are. They have better equipment, shorter boundaries
more beneficial laws, covered pitches, and they still can't surpass the
averages of Bradman's era despite the fact it is easier for batsmen to
score career averages of 50+
> Until you can do that you don't have a
> case to even begin with.
There is no case for the current batsman being better than Bradman's era.
> So, take my advice, go and find some ways to
> firstly compare the peers and then figure out if they are equal. If
> they are equal then come back and provide your reasons for believing
> so...else go back into your age old notions.
I have made the case for them being superior.
>>> The doubts surfaced as early as 1996...sorry, deal with it.
>>
>> Only to those who are deluded.
>
> O really? And how are you not deluded in believing that the peers of
> bradman and sachin are of equal skill?
I don't I think they are superior.
>> Wisden didnt even have Tendulkar in the 5 cricketers of the century in
>> 2000. There were 4 batsman on that list.
>
> Nice try...this argument will stay only when you can show that
> Wisden's methodology to arrive at that list was scientifically done
> and can be verified to test its scientific truth value.
Wisden surveyed a 100 cricket experts and 100 of them voted for Bradman
as one of the 5.
So in 2000 100 cricket experts all agreed on one player to be part of
the 5 cricketers of the century.
Tendulkar didn't even get 25 votes as Viv was the fifth player in and he
only received 25 votes.
>>>> Even during Bodyline his average was clearly the best amongst the
>>>> Aussies and was second overall. and his aggregate was third overall,
>>>> playing one test less than the two above him on aggregate.
>>
>>> har har har har har har har har har....one fast bowler....fucking one
>>> fast bowler and the whole yellow brigade showed why they are yellow
>>> and made a moral issue out of it.
>>
>> One?????????????????
>>
>> You are an imbecile.
>
> O who were the others sweetheart..O those great bullet trains Bowes
> and Voce.
>
>> I can imagine how fast you would run if faced by the bowling England had
>> and the tactics that were used.
>
> I never said I am the best batsman, did I...so why the fuck are you
> talking about my cricketing skills...and u don't even know anything
> about my cricketing abilities in the first place to even suggest that.
I know you aren't that great.
> O lemme guess u will come back with some meaningless bullshit retort
> like "o I know ur types and this and that" - fucking idiot!
>
>> England weren't so keen when they were on the recieving end of it a few
>> years later and hence we now have a rule stating only two fieldsman
>> behind square leg.
>
> So? How is it even relevant to Bradman-Sachin comparison?
>
>> > What would have happened if instead
>>
>>> of Larwood, Voce, and Bowes it was Marshall, Roberts, Holding or even
>>> Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib...his average would have cut down by half a
>>> further two times....so cut that crap.
>>
>> That is mere conjecture and quite unlikely. Larwood was seriously fast
>> and would have been quite at home in the company you mentioned. Neither
>> Voce or Bowes were trundlers either and also would have been at home in
>> the company of the above bowlers.
>
> Oh really? Any evidence for that? Or is it again that bullshit belief
> that the cricket and skill of cricketers who played in the 1930s is
> equal to that of 1990s and 2000's?
the conditions and equipment under which the players of the 20's 30's
and 40's played were more difficult and less technologically adbvanced
than they are today so I would possit that their skill was better than
those mollycoddled players of today.
> I'll snip the rest of the irrelevant crap. Again, first establish that
> Sachin's and Bradman's peers are equal. And then we can proceed
> further.
They aren't equal Bradmans' were better.
<snipped Butthead's evasion>
>>> So now the new argument is not just "when it matters", it is "finals
>>> that matter". Fair enough. At least he played one final that
>>> mattered...what about Bradman?
>>
>> Well the only One Day cricket that matters is the WC the rest is dross.
>> And the only match that really matters in a WC is the final, so when
>> it matters is in WC finals.
>
> In your mind maybe that ain't but it is the general opinion of ICC
> which matters. So again u prove yourself to be a one-eyed chuth ka
> dakkan...sorry one eyed vaginal lid
Nice insult no really. You must have worked on that one for years. You
seem so proud of such a nonsense.
From that insult one can guess you are a virgin.
CDK
CDK
> On Jan 18, 6:30 pm, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>
>> BTW I can't be bothered doing the stat work. I will leave that to one
>> of you Indian drones.
>
> Hey you mother fucker what do you mean by "one of you Indian drones"?
I mean someone like you or Don. Indian Drones, that is what you are.
