Tendulkar, Kapil, Gavaskar, Sehwag named in Greatest All Time Test XI

[Nelson]

Any evidence to support that claim? Another Umar Gul interview type evidence coming up?

Well, there's a way to look at it, its a logic and a commen sense. For example, do you expect tendulkar to open the bowling and take wickets like akram?

Similarly, would you expect akhtar to open the bat and score like sehwag?

I don't think the evidences are required here, you just apply a logic here.

 

[53fd]

Afridi even thought the cricket ball was a cherry from Peshawar and bit it. Don't mention him

He's still better than your batsmen & bowlers

Anything else, now that you know there exists a thing called Strike Rate in cricket ?

There is no such thing as 'strike rate' in cricket. Cricket has been played the same way before 'strike rate' was introduced in the 70s. So you fail again.

 

[53fd]

Well, there's a way to look at it, its a logic and a commen sense. For example, do you expect tendulkar to open the bowling and take wickets like akram?

Again, it's not fixed for everyone, it changes from person to person. Sure, why not? He could take wickets like him if he was given the opportunity.

 

[Bhairava]

He's still better than your batsmen & bowlers

Ok. I leave it to collective wisdom of the Pakistanis

There is no such thing as 'strike rate' in cricket. Cricket has been played the same way before 'strike rate' was introduced in the 70s. So you fail again.

There exists.If it does not exist in Cricket then where does it exist ? Soccer ? Next what statistics like Total runs scored, total wickets don't exist in cricket ?

 

[53fd]

There exists. Next what statistics like Total runs scored, total wickets don't exist in cricket ?

Again, it's not a part of cricket

 

[Bhairava]

Again, it's not fixed for everyone, it changes from person to person. Sure, why not? He could take wickets like him if he was given the opportunity.

Hey you are Pakistani and you are saying that the wicket taking abilities of Wasim are only as good as Sachin.

Even I don't approve of that. Wasim is one of the best bowlers cricket has ever seen.

No need to denigrate players just to prove points.

Again, it's not a part of cricket

Then its a part of ? Soccer or Rugby perhaps.

Don't act the court jester.

 

[53fd]

Ok. I leave it to collective wisdom of the Pakistanis



There exists.If it does not exist in Cricket then where does it exist ? Soccer ? Next what statistics like Total runs scored, total wickets don't exist in cricket ?

There are 11 wickets in every team, that is part of the game. Strike rate is not. Strike rate is a statistic made to understand how the game itself works, but it's not a part of the game itself. How many times do I have to repeat myself???

 

[Bhairava]

There are 11 wickets in every team, that is part of the game. Strike rate is not. Strike rate is a statistic made to understand how the game itself works, but it's not a part of the game itself. How many times do I have to repeat myself???

You are an comedy piece of epic proportions.

There are only 10 wickets in a team of 11 players.



And statistic or rule, anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of cricket will know Strike rate exists for bowlers which you did not. Ask your country men about it if you don't believe me.

 

[Nelson]

Again, it's not fixed for everyone, it changes from person to person. Sure, why not? He could take wickets like him if he was given the opportunity.

He is bowling, but is not as successful as akram. That was the point Gaunder is trying to make.

You do it sometimes, but you're not a specialist.

 

[Bhairava]

He is bowling, but is not as successful as akram. That was the point Gaunder is trying to make.

You do it sometimes, but you're not a specialist.

Leave it bro'.

He is just clutching at straws after being exposed.

Look at his 11 wickets/team

 

[53fd]

Then its a part of ? Soccer or Rugby perhaps.

Don't act the court jester.

It's not a part of cricket, because it doesn't impact how the game is played, & it isn't a rule of cricket either. It is just a statistic created by someone to describe & understand 'cricketing events'. It is a standard created to understand things, that's all. It's not part of cricket.

For example (non-cricketing example): you want to measure the poverty levels in a country. You get the poverty data for the country. Then you choose an standard poverty line. The poverty data itself is part of the poverty levels, but the standard poverty line you selected is not part of the poverty levels of the country. The standard poverty line is just a standard you use to explain the poverty levels, just like the 'strike rate' is also a standard to explain cricketing events, without actually being part of those things.

 

[Mabs]

It does matter how much you influence the bolwers or intimidate them because the rest of the batsmen find it easy revolving around you.

This is a fact told by every opener (Gambhir,Warner,Tendulkar etc) who has opened with Sehwag in the other end. He simply makes the task of batting easy for you.

You need atleast one or two such hara-kiri batsmen in your side to fire you up.

Look the Don,Tendulkar,Gavaskar,Lara are all "solid", quintessential "test" players who patiently build up their innings and Sehwag is a perfect complement to them who goes after the bowlers.

Statistics always dont show everything.

I agree but does all of this fit into the equation when a batsman is being judged against his performance ? The simple answer is NO. The psychological affect is of secondary, in fact of no value at all when ranking a batsman or a bowler for that matter. Watching a fast bowler run through a long run up, steaming in, also has an adverse effect on the batsmen but does that figure into his ranking ? Again the simple answer is NO. The only thing that counts is your stats and that's it.

 

[53fd]

You can choose whatever poverty line you want to assess poverty levels (& people choose different standards), just like you can use whatever statistic you want in cricket to assess cricketing events.

 

[Meengla]

I would take Kapil as the best from the three. If memory serves me right I remember his maiden innings in Pakistan in late 70's where he turned a dull test match to a live one with some hard hitting batting. That was memorable.
Gavasker? The guy who scored 36 runs in 60 overs in a World Cup ODI, because of some grudge or point-making? Gavasker who once refused to leave the crease when given out (I think that was in Australia) and was threatening to kill the entire match until the team manager had to intervene and made him accept the decision. Greats are not just great because of skills.

PS. I am an 'old timer' who lost touch with most of cricket for a long time. I am sure Tendulkar deserves his reputation but I have not seen him much because I lost touch (except for a few India-Pak matches)

 

[Nelson]

He's still better than your batsmen & bowlers

I don't think that's true... how is Afridi better than Tendulkar?

In fact, how is anyone better than Tendulkar?