sachin or dravid: who in test matches delivered more in crisis?

[sumantra]

I'm just stunned that someone could put so much effort into something that, lets be honest, in the grand scheme of things is so damn unimportant it isn't even funny. And not only that, but the exercise itself basically corrodes every aspect of cricket that makes it enjoyable in the first place. And then finally - the icing on the cake really - is the fact that it seems to be perhaps the most elaborate exercise in trying to justify ones own biases of all time.[/QUOTE

yes, can't agree with u more...in fact, there is no reason to have any discussions anymore, people can think of even dismissing sites like these forever, whenever u are curious about someone, just put him through the formula, and u will have the results, no arguments, no talks, no debates, no emotion, no memory, nothing human is needed anymore...it has all been decided by the sheer power of numbers... all we can do is to wait for his annual, more improved results!!!

it has one lesson in it though, and one serious mental case...

 

[sumantra]

Deus, i don't agree with you on one point though...u said it's not even funny...it is funny, it is actually very funny, but not as an analysis on cricket or cricketers but as a case study

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Aww Sumantra, if you really wanted to measure sachin and dravid then you would have made an attempt to.

Let's get this straight - your opinion is just as good as mine, as good as any one else's. Opinion-wise we all are entitled to have one how much ever ridiculous it may sound. It's only when we claim that our opinion is "right" (i.e. based on facts) that we need to provide some logical basis to back it up. You are free to opine Rahul is better than Sachin just like I am free to opine the opposite. But if you open a new thread to claim something and invite discussion on it then at least provide your reasons or basis to back your opinion.

You don't need to ridicule me or my efforts. You don't agree with me that is fine but just don't sit and ridicule me just coz you don't agree with me. Don't belittle my efforts...it isn't necessary - belittling me or my efforts or my opinions will not automatically make you or your opinions better. Understand that. There is no need to get defensive and start to go off on a tangent about my efforts.

I have asked you to define what you propose is a criteria to measure them and you are avoiding it altogether. You don't become a lesser person if you admit you do not want to discuss this any further but using ridicule and in-the-air arguments to make fun of someone else to get out of the discussion only makes you look a little less graceful.

Edit - In fact I don't understand why you are getting personal at all. Was it necessary? You could've just said that "I dont agree with your opinion Vijay and I dont intend to justify it to you"...the matter ends there. What's all this nonsense about case in mental study and all?

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

...i think his rating went like this 1) sachin, 2) bradman, then lara ponting and dravid...thats it? it's all proven? scientifically calculated,

Correction - It isn't a rating and I have mentioned it very very clearly in the document and about the project itself. It is not a rating/ranking. The project is to see if there are clusters. Sachin and Bradman fall in one cluster. Barrington, Border, Chappell, Dravid, Gavaskar, Hobbs, Hutton, Inzi, Kalli,s Lara, Miandad, Pawning, Richards, Sanga, Sehwag, Sobers, and Waugh fall in one cluster. Hammond falls in another cluster.

no reason to argue about anything anymore !!!no talks needed, it's all science...HOW CAN ONE EVER MATHMATICALLY JUDGE TENDULKAR AND HAMMOND? (GOODNESS)...so many things have changed in between...

I never said anything like that. Those are all your misinterpretations.

 

[sumantra]

Correction - It isn't a rating and I have mentioned it very very clearly in the document and about the project itself. It is not a rating/ranking. The project is to see if there are clusters. Sachin and Bradman fall in one cluster. Barrington, Border, Chappell, Dravid, Gavaskar, Hobbs, Hutton, Inzi, Kalli,s Lara, Miandad, Pawning, Richards, Sanga, Sehwag, Sobers, and Waugh fall in one cluster. Hammond falls in another cluster.

I never said anything like that. Those are all your misinterpretations.

1) i think what Mr. Deus said regarding your analysis is more fitting than anything...that one can go to that extent to justify his or her own biases is remarkable...

2) i have no intention of saying anything about your efforts...in fact, the effort u have put in is outstanding...i only wish u had put up your energy and effort into something that is more meaningful in life...there is always time u know, hope u find a purpose soon...

3) your analysis went like this...tendulkar is the best player of all time, now let's prove it...(if anyone here is wondering what we are talking about here, please go through the research work that Mr. Sharma has done on that subject called tendulkar, there are two links posted on his earliest comment in this thread, hope u r able to
finish it...i did)

4) and yes, i have no intention of talking about this subject or what u call presenting my case to u anymore, i have got more than what i could possibly think of...thank u

5) i really wanted to get your opinion regarding this...in that previous thread when u suggested me to open a new thread to discuss on this, i accepted, i was looking forward to your comments the most...but...my GOD

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

3) i really wanted to get your opinion regarding this...in that previous thread when u suggested me to open a new thread to discuss on this, i accepted, i was looking forward to your comments the most...but...my GOD

But I already responded requesting you to define what you mean by "delivery in crisis" so that we can actually measure it.

As for opinion isn't it already obvious that your opinion is Rahul > Sachin and mine is Sachin > Rahul. I thought you intended to provide some facts to back your opinion and if I am not wrong that is what I had hoped the new thread could be about when I suggested you to open a new thread.

