Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[C_C]

You said that Lara debuted later than he did and mentioned he wasn't a regular till after 3-4 years. That's hitting on Ponting range mate.

He didnt become a regular 3-4 years after tendulkar. Ponting debuted at the end of 95. 3-4 years from the end of 1989 doesnt make it 95. Really...get a goddamn calculator if this basic level of math is too challenging for you.

he end of 89. And Lara was playing one day internationals before and tests before 93 - in 92.

Being a wannabe-aussie, i thought you'd atleast know English well.
I said this : Lara did not become a regular in both forms of the game 3-4 years AFTER Tendulkar. Since he wasn't a regular in tests till 1993, he did NOT become a regular in BOTH formats for 4 years after Tendulkar. Is this still too much mental arithmetic for you ??

Yeah, Tendulkar has actually done as little or as much of that as Lara.

Which is why Tendulkar is slotted in the same category as Lara.

And again, as this thread pertains to Hayden, he's already smashed the #1 ODI for the fastest WC hundred

The #1 which is cr@p by empirical standards.

At maximum Sachin was pressured for 2 years. He wasn't 16 for 5 years then suddenly turned 21. It still doesn't add up to his form from 28+. You can cry as loud as you like.

So basically you are claiming that your body is 'ready' by the time you are 18- that is patently false as the body is STILL growing till 21.

You obviously have not played football, and definitely not any level higher than playing in the park with your cousins.

Obviously. Neither has Pele obviously- afterall, you know more about Pele's peak than Pele himself!

I said he was good between 16 - 30.

LIAR!

You said this :


And Pele's prime was from 16- at least 30.

Ie, you said his prime was till atleast 30, when Pele himself says his prime was before 27.

Kewell and Gerrard are no namers?

No-namers compared to Tendulkar,yes.

Ronaldo scored only once 40 goals in a season.

And in 3-4 other years, he missed 40 goals by 1 or 2 goals.

Fact is, you don't know much, you keep rambling on, you keep making non-sense posts

I hear jealousy, chump.

ou keep quoting Gretsky as if he is an authority or he backs up what you're saying (in which he actually doesn't).

The greatest hockey player the world has ever seen and a sportsman equal to, if not greater than Bradman in his sport is just about as much authority as one needs when commenting on how to judge greatness. Definitely worth 1000 times your words, chump. And if you think the quote i provided from Gretsky isnt saying the same thing i am, you need to register yourself for ESL- i say ESL because English as first language would be too demanding for you.

I'd love to know all these sportsmen that burned out like Tendulkar, you say it as if it's a common thing.

Find me a sportsman who debuted at sixteen in a game that is played for the WHOLE DAY, became the mainstay by the time he was 18 and had to carry the hopes of a billion people. Then come back, chump.

 

[marc71178]

Kewell and Gerrard are no namers? They got awards for the very thing we're discussing here (peaking early). Try the Premier league's young player of the year award .

Henry is about 30 years old, you think he has dipped in form? You know squat about football.

Actually from the comments you've made, you've shown that you know squat about football.

 

[C_C]

Nah, it's cool. I think you were just lying to yourself. Remember, 1 year, not 2.

1 year from debut to debut, 3-4 years from becomming regular.

Oh and another thing- if you are not up for the task to school me in math ( really- you are not up for it- really not), then don't make comments you can't back up, mate.
I called your math skills a disgrace and i am willing to put that to test. When you are ready to do the same, then you can question mine. Till then, its nothing more than hot air from you.


The bottomline is, Tendulkar has more miles on his body than ANY cricketer around today.
Add in the fact that he was exposed at a far more tender age, when his body was not ready, its pretty simple why he's carrying so many injuries and why injuries have chipped into his form.
That is the opinion of professional medical experts- which count a damn sight more than wannabe bootlickers like yourself.

 

[C_C]

Actually from the comments you've made, you've shown that you know squat about football.

Owned.

I would love to see a wannabe-Aussie who's more aussie than aussie trying to tell Marc about footy.

 

[Ikki]

He didnt become a regular 3-4 years after tendulkar. Ponting debuted at the end of 95. 3-4 years from the end of 1989 doesnt make it 95. Really...get a goddamn calculator if this basic level of math is too challenging for you.

