Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[Cevno]

I didn't back-track, I was replying to your point about "validity". What makes an opinion valid and what makes one right are two different things.

If you read properly, I even said: even in the strict sense of simple maths, you can't be wrong about Bradman > Tendulkar. You could be wrong about many other things, but you won't be wrong about Bradman.

You said in simple terms that "just a grasp of simple maths" is enough to know Bradman > Tendulkar.

You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

Which you are saying is now not the case ,right?

 

[Cevno]

Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen, of why we shouldn't feel bad about mocking people who genuinely think Tendulkar > Bradman.

And what's your opinion about mocking Justing Bieber fans?

 

[Ikki]

Where did you?

In fact this post implies the opposite-

How am I backtracking? Teja said it is because people do not know enough about cricketing history that they may rate Bradman less. I said you wouldn't have to know much at all bar their averages to vote Bradman ahead of Tendulkar.

WTF does that have to do with Sangakkara or Lohmann? You could be wrong about many other things using that method but you would be right about this comparison. It's the hardest comparison you can screw up. There is a reason I mentioned Trumper because many fans won't know of him or know why his average is lower than modern day averages and in that sense it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a fan may not know much about Trumper.

Which cricket fan worth their salt is not going to know about Bradman?

And the rest of your post is based on your own opinion,really.
Why you cannot be wrong about Bradman is really based on your own subjective point of view ,and you cannot really go superimposing it on everyone and simple maths does not really prove anything.

Haha, of course, the "subjective view". Well that is the point of this thread; we want to know who "subjectively" thinks Tendulkar is better .

BTW, where is your vote? Curiously, a lot of people have a lot to say in this thread but don't vote.

 

[Cevno]

Haha, of course, the "subjective view". Well that is the point of this thread; we want to know who "subjectively" thinks Tendulkar is better .

That post was after i made you backtrack and was after my post to which you replied -.

Are you feeling Ok? I just said you could apply prima facie averages and be wrong.

 

[Jono]

How is it curious?

Maybe some don't want to vote in a thread designed with ill-intentions.

I'm on the record plenty of times saying Bradman's achievements are clearly superior to Tendulkar's. But I won't vote on this poll.

 

[Ikki]

You said in simple terms that "just a grasp of simple maths" is enough to know Bradman > Tendulkar.

You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

Which you are saying is now not the case ,right?

No, it's not enough to know that Bradman is better. It is enough to be right about the comparison. That's probably where you were confused on this point - it's why I tried to address your claims of "validity".

 

[Ikki]

That post was after i made you backtrack and was after my post to which you replied -.

No, it was made before. The backtracking remark was about the "simple maths" argument. Before that I had only replied "Do you read what is written before you reply". It was the very first post I wrote after you made your Lohmann-Warne comparison. How could I back-track from a point you hadn't made yet? You are seriously embarrassing yourself now.

How is it curious?

Maybe some don't want to vote in a thread designed with ill-intentions.

I'm on the record plenty of times saying Bradman's achievements are clearly superior to Tendulkar's. But I won't vote on this poll.

Yeh, sure. We're going to use the results to blackmail you in the future.

 

[Cevno]

BTW, where is your vote? Curiously, a lot of people have a lot to say in this thread but don't vote.

I'd rather not compare 2 players across generations but if i have to then i have said previously too and even voted for Bradman many times in the rating exercises .

At this time if i have to really have to vote ,i would vote for Bradman by a slighter margin than most on here as i have said on several times.

But i would rather not vote at this time because Sachin is still playing and still has not retired while Bradman has 70 years ago.
And also because of the points Jono has made.

 

[Furball]

 

[Ikki]

I'd rather not compare 2 players across generations but if i have to then i have said previously too and even voted for Bradman many times in the rating exercises .

At this time if i have to really have to vote ,i would vote for Bradman by a slighter margin than most on here as i have said on several times.

But i would rather not vote at this time because Sachin is still playing and still has not retired while Bradman has 70 years ago.
And also because of the points Jono has made.

Yeah, I believe that.

 

[Cevno]

No, it was made before. Your backtracking remark was about the "simple maths" argument. Before that I had only replied "Do you read what is written before you reply". It was the very first post I wrote after you made your Lohmann-Warne comparison. How could I back-track from a point you hadn't made yet? You are seriously embarrassing yourself now.
.

Bloody hell!!!

That post was clearly after my post highlighting the fact that it was not a case of "simple maths" as you put it.

It is not that hard to see the time of the post.Geez.

 

[Jono]

Yeh, sure. We're going to use the results to blackmail you in the future.