Now, if you back away and refuse to define "delivery in crisis" what can I do. I can just ask you not to belittle me or becoming aggressive towards me with your opinion on my mental status. How I use my time, my intelligence, and my abilities is something you need not bother about especially since you don't even have the faintest idea of who I am. You've hardly conversed with me twice on a web forum.

Again I ask you - define "delivery in crisis" and we can move forward. You would've obviously had some understanding of delivery in crisis before concluding Rahul Dravid > Sachin on that. Your conviction seems you are not reacting to the relative performance of the two in one series but over their entire careers...so I don't see any reason for you to not want to define "delivery in crisis".

 

[sumantra]

But I already responded requesting you to define what you mean by "delivery in crisis" so that we can actually measure it.

As for opinion isn't it already obvious that your opinion is Rahul > Sachin and mine is Sachin > Rahul. I thought you intended to provide some facts to back your opinion and if I am not wrong that is what I had hoped the new thread could be about when I suggested you to open a new thread.

Now, if you back away and refuse to define "delivery in crisis" what can I do. I can just ask you not to belittle me or becoming aggressive towards me with your opinion on my mental status. How I use my time, my intelligence, and my abilities is something you need not bother about especially since you don't even have the faintest idea of who I am. You've hardly conversed with me twice on a web forum.

Again I ask you - define "delivery in crisis" and we can move forward. You would've obviously had some understanding of delivery in crisis before concluding Rahul Dravid > Sachin on that. Your conviction seems you are not reacting to the relative performance of the two in one series but over their entire careers...so I don't see any reason for you to not want to define "delivery in crisis".

if u didnt understand what i said on that previous post, i say that ones again, any conversation on that topic on my behalf with u is officially closed...u r right in whatever u said and backed up with your argument or analysis, great job, thank u...if i have hurt u through any of my earlier comments i am deeply sorry...but i am seriously disappointed to say the least...

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

Good on ya, Sumantra!

Hopefully next time around you won't come down heavily on others who have a different opinion especially when your opinion itself is not based on facts.

 

[sumantra]

Good on ya, Sumantra!

Hopefully next time around you won't come down heavily on others who have a different opinion especially when your opinion itself is not based on facts.

u r a robot buddy, and i do not consider robots seriously...longing for a human touch

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

define crisis.

scoring in the 2nd innings when trailing?
scoring when there's scoreboard pressure?
fighing a lone battle?

I am not able to find a query on statsguru that can filter the 'trailing' matches but anyway I just ran the query choosing only 3rd and 4th innings (includes trailing and non trailing).

The first thing that caught my attention is the latest series. The scores are as follows in the 3rd/4th inns:
Rahul - 36, 6, 18, 13 i.e 18.25 avg
Sachin - 12, 56, 40, 91 i.e. 49.75

Now who would've thought that Rahul couldn't out do Sachin in crisis situations!

Anyway, here are the stats for their careers in 2nd innings -
Rahul : I-116 NO-22 Runs-4008 HS-180 Avg-42.63 100s-6 50s-24
Sachin : I-120 NO-23 Runs-4334 HS-176 Avg-44.68 100s-13 50s-20

Not so greatly different that one is considered a savior in crisis situations and the other a failure. If anything the "failure" seems to be more successful than the "savior"

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

u r a robot buddy, and i do not consider robots seriously...longing for a human touch

Again you are getting personal. It's ok to have different opinions dude...the world is made of all sorts...if all of us had the same opinion life wouldn't be interesting

 

[sumantra]

I am not able to find a query on statsguru that can filter the 'trailing' matches but anyway I just ran the query choosing only 3rd and 4th innings (includes trailing and non trailing).

The first thing that caught my attention is the latest series. The scores are as follows in the 3rd/4th inns:
Rahul - 36, 6, 18, 13 i.e 18.25 avg
Sachin - 12, 56, 40, 91 i.e. 49.75

Now who would've thought that Rahul couldn't out do Sachin in crisis situations!

Anyway, here are the stats for their careers in 2nd innings -
Rahul : I-116 NO-22 Runs-4008 HS-180 Avg-42.63 100s-6 50s-24
Sachin : I-120 NO-23 Runs-4334 HS-176 Avg-44.68 100s-13 50s-20

Not so greatly different that one is considered a savior in crisis situations and the other a failure. If anything the "failure" seems to be more successful than the "savior"

i would want all my batsmen to score as many runs as possible in the first innings, so that i don't have to bat in the second one...they used to show how pathetic sehwag's performance is in the second innings...well, franklt speaking, never found anything wrong in that...

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

i would want all my batsmen to score as many runs as possible in the first innings, so that i don't have to bat in the second one...they used to show how pathetic sehwag's performance is in the second innings...well, franklt speaking, never found anything wrong in that...

Oh in that case then Rahul stands no chance in front of Sachin.

But more importantly, it feels so convenient to say whatever you want to given that you have chosen not to define "delivery in crisis". At least centurymaker tried to define it and you see once you have some definition of it, we can easily measure it. Now if only you can define it instead of lashing out at my un-humanness and basically being loose tongued just coz I have a different opinion than you, we could've gotten further.

