We would indeed - but I repeat what I've now said three times (and what you've shown me saying at the top) - VERY FEW PLAYERS PEAK FROM THE START OF THEIR CAREERS. So, if you take a career from it's start to the end of it's peak hardly anyone will have the averages you speak of.
Again, like i said, go get remedial english- pronto.
you said, and i quote, " And if you take careers
FROM THE START to the end of the peak no-one will average anything close to 60+, 20-."
That is, you are talking about players' careers from the
start to the end of their peak: precisely what i responded to.
The object of your sentence is the peak and not the start of one's career and you qualified that object by specifying the starting point and the ending point.
it is quiete different from saying 'And if you take
careers from its start, to the end of the peak.........'
in the latter version( since you intended that apparently and which i have responded to already), you are defining two objects- the career and the peak and you are qualifying the former with 'start' and the latter with 'end of'.
And as i explained, from the start of one's career to the end of peak is irrelevant, because Botham's peak coincided with the start of his career.
Truncating off his record at 1981/82 is taking purely his peak years. If you do likewise with other players- taking a set of matches from the start of the peak to the end of the peak, a 60+ batting average and sub 20 bowling average will become quiete common.
That is aside from the fact that your absolute statement ( no one will average .......) is factually incorrect, as proven by the starting few years of Viv Richard's, Brian Lara's, Waqar Younis's, etc. careers.
You know what the injury feels like - you do not know what to play constantly through it is.
Quit arguing semantics with me. You said it was an injury from our worst nightmares and i said it is the kind of pain i am personally familiar with.
That is more understanding and experience of the matter than you in all likelyhood. So , again, stfu.
So you heard that the ankylosing spondylitis is degnerative where?
From my uncle. He is F.R.C.S in Orthopedics- an authority in the field of skeletal deformities and its treatment.
You claimed that it wasn't a degenerative condition and i corrected you on that.
Its true that the degeneration was accelerated by hours of strenous back activity lasting well over two decades but fact remains that it is degenerative. Ie, Atherton would be in the same boat as he is now at the age of 55-60 if he had a more sedentary lifestyle.
Nope, most posters find me far more appreciable than you.
Which is why you get continously booed in practically every thread for arguing semantics and taking the thread off course. Which is why you get continously booed in practically every thread for comming up with hairbrained and idiotic ideas.
I know that i am not particularly popular here but if you think you are, i suggest you get a reality check.
As per most posters finding you more appreciable, i don't care for a popularity contest but i seriously diagree. However, you are free to conduct a popularity contest if you feel like it
I left that as "I suggest you get real" on the back of equally lame answers such as "take a good dose of humility".
You *DO* need a good dosage of humility alongside a good dosage of reality.
You hold a far superior opinion of yourself than how most see it- You think you are capable of writing a book on cricket and its impacts on the society better than authorities in the said field. You think you are super popular when all i see is Richard vs rest.
.You think your hairbrained ideas, that are in contradiction to matchplay realities faced by players of considerable expertise are correct nonetheless and those players are wrong.
All this points to a classic case of narcissistic delusion.
And incase you are wondering, should i wish to persue it, I am a year and half away from making a medical diagonosis of someone's emotional health.
I would urge you to get out of your bubble and find-out that most of the best players of the first half of the 19th-century - especially the bowlers - were professionals.
If it was a 50\50 split, you'd have a case for the "professionals inflated their averages against amateurs", but it's not. The only good amateurs had to be seriously good, otherwise they'd not have made it.
The only one in a bubble is yourself. Logical reasoning proves you wrong. Sports historians and an understanding of sociological levels of professionalism proves you wrong.
Up until mid 1950s, the sport was a split between professionals and amatuers. As the years went by, the professional side swelled in their ranks and the amatuers diminished. But come 1950, there were still a considerable number of amatuers in the sport, both at domestic and international level.
As such, very few amatuers had the quality and the chutzpah to play high quality cricket- which is why amatuers like Bradman are quiete a rarity and which is why the few and far between professionals like Clarrie Grimmett and Sid Barnes were ridiculously successful.
because it isnt a straight fight between two sharks, it is a fight between sharks and salmon.
The quality was so inconsistent that it isnt funny. The same team that boasted a batsman or bowler of awesome capability often boasted players with barely enough capabilty to break into a modern day semi-professional club side.
The lineups were something similar to 'Tendulkar, Lara, me mum, your mum, McGrath, McGrath's granny, etc' taking the field for both sides.
And as such, all pre mid 50s statistics are massively inflated due to the presence of hopeless players at the highest levels.
I've not once accused you of racism, or even of racial bias. I've accused you of nationalistic, or more accurately regionalistic bias in terms of cricket. Your ludicrous theories about the game's worthful start coincide far too neatly with the induction of subcontinental teams, and many of your summisations show very clear bias towards subcontinental players.
Nationalistic bias ?
yes i do admit i have nationalistic bias. Which is why i was deliriously cheering on when John Davison was murdering Merv Dillon in world cup 2003 or when Joe Sakic scored a goal against the yanks in Salt Lake city. you see, i am a Canadian. And bloody proud of it.
As per regional bias, it is a term most often synonymous with ethnocentric behaviour, which is just a politically correct term for racism.
So in short, you ARE accusing me of racism if you are accusing me of regional bias.
As per the whole 'start with the subcontinental teams', subcontinental cricket didnt exlode till the 70s/80s and that is not where i draw the line. India was active in pre 1950s and yet i include Indian players in that list too.
Maybe if you took off your 'he is a racist' cap, you will realise that the demarcation i make is infulenced by sports history and views of sports historians and sociologists.
And that is more than enough evidence that you - whether you know it or not - are biased in terms of cricketing analysis. Because, as I've said to Scallywag numerous times, there are always statistics that are possible to find to prove just about anything you want to - with varying degrees of certainty.
if one has an accurate understanding of the field and statistical analysis, you will see only ONE or at best, a few conclusions.
All my statistical analysis is backed up by consistency from my part. I evaluate players based on their aggregate performance, overseas performance,difference in various eras and performance against the best. Atleast, they have the king's share in my analysis.
And as such, i have been consistent with that and i dare you to prove me otherwise.
Or perhaps, like i stated earlier, the pro-subcontinental bias is just a faculty of your view of things, given that the anglicised world has been fed pro-anglo propaganda in most spheres for most of the media's historical existance.
Just a thought for you to consider before you accuse me of regional bias.