Ok, let me break it down. Lara debuted at 90, you say he wasn't a regular till after. He was clearly playing in 92. 3-4 years from 92 is around 96 right? Even if it were less, this is a moot point, I was giving you a roundabout figure.

Being a wannabe-aussie, i thought you'd atleast know English well.
I said this : Lara did not become a regular in both forms of the game 3-4 years AFTER Tendulkar. Since he wasn't a regular in tests till 1993, he did NOT become a regular in BOTH formats for 4 years after Tendulkar. Is this still too much mental arithmetic for you ??

I posted links, go look at them. Stop making yourself look stupid.

We mention tests, you talk ODIs into it. Which I showed Lara played in 91. He also played a test match against Australia in 91 and regularly against Australia in 92. What more do you want to prove you wrong?

Which is why Tendulkar is slotted in the same category as Lara.

Yes, apart from Lara having a career with more longevity (success-wise).

The #1 which is cr@p by empirical standards.

Your empirical standards I'm guessing. For interest's sake, what about Ponting's knock in the WC final?

So basically you are claiming that your body is 'ready' by the time you are 18- that is patently false as the body is STILL growing till 21.

No, it's basically nowhere near what I am saying. But a talented 18 year old and in very rare cases 16 year olds - like Pele and Sachin - have been able to succeed. Even withstanding this, it means Sachin's career started dipping at after 12-13 years after he debuted. Whilst Lara is still going strong after 17 years. Two years at the start is not going to take 4-5 years off at the end, especially at age 28.

Obviously. Neither has Pele obviously- afterall, you know more about Pele's peak than Pele himself!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU ARE HILARIOUS DUDE!

You substitute your own opinion for a footballing/hockey great. When did Pele say 45 minutes of the time you don't run? HAHAHAHAHA, man please, I am seriously not laughing with you here.

LIAR!

You said this :


And Pele's prime was from 16- at least 30.

Ie, you said his prime was till atleast 30, when Pele himself says his prime was before 27.

LMAO, and idiocy knows no bounds right? He was certainly in his prime till he was 30. Look at WC 1970, if you haven't already. He was probably at his peak at age 27, but his prime is more than just 1 year you silly little guy.

No-namers compared to Tendulkar,yes.

LOL, Gerrard is a no-namer? Is Giggs? I mentioned him too. Is Ronaldo? I mentioned him also. As I said, split it and cut it so that you can muster something up. For real, it doesn't matter, it still makes you look silly.

And in 3-4 other years, he missed 40 goals by 1 or 2 goals.

Er, no he didn't. We're talking about league goals btw, otherwise he's been scoring more than just 20 goals (I was talking purely LEAGUE then ). You should stop talking about something you don't know about, really. Stick to cricket, at least your generalisations have a bit more character to them. These arguments just sound like 2 minute google searches.

I hear jealousy, chump.

I kinda don't have to be jealous when you can't add, you can't cite the proper facts or statistics. 'Pity' is more the feeling I have at the moment.

The greatest hockey player the world has ever seen and a sportsman equal to, if not greater than Bradman in his sport is just about as much authority as one needs when commenting on how to judge greatness. Definitely worth 1000 times your words, chump.

Yeah, remember they were HIS words, not yours.

Find me a sportsman who debuted at sixteen in a game that is played for the WHOLE DAY, became the mainstay by the time he was 18 and had to carry the hopes of a billion people. Then come back, chump.

Well only two countries have ever had a billion people .

As I said, as a rule for sports: debuting at age 18 isn't rare, and their peak is at age 28. You've done nothing but cry like a little baby and lie when you've had to face that fact.

 

[Ikki]

Actually from the comments you've made, you've shown that you know squat about football.

Sure, like which comments? I'd love you to clarify. So, if nothing, C_C learns a few things here.

 

[gunner]

and hes also a bargain in the fantasy teams

 

[C_C]

Ok, let me break it down. Lara debuted at 90, you say he wasn't a regular till after. He was clearly playing in 92. 3-4 years from 92 is around 96 right? Even if it were less, this is a moot point, I was giving you a roundabout figure.

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'regular' ?

Lara played 3 tests in 92. That is NOT regular.