Mate, just have a look at the way you asked people to vote:

No, not that I think it's even close as Tendulkar isn't even the gleam in Bradman's shoe IMO...but I want to know who stands where so we can see who still lives on planet Earth.

FTR, I will say ahead of time if I feel there are voters who post very infrequently or are new members - essentially a possible candidate to try to ruin this poll - I will disregard, personally. I am not interested in a bunch of fanboys creating accounts or using socks to vote for their hero.

I wanna see who and how many stand where... I want to know exactly who in this forum actually thinks Tendulkar is better so I can know who to take seriously in the future and who not to.

You made a thread and basically said "hi, choose who you think is better, by the way if you pick Sachin you are a ****ing idiot and I am going to let you know that every time you post from now on."

Classy stuff man.

 

[Ikki]

Bloody hell!!!

That post was clearly after my post highlighting the fact that it was not a case of "simple maths" as you put it.

It is not that hard to see the time of the post.Geez.

When you asked "Where did you?"; you highlighted "Are you feeling Ok? I just said you could apply prima facie averages and be wrong. "

And I had, in the post right before that one. Right after you made the George Lohmann comparison. Your very first post has nothing to do with prima-facie averages. In fact, it is an average where you applied the not-as-wk for Sangakarra - so you couldn't have been referring to that when highlighting my sentence and asking "Where did you?".

Essentially, you're wrong...again.

 

[Cevno]

And the best thing is that it is basically based on his opinion of who is better and nobody has a right to disagree with him or he will go on about how everyone knows about it ,or how everyone should etc....
And cook up statements which then he can't apply to other things ,he backtracks like -

It is just a case of grasp of simple maths.

Also this statement was the most ignorant ever -

if you don't know about Bradman you barely know anything about the game.

And the irony is that he accuses others of being fanboys and believing the media hype ,without looking at how the over hype of 50 + years has affected him.

 

[Himannv]

Lacking a third option here.

Mangoes > both

 

[Jono]

Definitely needed to be a mangoes reference somewhere!

 

[Cevno]

When you asked "Where did you?"; you highlighted "Are you feeling Ok? I just said you could apply prima facie averages and be wrong. "

And I had, in the post right before that one. Right after you made the George Lohmann comparison. Your very first post has nothing to do with prima-facie averages. In fact, it is an average where you applied the not-as-wk for Sangakarra - so you couldn't have been referring to that when highlighting my sentence and asking "Where did you?".

Essentially, you're wrong...again.

Where was i wrong before?

My point was that post was after you begun backtracking when i mentioned Sangakkara and Lohmann as examples,not before when your point was "it is just a case of simple maths."

No matter how many posts of how many posts you make to sidetrack or how much attacks you make that does not change the fact.

You have basically been making the same ignorant point about how you think that everyone should know about Bradman and how everyone should rate him the best because you do so and it happens in australia again and again and nothing else.
And how who does not is stupid,ignorant and not a cricket fan based on your fanboyism.

But the fact is that holding that view is narrow minded and ignorant in itself and saying it again and again does not make it true.

 

[Ikki]

Mate, just have a look at the way you asked people to vote:

You made a thread and basically said "hi, choose who you think is better, by the way if you pick Sachin you are a ****ing idiot and I am going to let you know that every time you post from now on."

Classy stuff man.

I asked people to vote seriously and I let people know that I think there is no valid argument yet that I've heard that has persuaded me that the comparison is even legitimate. I even invited people to write their reasons and I'd read it. I was clear where I stood, so don't start crocodile tears yet. And what is your problem with the second quote? I asked people not to ruin the poll by voting with new or existing socks (fake accounts) just to help their favourite batsman.

And, really, I said I'd hassle people who post who voted for Tendulkar? If anything I implied the opposite: that I'd ignore them.

Where was i wrong before?

My point was that post was after you begun backtracking when i mentioned Sangakkara and Lohmann as examples,not before when your point was "it is just a case of simple maths."

No matter how many posts of how many posts you make to sidetrack or how much attacks you make that does not change the fact.

Sangakkara is a post about simple maths...not prima-facie averages (a filtered stat is not a prima facie average), which is what you highlighted asking me about where I had mentioned it before. To show how else you were off the mark: the person we were talking about was someone who didn't know much about cricket and would just glance at averages...and you go, as an example, filter out games where Sangakarra was a wicketkeeper...as if that relates at all to what a noob cricket fan would do. Let's move on buddy.

 

[Jono]

And, really, I said I'd hassle people who post who voted for Tendulkar? If anything I implied the opposite: that I'd ignore them.

Have to admit, that made me laugh.

 

[Furball]