> And yes you cannot do even simple rational thinking and low level
> science...you are incapable of it.
Funny that coming from you.
I have university science and am currently doing my Masters.
CDK
Nirvanam
Sachin read this from a man who saw them both play...someone even your
CMJs hold in high esteem...and he said this in 2002. I dunno if
Woodcock is still alive, but if he is I wanna know what he thinks,
today. Most likely he will say, "idiots are those who believe Sachin
is lesser than Bradman"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article5365967.ece
Were H.M. Bateman alive, it would have all the makings of one of his
cartoons: "The man who said Tendulkar is as good a batsman as
Bradman." Drawn at one of cricket's shrines, the cartoon would have
depicted those hearing such blasphemy in a state of shock, eyeballs
popping out of their heads, their bodies contorted or prone. For all
that, it is how good I believe Sachin Tendulkar to be.
He is never going to dominate the game in the way that the Don did, or
W.G.; nor will he be as masterful at the wicket as Vivian Richards, as
sublime as Barry Richards, as majestic as Walter Hammond, as special
as Denis Compton, as sparkling as Garfield Sobers or as serene as
Frank Worrell. But with the exception of Vivian Richards, these all
played a more indulgent, less rigorous game than today's.
Bradman's overall Test average of 99.94 and first-class career average
of 95.14 make him, of course, a phenomenon, a marvel whom men, women
and children flocked to see, whether they were interested in cricket
or not. Tendulkar's corresponding figures today are 57.58 and 61.30.
The batsman with the next highest Test average after Bradman is the
South African Graeme Pollock (60.97); the man with the next highest
career average is the Indian Vijay Merchant (71.22), who hailed, like
Tendulkar and the indomitable Sunil Gavaskar, from Bombay, that great
nursery of natural batsmen. Pollock's Test career ended when he was
26, apartheid putting paid to it. For the benefit of those who never
saw him play, he resembled the Australian Adam Gilchrist, tall, left-
handed and, when his eye was in, a field-setter's nightmare.
Besides his playing record, Bradman's knowledge of the game, his
credentials as a captain, sagacity as an administrator and iconic
status as an Australian set him apart from any other sportsman of the
20th century. In their achievements, sportsmen have to be judged
against the context of their times, not least the principles that
apply and the appliances that are available.
By the age of 23 Bradman was a legend, just as Tiger Woods is today
for setting new frontiers as a golfer. Bradman's contemporary, not on
the green circle but the green baize, was Joe Davis, winner of the
World Snooker Championship every year from 1927 to 1940 and the finest
player there ever had been or surely ever could be. Yet today, thanks
largely to the influence of television, Davis would be no more than
first among many just as good.
The fact that Tendulkar could never make 309 in a day in a Test match,
as Bradman did at Headingley in 1930, is not because he is not good
enough, but because, in today's game, he would have something like 30
fewer overs in which to do so. Nor, in 1930, were England's tactics
focused on containment, as they would be now; nor were their bowlers
backed by the tigerish fielding that has become commonplace.
The corpulent Dick Tyldesley, wearing pumps and there, in 1930, to
bowl leg breaks for England, could no more have thrown himself
headlong at the boundary boards to turn a four into a three than he
could have deserted his native Lancashire to play for Yorkshire.
But the question is not whether cricket was different when Bradman
played it; it so obviously was. Nor is it whether it was more or less
difficult, or more or less fun then it is today. The question is
whether Bradman really was better than anyone else can ever be, a
nonpareil in fact. He wouldn't think so, certainly as far as talent is
concerned. He believed several of those he played with to be every bit
as gifted as he was, and that they lacked only (and what an "only"!)
his powers of concentration.
"I wish I could bat like that," he told Stan McCabe as he was taking
off his pads after making a dazzling 232 in the Trent Bridge Test of
1938. Today there is the same universal consensus that Tendulkar is
the best batsman in the game, which is some commendation when you
consider that, at 33, Brian Lara is in his prime and remember the
wonders he has performed.
Even more than Bradman, Tendulkar was a boy wonder. Bradman was 20
when he scored his first Test 100. Tendulkar scored his, against
England at Old Trafford in 1990, when he was 17. His next, against
Australia at Perth, when he was 18, on a pitch that makes greater
demands of a batsman's courage and capacity to survive than any other,
was an astounding innings. I was there, and wondered, even then, who
else in the world could have played it. Bradman's wife was to say that
Tendulkar reminded her, more than anyone else she had seen, of how the
Don himself had played.
