Should Sachin Retire?

[Spark]

Right. In the other thread it was pretty ****ing obvious that there wasn't going to be a sensible discussion taking place.

Which was what was happening here.

Until a few hours ago.

Thread cleaned. Given that you were all perfectly capable of discussing the topic of Sachin's potential retirement in a perfectly reasonable manner, absurd OP or not, until a few hours ago, you should be able to do it again. Deleting posts isn't usually my dig but **** me some of you lot across the board have seriously pushed my limits - and a lot of mods' limits - lately, and I see absolutely no reason why that shoule be the case.

 

[Cevno]

No. Given that he has never been test standard, he should probably try his best to become a test standard batsman before hanging up his boots. I understand that it's very hard to keep his place in the side when Bradman-esque talents of Yuvraj and Raina are pushing him hard for his money. But he shouldn't give up. Moreover, he can earn some more money playing test cricket. That should be a big allurement for such a poor man.

This.

/thread closed.

 

[Shri]

Right. In the other thread it was pretty ****ing obvious that there wasn't going to be a sensible discussion taking place.

Which was what was happening here.

Until a few hours ago.

Thread cleaned. Given that you were all perfectly capable of discussing the topic of Sachin's potential retirement in a perfectly reasonable manner, absurd OP or not, until a few hours ago, you should be able to do it again. Deleting posts isn't usually my dig but **** me some of you lot across the board have seriously pushed my limits - and a lot of mods' limits - lately, and I see absolutely no reason why that shoule be the case.

The older mods would never take that tone with all posters. Maybe when warning individual members for trolling/baiting but never at the whole forum.

 

[karan316]

Right. In the other thread it was pretty ****ing obvious that there wasn't going to be a sensible discussion taking place.

Which was what was happening here.

Until a few hours ago.

Thread cleaned. Given that you were all perfectly capable of discussing the topic of Sachin's potential retirement in a perfectly reasonable manner, absurd OP or not, until a few hours ago, you should be able to do it again. Deleting posts isn't usually my dig but **** me some of you lot across the board have seriously pushed my limits - and a lot of mods' limits - lately, and I see absolutely no reason why that shoule be the case.

I don't think so, the thread(which I created about Bradman) didn't deserve to get closed, I felt cheated when it got closed.
I don't think if some Asian batsman would have been considered the greatest of all eras if he would have done something similar to what Bradman did in that time,
and the thread wouldn't have been closed aswell(if it was about some Asian player of that time whose stats and achievements were being scrutinized).

Each one has the right to post his views and create their thread, if the post is off topic than it should be deleted but locking the whole thread doesn't really make sense until its an extreme case.

I might get banned for speaking my mind but thats how I m, I will get banned and stop posting rather than keeping quite and being treated in a different manner compared to others just because I don't agree with others and don't close my eyes and just start believing the stories created about someone whom I haven't even seen play.

If my thread was locked, than what about this thread? it doesn't make sense at all, Sachin has averaged 78 in 2010 and 46 in 2011, there are no talks of his retirements nor has he performed miserably bad like Ponting nor is he going to get dropped because of one bad series, then why is this thread still on?

 

[Spark]

This is the last post I'm making on the matter.

I lock threads when it's clear sensible discussion cannot continue. In that thread, what we had was little bursts of sensible discussion, but mostly just a steady degeneration into casual insults and random off-topic fluff with little or no coherent thread of discussion. In that case, it's far better to just let the damn thing die rather than let it fester and breed a poor posting thread which can often bleed into other threads on the forum. It has happened in the past.

You are, of course, welcome to discuss comparison of eras and whether such comparisons are valid.

BUT

You have to keep in mind that there is a difference between arguing that you cannot compare and trying to downplay Don Bradman's achievements in a variety of ways. The latter, for obvious reasons, does not draw a good response and will almost certainly lead to the kind of posting that leads to a thread closure. The alternative is deleting more than half the thread and in that case I really have to question whether the thread is inherently worthwhile. In fact, I don't have to question it at all, I already know the answer - it isn't.

If you want to argue that player X in one era cannot be held by the same standards as player Y in another era, then that's fine. If you present arguments to that effect, that apply fairly across the board and are based in sound cricketing history and logic, then that's fine and people will see that as fine.

If you do that with a focus on ONE player and specifically Don Bradman, then given the discussion in public circles lately as to whether Bradman > Tendulkar etc etc which many posters here see as completely unjustifiable at a minimum, then the chances of you getting a logical discussion of your arguments is extremely small indeed.

If you want to discuss Bradman specifically then you are welcome to do that but then you should be explicit that you are discussing Bradman and you should make sure your arguments are absolutely waterproof or you will draw the same kind of posting as we saw in that thread.

As I said, the alternative is deleting most of the thread and that's just silly.

If you want to discuss this further, VM me.

 

[four_or_six]

Guys, come on, please can we keep to topic. This is nothing to do with whether the player is Asian or Australian or whatever. There are loads of Bradman threads still available if you wish to discuss him, and if you want to discuss whether Sachin should or shouldn't retire then again, here is the place to do it.

If you have a problem with moderation and you're not satisfied with whatever action is taken after a reported post please email us (moderators@cricketweb.net) rather than taking the thread off-topic.