We mention tests, you talk ODIs into it

Because we are talking about Mileage. It is stupid to talk about Tests and pretend ODIs dont exist when talking about mileage.

Which I showed Lara played in 91. He also played a test match against Australia in 91 and regularly against Australia in 92.

Yes. Playing one series in 92 makes him a regular for the entire year of 92. Go figure!

Two years at the start is not going to take 4-5 years off at the end, especially at age 28.

Two years at the start, when the start happens to be before your body is ready is gonna take 4-5 years and more off the end. Again, medical opinion, not mine.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU ARE HILARIOUS DUDE!

You said Pele's peak lasted till he was 30 atleast. Pele himself said his peak was before 27. You = zero, Pele/me = 1.

He was certainly in his prime till he was 30.

So again, you know more about Pele's prime than Pele himself. Apparently then Pele was smoking some real good dope when he said his peak was before 27.

Gerrard is a no-namer? Is Giggs?

yes.

Pity' is more the feeling I have at the moment.

Ah. So you are not just a fool, but a fool who thinks he is smart. Ie, the worst kind of fool.

Yeah, remember they were HIS words, not yours

Yes, i never claimed his words for mine or that i know more about Gretsky's peak than Gretsky. I quoted him to support my argument that greatness is measured against best of the best, not bashing substandard opposition.

debuting at age 18 isn't rare, and their peak is at age 28.

Debuting at 16 and becomming a mainstay of the team by the time you are 18 *IS* rare.
And almost all of those who debut around 16 peak a lot earlier. Mustaq Mohammed was another example- debuted at 15 or so, peaked in his mid 20s, was not very good after that.

You've done nothing but cry like a little baby and lie when you've had to face that fact.

The only liar in here, is you.
You claimed that Pele's peak lasted till atleast 30. When i informed you that Pele HIMSELF considered his peak to be till he was 27, you tried to bluff your way past and say 'well i said he was good till he was 30'.

Not just a liar but someone who's a total zero in the field of logic. Comming from an engineer (me), this doesnt get more damning.

Nomatter whichever way you want to spin it to try and make Ponting seem less overrated, the fact of the matter is, Tendulkar has more mileage on his body than ANY other cricketer around today AND he was exposed when his body was still developing - ie, much more cumulative effect on the body than 17 years from debut when you debut at the age of 21. But hey- you know more than Pele about Pele's peak, you question Gretsky's credibility in judging greatness for a player and you obviously know more than doctors. Its a pity that with so much knowledge, you still can't do basic arithmetic.

 

[C_C]

Sure, like which comments? I'd love you to clarify. So, if nothing, C_C learns a few things here.

Concern yourself about your own learning- which obviously has a long way to go if mathematics were the criteria.
I don't need a self-hater to be worried about my education.

 

[adharcric]

and hes also a bargain in the fantasy teams

Haha WTF?

 

[Fusion]

The biggest insult-fest ever without any warnings or thread closure?

I'm kinda enjoying it for some reason though.

 

[Ikki]

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'regular' ?

Lara played 3 tests in 92. That is NOT regular..

The West Indies only played 3 tests in 92.

http://www1.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992/TEST_RECORD_COUNTRY_1992

And in the 92/93 season he played all the tests including the 5 test series against Australia. He also played in all the tests against Pakistan.

http://www1.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1992-93/PAK_IN_WI/PAK_IN_WI_1992-93_TEST_AVS.html

I don't know, are you okay? Do you like looking stupid?

Because we are talking about Mileage. It is stupid to talk about Tests and pretend ODIs dont exist when talking about mileage.

Ok then, Lara was in the team in 91 then since he was playing ODI then.

Yes. Playing one series in 92 makes him a regular for the entire year of 92. Go figure!

Er, no ****. On the same token Sachin played 1 series at the end of 89, it doesn't make him a regular for the entire year of 89 does it?

Two years at the start, when the start happens to be before your body is ready is gonna take 4-5 years and more off the end. Again, medical opinion, not mine.

Of couse it's not your opinion, just like Gretzky's and Pele's opinions aren't yours.

You said Pele's peak lasted till he was 30 atleast. Pele himself said his peak was before 27. You = zero, Pele/me = 1.