I mean seriously Rahul a greater crisis player than Sachin?...if that opinion is based on facts then I'd really like to know what those facts are. It just sounds like someone got carried away because of 3 centuries Rahul made in a series in which India played badly. In case you were watching cricket in the 90s this used to be the story in almost every Test India played abroad just that the savior was Sachin.

I hope now you don't make one more loose tongued reference at me.

 

[sumantra]

in my opinion, numbers don't prove much...tendulkar scored 820 runs against Bangladesh in Bangladesh (since Bangladesh never came to india to play a test series, all the times india went there) in 7 tests at an average of 136.87 with 5 centuries (what is the most ridiculous thing is that this is actually taken as tendulkar's away from home performance, wonder what would sunny's performance look like if he had the delightful opportunity of playing bangladesh in bangladesh, and this is also, one of the 1000 loopholes of your outstanding research)

and one more thing, plz, this thread was never about numbers, does dravid has 99 international hundreds? no...more than 30 thousand international runs? no...48 ODI hundreds? no...played for more than 20 years? no...more than 40 teat hundreds? no...

 

[sumantra]

Oh in that case then Rahul stands no chance in front of Sachin.

But more importantly, it feels so convenient to say whatever you want to given that you have chosen not to define "delivery in crisis". At least centurymaker tried to define it and you see once you have some definition of it, we can easily measure it. Now if only you can define it instead of lashing out at my un-humanness and basically being loose tongued just coz I have a different opinion than you, we could've gotten further.

I mean seriously Rahul a greater crisis player than Sachin?...if that opinion is based on facts then I'd really like to know what those facts are. It just sounds like someone got carried away because of 3 centuries Rahul made in a series in which India played badly. In case you were watching cricket in the 90s this used to be the story in almost every Test India played abroad just that the savior was Sachin.

I hope now you don't make one more loose tongued reference at me.

and plz don't refer to your facts anymore, i have had a test of them, they are the greatest FACTS, i salute u, u r the biggest tendulkar fan (considering the extent u have gone) and u have proved your case and won it...Sachin Tendulkar has delivered more in the times of crisis than Rahul Dravid or anyone else for that matter...and the case is thus closed.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

and plz don't refer to your facts anymore, i have had a test of them, they are the greatest FACTS, i salute u, u r the biggest tendulkar fan (considering the extent u have gone) and u have proved your case and won it...Sachin Tendulkar has delivered more in the times of crisis than Rahul Dravid or anyone else for that matter...and the case is thus closed.

That's a defeatist attitude. By the way I am a fan of Sachin and am a fan of Rahul also but my hero if there was one has been Kapil Dev. Just coz I consider Sachin > Rahul it dunn mean I am being disingenuous about it. I consider him greater because I see that he is greater - my long term memory is quite good and I don't get carried away by recent performances.

The numbers only validate my intuitive assessment of Sachin and Rahul.

More importantly, if you did not want to bring a frame of reference to the discussion then what is the point in discussing. Without a frame of reference, one can talk based on one innings, or 10 innings or 100 innings. Even purely subjective discussions need a frame of reference if we are to have a decent discussion. Asking you to define "delivery in crisis" was in an effort to bring a frame of reference.

 

[centurymaker]

Every batsman in the history of the game has benefitted every now and then from facing weak/toothless attacks.

 

[centurymaker]

Actually test match batting is all about punshing the weak. you wait for the bad balls to score runs....you wait for the relatively weaker bowlers to come on etc... you try to play as few of the good balls as possible (you try to leave them).

 

[sumantra]

Every batsman in the history of the game has benefitted every now and then from facing weak/toothless attacks.

no problems in that, i referred to it in another context...the fact that sunny and thousand others didn't have that wonderful opportunity is something that mr. sharma has to take in his astounding research work while mathematically judging Hammond and sachin and who not...just that it's one of the several loopholes of that glorious research...

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

in my opinion, numbers don't prove much...tendulkar scored 820 runs against Bangladesh in Bangladesh (since Bangladesh never came to india to play a test series, all the times india went there) in 7 tests at an average of 136.87 with 5 centuries (what is the most ridiculous thing is that this is actually taken as tendulkar's away from home performance, wonder what would sunny's performance look like if he had the delightful opportunity of playing bangladesh in bangladesh, and this is also, one of the 1000 loopholes of your outstanding research)

Again you are talking things without knowing them.

You must notice in the analysis a small subjective criteria that distinguishes performance against regular teams and minnow teams. Regular : Minnow :: 1.0 : 0.5. So if Sachin scored 100 against bangladesh, only 50 runs are counted. If Gavaskar scored 84 against SL only 42 runs are counted. If Hammond scored 156 runs against India only 78 runs are counted.

Again, it is easy to throw mud on people but facts will ensure that my clothes will be cleaned. Facts will also establish that your hands are now dirty. So I suggest you know about the project a lot more than you seem to. Before jumping up to drag me and accuse me of some disingenuous stuff, please for heaven's sake verify if I have been truly disingenuous or not.