I wouldn't select players on the basis of Stats alone. I just couldn't care less about their stats. The only reasons I am talking about the stats over here is because of your distortions of statistics to suit your argument so that you present him as the greates ever.
Yes Desired. If you were unbiased, I would have taken your word on 'Logical' but you are not unbiased on any discussion related to Warne hence I do not accept your 'logical' filter.
Ok, compare him as a ODI. As a batsmen, is he closer to his peers than Warne is as a bowler? Not really.
Great player, SL legend...but not likely to get into an all-time XI.
Yes, it is my opinion and I am biased (as we all are) but a great factual and reasonable argument can be made to make Warne the best ODI bowler as well. Wasim Akram who, really for reasons of longevity, is one of the premier bowlers is only 2 average points superior as well a slightly better economy.
Thankfully no one is saying that because Warne stopped playing ODI much earlier. Warne doesn't play Zimbabwe in ODI post 2001. You wouldn't think this needs mentioning.Anyone claiming Zimbabwe are a ODI-standard team in 2008 needs to tread very carefully when trying to denigrate someone else's credibility.
No one is arguing on stats alone. I don't have to with Warne. I can point to his AMAZING performances in the semis...especially against S.Africa where he made the best side of the day look clueless and totally reversed the match in his team's favour. But for those that are arguing 1.62 runs means something (i.e. you) I am giving you your own medicine back at you. Now if 1-2 runs is not negligible, then what is 11 runs difference? If you are intent on arguing based on that, then you should also consider the second difference. I, however, just say they were equally good in prelims but Warne excelled much more in all finals, including the grand final. This is a much bigger argument than merely stats. It's to show what a big game player Warne was. When even a giant like Australia was grovelling it needed someone like Warne to carry that giant over the line.
Show me something I said that was biased and affected the logic I am bringing forth. Show me where I have had inconsistencies. These are just red-herrings that show you have very little shame.
No, Warne didn't play Zimbabwe post-2001. You just have some bizarre inability to use the basic grammatical importance called "past tense" and speak of near enough everything in present tense, even if it happened 100 years ago. So hence when you say "Zimbabwe is a ODI-standard team" you mean they are in 2008 (regardless of what you're trying to mean), which is a laughable claim.
I should have said "was" to clear the confusion, my mistake. But I was talking within the context of Warne's career which is really what I meant when I was saying "is". I should have written "in the period where Warne played them, Zimbabwe is a ODI standard side". Or is that a mistake too?
Hallelujah. Someone else has actually been paying attention to what is being written. You are basically asking the same question I have been repeatedly asking.
No, They do not. Stats alone do not qualify you for 'Certain Class' . For Example - Take the case of Subhash Gupte, If we depended on Stats alone he would be one of the worst spinners to play for India, yet he is considered as one of India's finest and there are many who will pick him as the best.
They do, if you are dependent on Stats alone to compare two players. In the other thread you brought up stats to show how Ponting was as good as or comparable to Tendulkar. I showed, Statistically Tendulkar was ahead in most categories, 1 run or 1000 runs dont matter. If you are going to be pedantic about Stats, distort it, then so be it, I going to show it at your face every time you distort it.
Why is it nonsense ? Because it doesn't make Warne better ? Your objection seem to arise when you are losing the statistics argument. If you were winning this argument, you would be quoting it until the other guy left the debate. So, here I give you, a taste of your own medicine.
Duh,
Read the whole thread, Taking a country out of stats at one instance, not taking it out in another. Picking Grand Finals in one instance, Picking ALL Finals in another.
Speak for yourself. I am not biased. I dont even consider Murali as my favorite bowler, the only reason I am in this debate is because of your inconsistency.
You are biased in Warne's favor, Whether it is a nationalistic bias or not is none of my concern. Kapil Vs. Lillee was an example not an accusation towards you. Learn to read.
If your intention isn't to make Warne look good, then why post so much of BS stats, which are mere distortions of facts based on your illogical assumptions.
Test Arena Vs. ODI Arena ? What nonsense is that ?
No, you should have written "in the period where Warne played them, Zimbabwe was a ODI standard side". And you should do similar in everything which happened, rather than is happening.I should have said "was" to clear the confusion, my mistake. But I was talking within the context of Warne's career which is really what I meant when I was saying "is". I should have written "in the period where Warne played them, Zimbabwe is a ODI standard side". Or is that a mistake too?
Kazo and I both on agreement on one thing - Warne is the greatest. What we differ is Kazo tries to prove that statistically, whereas I show that It is not statistically true.
Because I couldn't care less about Stats.
How foolish.
You should look at who I am constantly arguing with: Richard, Migara and sometimes SS.
Who were his peers ? Inzi, Sanath, Tendulkar, Waugh (both). Actually no-one. He started his career in 1984 and played until 2004, 20 years. So how do you want to compare him, statistically or by any other means. Please specify.
But that's what you do, ignore eveything else and talk about Grand Finals of World cup until the other person gives up. Migara just picked you apart this time on this logic.
That's what I have been saying - Stats are the only way you know to measure the quality of a batsman. And no Warne's record isn't amongst the better bowlers of ODI cricket. Check your facts.
Neither does Warne.
That's the typical BS you come up with, Murali gets more wickets because he bowls more, Wasim has more wickets because he bowled more and blah blah. You talk of 'Only 2' as if it is that easy to achieve that only 2.
The difference between Wasim-Warne's average is same as the difference between Warne-Agarkar average. I am not implying that they are same, I am implying that stats alone are not suffice to determine the value/greatness of a player, because if we depended on stats alone, there isn't much difference in Agarkar and Warne.
It's past midnight, I'll try to remember when I am ranting.
Er, no I didn't do that. Show me where I ignore everything else. Thanks. How many times did I go "overall, they are close, but this sets them apart". I am frankly getting tired of repeating it.
Huh? No, you were the one who said Gilchrist's 37 average is just 'average'. I said it was very impressive in the context of how he would go about getting those runs (i.e. dismantling the bowling line-ups and creating time for his teammates). The only reason I got into the difference between them was for your doodling on 1 run and 1 ball.
I am not saying it is easy. But they are not like-bowlers. One is a spinner, the other is a fast-bowler for example. One opens, the other doesn't. There are these kinds of factors that make 2 runs difference negligible. The only stat related argument I bring is that Warne's career record overall is in the circumference of the greats but where he excelled was when the pressure was on and there is no higher pressure cooker than WC finals - the ones that Warne was involved in.
But you're wrong. What has Wasim achieved that Warne didn't? That is the point. The point isn't that they are 2 runs apart. The point is if you are going to argue that 2 runs makes the difference between 2 players then you are fooling yourself. So you can't compare Agarkar with Warne because whether he is a further 2 runs off the pace is irrelevant because he has not achieved or done the same things as Warne.
I dont understand how you can use that argument in Warne's favour because he failed in one of the two situations you point. His success rate is 50 % and failure rate is 50 %.
There goes your double standards - The 2 run diff. in Wasim and Warne doesn't mean much, but it means a lot in case of Warne-Agarkar.
Whether one played well in 1/2 or 1/3 is not a problem for what I am arguing. The number of innings played in a WC grand final are too small to get a definitive answer as to how who would perform - this is one of the reasons why despite Ponting's finals record I still hold Tendulkar ahead.
It depends which post you are quoting. His record in all WC finals is much better than his prelims record. Even if it was the same, would that be bad? The difference is that it is essentially harder to get the same figure in a final than the prelims because a) you are facing inferior opposition and/or b) you aren't under as much pressure.
WOW, again, you are misunderstanding what I said. Should I repost what I said?