Sure he did, would you mind sourcing me to that? Because last time Pele was at my crib he said the opposite to that.

So again, you know more about Pele's prime than Pele himself. Apparently then Pele was smoking some real good dope when he said his peak was before 27.

I know more about Pele than you, and more about of lots of things - that's all.

yes.

As I said, you know squat about football.

Ah. So you are not just a fool, but a fool who thinks he is smart. Ie, the worst kind of fool.

Oh lord, hahahaha, the irony!

Yes, i never claimed his words for mine or that i know more about Gretsky's peak than Gretsky. I quoted him to support my argument that greatness is measured against best of the best, not bashing substandard opposition.

You quoted him trying to twist an all-time great's words into your non-sense.

Debuting at 16 and becomming a mainstay of the team by the time you are 18 *IS* rare.
And almost all of those who debut around 16 peak a lot earlier. Mustaq Mohammed was another example- debuted at 15 or so, peaked in his mid 20s, was not very good after that.


The only liar in here, is you.
You claimed that Pele's peak lasted till atleast 30. When i informed you that Pele HIMSELF considered his peak to be till he was 27, you tried to bluff your way past and say 'well i said he was good till he was 30'.

Not just a liar but someone who's a total zero in the field of logic. Comming from an engineer (me), this doesnt get more damning.

Dude, your bull**** stinks. I know Pele continued to be in his prime till at LEAST 30 - and so does the rest of the world that doesn't believe your non-sense (MVP of the WC is one reason why we might think that). "Well, I heard Pele say..."...Hahaha, hearsay non-sense. Congrats, you've officially kicked yourself in the teeth. BTW, when you finally link me to where he said that I'd be appreciative. Until then, you're a shameful liar with no leg to stand on.

 

[social]

What a nonsense argument!

Tendulkar is a batsman for god's sake!

There are 100s more physically taxing professions in the world than his (why, for example, have McGrath, Warne, Walsh, etc etc etc etc been able to perform at a higher level for longer with infinitely more miles on the clock?)

Tendulkar's problem is mental - it's simply not possible to be as focussed when youre a multi-millionaire father that holds many of the game's records already as you were when you were 20.

Have a look at his game

Do injuries prevent him from getting back and across?

Did an injury cause him to leave a gaping hole between bat and pad when bowled by Fernando?

Do injuries cause him to hit more balls in the air than he did 10 years ago?

Of course not!

 

[open365]

^that's even more ridiculous.

 

[C_C]

The West Indies only played 3 tests in 92.

Okay. So Lara becomes a regular 3 years after Tendulkar's debut- with 4 years on in age. Doesnt change what i am saying one bit- that Lara not only has less mileage on his body than Tendulkar ( became regular later, has played far less international matches, doesnt bowl, doesnt chase as much leather as Tendulkar) he also wasn't exposed before his body had finished developing.

Ok then, Lara was in the team in 91 then since he was playing ODI then.

And ?!? He didnt become a REGULAR in BOTH forms 3 years after Tendulkar did!

Of couse it's not your opinion, just like Gretzky's and Pele's opinions aren't yours.

Aye. I tend to defer to better authorities in the respective field than myself, particularly when the authorities happen to be *the* authorities in their field.

Sure he did, would you mind sourcing me to that?

Go spend 50 bucks and buy his book. Then read it.

I know more about Pele than you, and more about of lots of things - that's all.

Sure. Keep repeating that 5 times a day and you might just start believing in it.

As I said, you know squat about football.

Says someone who doesnt even know a basic thing like playing footy for 90 min is less taxing than chasing leather all day in the field.

You quoted him trying to twist an all-time great's words into your non-sense.

Nope. He said the exact same thing i said - greatness is measured against the best of the best, not substandard opposition. You need English lessons if you think i am twisting his words.

I know Pele continued to be in his prime till at LEAST 30 - and so does the rest of the world that doesn't believe your non-sense (MVP of the WC is one reason why we might think that).

You know diddly squat. When Pele says his peak was before 27, who the eff are you to tell him otherwise ? Punk ! I don't care if Pele has twenty MVPs till the age of 50. If he says his peak was before the age of 27, then his peak was before the age of 27- aint anything a punk like you can do about it.