Although Tendulkar is shorter than Bradman was, he is more thick set,
and the much heavier bat that he uses (a good half-pound heavier)
gives greater weight to his strokes. Against that, the helmet that
Tendulkar always wears and Bradman never did (though he said he might
have done in the Bodyline series had one been available) must, to some
extent, be an impediment. Bradman's smile, as he doffed his cap and
raised his bat to the crowd on reaching another hundred, was as much
an image of an age as is the helmet that even the finest and more
fearless batsmen now wear and which has so changed, in more senses
than one, the face of the game.
Today Tendulkar plays his 97th Test match. Ten days ago he played his
295th one-day international. However fit, dedicated and sturdy he is,
the wear and tear of this, the never-endingness of it, and the
expectations he carries are, I am afraid, bound to take their toll.
Bradman played 52 Test matches for Australia and no one-day
internationals in a career that lasted 16 years. Tendulkar plays for
India, on average, every ten days. If he goes on until he is 40, as
Bradman did, he may well finish with something in excess of 40,000
runs and 120 hundreds in Tests and one-day internationals, a record
that could prove as unassailable as Bradman's own.
The more Tendulkar plays against the same opposition, the more, in
theory, they should be able to work out how to rein him in. In India
last winter England were reduced to getting their slow left-armer,
Ashley Giles, to bowl from over the wicket into the rough, a foot or
more outside Tendulkar's leg stump, leaving him either to risk playing
the sweep, made hazardous by the uncertain bounce of the ball, to pad
the ball away or to be tempted into something wildly exotic. The whole
episode was an act of submission by England, less violent but no less
abject than the bodyline to which they resorted all those years ago to
keep Bradman in check. It will be the greatest pity if Giles adopts
the same cynical ploy in this forthcoming series: the umpires have it
in their power to prevent it.
They said of Bobby Jones - "the immortal Bobby" - that there would
never be another golfer like him. Then came Jack Nicklaus, and they
said the same of him. Now there is Woods. That there will never be
another Jones is as true as when it was first said, because in this
day and age nobody ever could win "the mighty Quadrilateral" - the
Open and Amateur Championships of both Britain and America in the same
year as he did. In just the same way there never will be another
Bradman. But that doesn't mean to say that Tendulkar is not as good as
Bradman, any more than that Woods is not as good as Jones.
This is intended not as a comparison between Bradman and Tendulkar but
as a celebration of a wonderful little Indian player - insatiable,
resourceful, unflinching and orderly. Bradman, I believe, would have
been proud to play the modern game as well as Tendulkar does, just as
Tendulkar, like all of us, stands in awe of Bradman.
Nirvanam
O really then how the fuck are you even making such an argument about
Bradman being better than Sachin. Let's see, mr university masters in
science, can you please present a neat argument backed with data which
can be verified?
CDK
I'll spell it out really simply for you because you are clearly
intellectually handicapped.
Bradman was able to bat at a level 50% higher than his peers. He was
able to do this in a more difficult environment than that enjoyed by
current players. He had to bat on uncovered pitches with protective
equipment that is flimsy and virtually non-existant by today's
standards. When Bradman played batsman had to hot balls to the fence to
score a boundary not just to a rope that is often well in excess of 10
meters inside the fence. In Bradman's day there was no super fast
aircraft to get you fromk one venue to the next you took either a train
or a ship to get from venue to venue or country to country. In
Bradman's day they didn't have physio, massage therapists,
psychologists, coaches, trainers or any of the plethora that the
pampered players of today have. And special mention for the bats, the
bats of today are like a Ferrari comapred to a VW Bug of teh bats of
Bradman's era. With today's bats even ferrets can hit boundaries.
Now let's see your feeble attempt to prove that the palyers of today are
better than the players of Bradman's era.
CDK
CDK
Actually you present a case for him being the best. You chose not to
include his figures and said he was an automatic choice. you then did a
comparison on a6 players and came out with Sachin just shading Lara and
Lara shading Gavaskar.
I don't believe for one moement you did not do the numbers for Bradman,
as you did them for a couple of his peers, so I can only assume that he
was too far ahead of the pack and you didn't want to publish.