 

[Shri]

This is the last post I'm making on the matter.

I lock threads when it's clear sensible discussion cannot continue. In that thread, what we had was little bursts of sensible discussion, but mostly just a steady degeneration into casual insults and random off-topic fluff with little or no coherent thread of discussion. In that case, it's far better to just let the damn thing die rather than let it fester and breed a poor posting thread which can often bleed into other threads on the forum. It has happened in the past.

You are, of course, welcome to discuss comparison of eras and whether such comparisons are valid.

BUT

You have to keep in mind that there is a difference between arguing that you cannot compare and trying to downplay Don Bradman's achievements in a variety of ways. The latter, for obvious reasons, does not draw a good response and will almost certainly lead to the kind of posting that leads to a thread closure. The alternative is deleting more than half the thread and in that case I really have to question whether the thread is inherently worthwhile. In fact, I don't have to question it at all, I already know the answer - it isn't.

If you want to argue that player X in one era cannot be held by the same standards as player Y in another era, then that's fine. If you present arguments to that effect, that apply fairly across the board and are based in sound cricketing history and logic, then that's fine and people will see that as fine.

If you do that with a focus on ONE player and specifically Don Bradman, then given the discussion in public circles lately as to whether Bradman > Tendulkar etc etc which many posters here see as completely unjustifiable at a minimum, then the chances of you getting a logical discussion of your arguments is extremely small indeed.

If you want to discuss Bradman specifically then you are welcome to do that but then you should be explicit that you are discussing Bradman and you should make sure your arguments are absolutely waterproof or you will draw the same kind of posting as we saw in that thread.

As I said, the alternative is deleting most of the thread and that's just silly.

If you want to discuss this further, VM me.

Lets see, so a genuine 12-13 year old kid who knows nothing much about the history of the game or that of the posters cannot express his views here? A moderator's job is to delete posts, issue infractions etc to make sure that a discussion stays clean. You can't just close a discussion completely just because you cbf doing your job.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I honestly have no problem with that statistic. 100 international centuries is something no one else has been close to achieving and as you step into uncharted territory you do create new milestones.

AWTA. I suppose the people who find it meaningless are protesting the addition of what they consider apples and oranges, but that's completely missing the big picture of a man who has hoarded a lot of fruit.

 

[honestbharani]

AWTA. I suppose the people who find it meaningless are protesting the addition of what they consider apples and oranges, but that's completely missing the big picture of a man who has hoarded a lot of fruit.

He may have garnered apples and oranges but Mangoes are always > Sachin.

 

[silentstriker]

AWTA. I suppose the people who find it meaningless are protesting the addition of what they consider apples and oranges, but that's completely missing the big picture of a man who has hoarded a lot of fruit.

Damn HB beat me to it. He might have hoarded a lot of fruit, but no mangoes. Bradman ONLY hoaded mangoes. Therefore Bradman > Sachin.

 

[G.I.Joe]

He may have garnered apples and oranges but Mangoes are always > Sachin.

Damn HB beat me to it. He might have hoarded a lot of fruit, but no mangoes. Bradman ONLY hoaded mangoes. Therefore Bradman > Sachin.

DWTA. Sparkeh knows where its at!

 

[ganeshran]

If you want to discuss Bradman specifically then you are welcome to do that but then you should be explicit that you are discussing Bradman and you should make sure your arguments are absolutely waterproof or you will draw the same kind of posting as we saw in that thread.
.

tbf this is extremely unfair to a poster who is trying to make a valid point without trolling or baiting other posters. It conveys that a particular viewpoint is unwelcome simply because it generates troll responses. If it does, mods can always delete inflammatory responses regardless of which side they take.

However stifling a mature discussion is not fair imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ummm, hence why I said "if his performances do genuinely decline", please read the whole post....cheers

If his performances do genuinely decline I'm sure he'll still manage a ton somewhere though before it becomes conclusive that he shouldn't be in the side. That was my point.

 

[honestbharani]

tbf this is extremely unfair to a poster who is trying to make a valid point without trolling or baiting other posters. It conveys that a particular viewpoint is unwelcome simply because it generates troll responses. If it does, mods can always delete inflammatory responses regardless of which side they take.

However stifling a mature discussion is not fair imo.

pardon me, but how was any of it in that thread a ""mature"" discussion?

 

[Zinzan]

If his performances do genuinely decline I'm sure he'll still manage a ton somewhere though before it becomes conclusive that he shouldn't be in the side. That was my point.

What? You entirely missed the point then. My hypothetical point assumed he didn't get that elusive ton & his form continually declined & I asked whether the selectors would feel obliged to keep selecting him so he could get it. I wasn't asking whether you thought he'd still manage a ton somewhere. Not sure how you missed that tbh.

 

[karan316]

pardon me, but how was any of it in that thread a ""mature"" discussion?

How is this thread a mature discussion then? and why is it still on?
there are no talks of Sachin retiring nor is his form terribly bad like Ponting that he will get dropped.
Is this thread open so that people can try and pass some funny comments on Sachin, or say something against him to underrate him,
maybe that will be something very ''mature'' in your definition.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well this thread has certainly jumped the shark. Closed.