"Well, I heard Pele say..."...Hahaha, hearsay non-sense.

Can you stop lying yet ? I never said i heard Pele say that- i said Pele said that and he actually said that IN HIS FUGGING BOOK !

BTW, when you finally link me to where he said that I'd be appreciative.

To my knowledge, Pele's book is not published online. Not that i know anyone else's book to be published online when those people happen to be great sportsmen. You dont see Botham's book online, neither do you see Sunny Days online. If you want to learn more about Pele, his childhood, his peak, etc, i suggest you spend the moolah like i did and buy his book.

Until then, you're a shameful liar with no leg to stand on.

YOU are the liar here- when i informed you that Pele's peak was till 27, you tried to lie your way out by saying 'well i said Pele was good till he was 30'. Then when i confronted you, you stuck to the original story in your typical and predictably idiotic bravado. Then you go make up and LIE that i am basing this on hearsay- when actually, all this is IN PELE's BOOK.
Scum like yourself seems to stop at nothing.

 

[C_C]

(why, for example, have McGrath, Warne, Walsh, etc etc etc etc been able to perform at a higher level for longer with infinitely more miles on the clock?)

Walsh was a physical freak but neither Warne, nor McGrath have performed 'for longer' than Tendulkar did. And none of them have as many miles on them as Tendulkar has except Walsh. Warne's had a break in the middle from cricket ( to recover from his injuries- a luxury Tendulkar didnt have) and McGrath's entire peak period is about the same as Tendulkar's- despite McGrath having played a lot less than Tendulkar.

Do injuries prevent him from getting back and across?

Lets see how good you are at getting back and across if your back is so screwed up that you can never touch your toes again and you are playing with a permanently shattered big toe.

Did an injury cause him to leave a gaping hole between bat and pad when bowled by Fernando?

Do injuries cause him to hit more balls in the air than he did 10 years ago?

Yes. His timing is off- timing is to do with reflexes. Which happen to vanish when you tend to get repeatedly injured.

 

[social]

Walsh was a physical freak but neither Warne, nor McGrath have performed 'for longer' than Tendulkar did.



Lets see how good you are at getting back and across if your back is so screwed up that you can never touch your toes again and you are playing with a permanently shattered big toe.



Yes. His timing is off- timing is to do with reflexes. Which happen to vanish when you tend to get repeatedly injured.

All rubbish excuses

His back is so "bad" that he can bowl leggies and medium pace with no apparent discomfort

His toe is so "bad" that he runs around the field like a teenager

His reflexes are so "bad" that he can still avoid the world's quickest bowlers with ease

Warne and McGrath both played well over 100 tests which puts massively more strain on your body than anything Tendulkar has put himself through

 

[Ikki]

Okay. So Lara becomes a regular 3 years after Tendulkar's debut- with 4 years on in age. Doesnt change what i am saying one bit- that Lara not only has less mileage on his body than Tendulkar ( became regular later, has played far less international matches, doesnt bowl, doesnt chase as much leather as Tendulkar) he also wasn't exposed before his body had finished developing.

Uh, yes it does make a difference because Lara had played tests in 91 as well. Tendulkar wasn't a regular on debut, now was he? So the difference is about 18 months apart and about 5-8 test matches. How are you even going to START arguing that THIS little period has made all the difference between the two. You're clutching straws here, sunshine.

And ?!? He didnt become a REGULAR in BOTH forms 3 years after Tendulkar did!

You keep repeating the same non-sense. I've already given you stats to show when/how Lara played. You seem to like making yourself look clumsy. In 91 Tendulkar only played 2 test matches. You're arguing how taxing THAT is? You're having a laugh.

Aye. I tend to defer to better authorities in the respective field than myself, particularly when the authorities happen to be *the* authorities in their field.

LOL, sure, considering you can't add or cite the proper stats or quotes, I think I'll have to question whether these sources exist or not.

Go spend 50 bucks and buy his book. Then read it.

Aww, couldn't do it eh? See, it's not hard to pick out your lies - they're usually your main argument.

Sure. Keep repeating that 5 times a day and you might just start believing in it.