> it is done in a very easily verifiable and testable way. So, lemme see
> your rebuttal for that...and you know what a rebuttal is right? no
> talking in the air...come back with verifiable data to prove that my
> analysis is wrong
Show me the data on Bradman. You have not made any sort of case that
Tendulkar is better than Bradman you have chosen to not include
Bradman's statistical analysis and had him as the ONLY automatic choice.
CDK
CDK
I can understand you wanting me to ignore that you had Bradman as an
AUTOMATIC Choice for a 'Virtuoso' batsman and that Sachin had to be
analysed like anyone of the rest. This is as clear an admission that
you think Bradman is the best as could possibly be.
If it isn't produce the Bradman figures.
CDK
Nirvanam
arre is like an irritated/frustrated expression...like 'sigh' or 'aww
man!'
> there are numerous references to Ghanta being Buddhist and Hindi bells.
u stupid stupid stupid dickhead, u do not know the language and you
are arguing with a guy who speaks the language day in day out about
what a very common word means in that language...ok present those
references that say ghantas are buddhist and hindu...remember buddhist
and hindu dont forget that don't some back and say that the reference
says they are ALSO used by buddhists and hindus. Stupid stupid idiot!
> >>>> Bradman was roughly 50% better than his peers. Tendulkar is not even
> >>>> the clear best Test batsman of his era.
>
> >>> Bull fucking shit! Any of these modern bats would have averaged over
> >>> 100 against the opposition Bradman played.
>
> >> Unlikely to say the least.
>
> > Speaking from your bottom, innit? On what basis do u say unlikely? Or
> > is it just an irrational stupid rant?
>
> In the current era when batsman are finding it more easy to get a TEst
> average of over 50 none of them have managed to finish a career with an
> average in excess of 60 and none look likely to.
How the fuck is it relevant to equating bradman;s peers with sachin's
peers,
> Also the laws as they stand now are more weighted towards bastman than
> they were in Bradmans day. there is now a front foot no ball rule
> rather than the back foot rule that applied in Bradman's say.
O really? And yet you were ready to use stats to compare two batsmen
from diff eras knowing fully well that the underlying process has
changed. Wow! What an a class idiot...I am not finding one like you in
my country
> Pitches weren't covered in Bradman's day now they are everywhere that
> TEst cricket is played.
So? what is the impact of that? How does that make bradman;s peers
equal in skill to sachin's peers?
> Also in Bradmans day the protective equipment was not even close to what
> it is today and that makes batting a far easier prospect now than then
> not to mention the fact that bat technology is such that shots taht
> wouldnt have made the fence (which was where the boundary was in
> Bradman's day) now comfortably clear the ropes.
crap bullshit... How does that make bradman;s peers equal in skill to
sachin's peers?
fine I am not reading the rest of the babble...snipped the rest of the
crap.
> The other three were not really minnows in the class of Bangladesh or
> Zimbabwe.
> India in the first test of the 1947/48 series had scored 188 before
> dismissing Australia for 107 and were 7/61 in the second innings before
> a draw was the rsult on the sixth day (three days were lost to rain)
err Zimbabwe came close to defeating India in its very first Test in
1992
> To the end of Bradman's career India played 15 tests and drew 5 of them.
By the time Sachin played Zimbabwe again at their home in 1997 or 98
they had already won a few games not just drawn
> South Africa had played 94 Tests and had won series against England and
> New Zealand whilst winning 15 Tests.
Alright this I can understand has some weight...in fact in my virtuoso
analysis itself I consider Saffers turning to regular test team status
by 1920s.
> West Indies had played 26 TEsts with 6 wins Including one against
> Australia with Bradman.
So? Zim defeated India in a series...they beat Pak IN Pak in a series
by the time it was 1999
> Zimbabwe have won 8 tests ever and 4 of them were against fellow minnow
> Bangladesh
But a win is a win and that too an away win and a series win and that
too against a regular Test team like Pakistan which was one of the top
3 teams when Zim beat them
> Bangladesh are even more stellar having won three 2 v WI (against a very
> much second string West Indies due to the original team pulling out over
> contract disputes) and the other over Zimbabwe.
So fucking what? How the fuck do you kow that the best XI decided to
even leave their shores and go to convictland and play against
australia? How the fuck can u even consider arguing that south africa
had played their best 11 when they turned human only in 1991? How the
fuck do you know that the Indians who toured Australia in 1947-48 were
the best Indian cricketers available? Cut that crap.
> So as far as minnows go Tendulkar has had a far easier ride than Bradman.
Bull fucking crap!
> >> And I hardly think that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are a patch on the South
> >> Africa, India or West Indies of Bradmans time.
>
> > Any fucking objective reason for why you think so.
>
> Yep results.
> South Africa has won a couple of Test Series including one against
> England by that stage, and the West Indies beat Australia in Australia
> in a Test match with Bradman playing.
O really? Read above your comparative results and come back and tell
me how is it any different from what Zim and Ban
Snipping this portion since I have already mentioned above...pls tell
how it is different.
>
> > What scientific evidence do you have to even
> > say that the English team between 1928 and 1948 could be comparable to
> > any of the regular Test nations since 1989?
>
> England had during that time period Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond (somewhat
> of an all rounder) , Hutton, Paynter, Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Verity,
> Hendren, Tate, Gubby Allen, Bedser and Laker.
Are u really, I mean seriously, doing masters in science, cdk? I mean
seriously? You idiot, how does throwing 10 names answer that question.
Are their skill levels equal...o sorry u are from that school of
thought who believe skill levels have remained constant thru out
cricket.
> > Are you really so dumb? Can you tell me why are Bradman's peers and
> > Sachin's peers stature equal? What is the basis for that stupid
> > fucking unscientific and totally ridiculous assumption?
Snipping this rant too...again u stupid idiot, by just saying they
were great, they were great, they were great, they were great how many
ever times, it does not, read again DOES NOT mean they are equally
skilled and competitive as sachin's peers.
> > Snipped out the rest of the crap coz it all rests on this one totally
> > stupid stupid unintelligent unscientific and frankly bordering on "the
> > earth is flat" kinda belief based assumption. First provide some
> > scientific basis to even begin to equate the skill level of peers of
> > Bradman to the peers of Sachin.
>
> Bradman's peers had to deal with uncovered pitches with scant protective
> equipment, and a no ball rule taht meant bowlers could be well in front
> of the crease when they let the ball go.. Tendulkar and his peers have
> the luxury of covered pitches and full body armour as well as bats that
> are orders of magnitude better than they were in Bradman's day. Also it
> is far easier to score runs in the current era as the boundaries are
> ridiulously shorter than they were in Bradman's day. For example the
> MCG has a rope a good 10 meters in from the fence that was the boundary
> in Bradman's day, the straight boundaries at the Adelaide Oval have the
> boundary ropes even further in from the fence, gone are the days when
> you could run 5 for a well timed straight hit at the Adelaide Oval.
Can you pls tell me what are the lengths of the boundaries that Sachin
Tendulkar has played on in his career...all grounds hanh. Also all the
grounds that Bradman played on...don't forget that...o by the way do
not forget to provide verifiable references. And can u also tell me
how is a ground size of say 75 yards and that of say 70 yards so
heavily influencing a batsman's ability to make runs?
> > Again for the rest of the "better" averages and all that crap. If you
> > have even a little piece of logical and scientific knowhow you will
> > realize that the skill level of your competition has a bearing on your
> > statistics.
>
> Yep and there was nothing wrong with the skill level in Bradman's time.
Where is the fucking evidence for equating the two generations?
> They did it in harder conditions with far less effective tools than the
> current batsmen.
Where is the fucking evidence to say they played under harder
conditions? Let's take one player for example bradman...can you
present me verifiable data on how many days did Bradman bat on a pitch
whose nature would have been significantly different than the same
pitch when it is covered. Also at what times of the day did Bradman
bat...and more importantly whom did he face and how many runs did he
score while batting in those circumstances.
> > So first establish that the peers of Sachin and that of
> > Bradman are equal in stature.
>
> I don't think they are. They have better equipment, shorter boundaries
> more beneficial laws, covered pitches, and they still can't surpass the
> averages of Bradman's era despite the fact it is easier for batsmen to
> score career averages of 50+
FAIL! You fail your test of using scientific methods and objective
data for arguing your hypothesis. You have demonstrated a lack of
basic scientific process knowhow. And all the arguments you have
presented are jumbled up hear-say with no evidence to back them.
Provide VERIFIABLE data not just verifiable conjecture...do u
understand the difference?
CDK
> You stupid buggers who continue to believe Bradman is better than
> Sachin read this from a man who saw them both play...someone even your
> CMJs hold in high esteem.
News old Chap CMJ is a POM.
Where does he say Tendulkar is better than Bradman?
One does not usually stand in awe of one's inferiors.
CDK