Yeah and in football you do nothing for half time time (45 mins) . Or wait, Ronaldo is supposed to score 40 goals a year to be in 'prime' form. Hmm, that counts out about every other person in Primera Division history. Maybe none of them had a prime!

Says someone who doesnt even know a basic thing like playing footy for 90 min is less taxing than chasing leather all day in the field.

LOL, you're that lost eh? I've played both sports for schools and clubs. So, I think I know a tad bit about what I am talking about here. But of course, you don't need to be fit to play football. I wish my bloody coach knew that and stopped making us run about 15kms every training session as a wind down.

Nope. He said the exact same thing i said - greatness is measured against the best of the best, not substandard opposition. You need English lessons if you think i am twisting his words.

No he said something, you crapped all over it with your non-sense. No one needs English lessons, just a bit of common sense can discern that.

You know diddly squat. When Pele says his peak was before 27, who the eff are you to tell him otherwise ? Punk !

Haha, and you still can't prove that he said that at all. Hmm. You're stupid. Not only for suggesting such an outrageous claim, but by actually putting those words into Pele's mouth.

Can you stop lying yet ? I never said i heard Pele say that- i said Pele said that and he actually said that IN HIS FUGGING BOOK !

Oh, yeh NOW we find out he said it in his book. Sure, he did.

To my knowledge, Pele's book is not published online. Not that i know anyone else's book to be published online when those people happen to be great sportsmen. You dont see Botham's book online, neither do you see Sunny Days online. If you want to learn more about Pele, his childhood, his peak, etc, i suggest you spend the moolah like i did and buy his book.

To my knowledge you're full of it.

YOU are the liar here- when i informed you that Pele's peak was till 27, you tried to lie your way out by saying 'well i said Pele was good till he was 30'. Then when i confronted you, you stuck to the original story in your typical and predictably idiotic bravado. Then you go make up and LIE that i am basing this on hearsay- when actually, all this is IN PELE's BOOK.
Scum like yourself seems to stop at nothing.

You can't even prove it, whilst I can bring 100 examples to refute such reasoning.

Pele was the man of the tournament in 1970, he took Brazil at age 30 to the WC championship and humiliated Italy 4-1 in the final. If he was, in fact, at his peak at 27, then he would have done a bit better in 1966. But of course, if you knew anything about football, you'd know that Brazil didn't win there. Hence, you're transparent and you're a liar.

 

[C_C]

His back is so "bad" that he can bowl leggies and medium pace with no apparent discomfort

Yes coz leggies and gentle medium pacers really bend their backs when bowling, eh ?

His toe is so "bad" that he runs around the field like a teenager

He has said himself that his left big toe is permanently shattered and it won't heal because he never gave it the rest it required. So Tendulkar = liar ?

His reflexes are so "bad" that he can still avoid the world's quickest bowlers with ease

If you were a credible batsman of any sort at any level, you'd know that bouncers are picked up easier than any other delivery because every bowler who bowls the bouncer has a slightly different action for the bouncer than their other deliveries.
Not to mention, Bouncers are rare these days anyways.

Warne and McGrath both played well over 100 tests which puts massively more strain on your body than anything Tendulkar has put himself through

Warne didnt even play 200 ODIs- Tendulkar is nearing 400. McGrath barely over 200 too.
Both have about the same tests as Tendulkar to their resume.
Neither were they exposed to the rigours of international cricket till their body was fully developed. Not to mention the fact that Aussies have a clear and categoric advantage in medical technology available to their players.

 

[social]

Yes coz leggies and gentle medium pacers really bend their backs when bowling, eh ?




He has said himself that his left big toe is permanently shattered and it won't heal because he never gave it the rest it required. So Tendulkar = liar ?



If you were a credible batsman of any sort at any level, you'd know that bouncers are picked up easier than any other delivery because every bowler who bowls the bouncer has a slightly different action for the bouncer than their other deliveries.
Not to mention, Bouncers are rare these days anyways.



Warne didnt even play 200 ODIs- Tendulkar is nearing 400. McGrath barely over 200 too.
Both have about the same tests as Tendulkar to their resume.
Neither were they exposed to the rigours of international cricket till their body was fully developed.

C_C

youre obviously just making excuses for your hero as I cant believe that you know so little about cricket, technique and the demands certain activities place on your body