Matthew Hayden- I mean come on, seriously

[Prince EWS]

HAHAAH JUST HAD TO QUOTE THIS.... Man CC I am your number one biggest fan from now on... You rock dawg, keep it up!

You may be his number one fan now, but that's completely irrelevant and not worth discussing unless we compare you to his fans throughout different eras. It's much easier to be a fan now of course, given this hilarious thread, but when he had only made a few posts and no-one knew who he was, it was a much harder thing to do, so you really don't rate that highly...

 

[Johnners]

You may be his number one fan now, but that's completely irrelevant and not worth discussing unless we compare you to his fans throughout different eras. It's much easier to be a fan now of course, given this hilarious thread, but when he had only made a few posts and no-one knew who he was, it was a much harder thing to do, so you really don't rate that highly...

although i'm dissappointed that you've forgot to mention that Turb has probably started his "fan" career at a much younger age than most others, and possibly may suffer from burnout in the future.

 

[Turbinator]

although i'm dissappointed that you've forgot to mention that Turb has probably started his "fan" career at a much younger age than most others, and possibly may suffer from burnout in the future.

Hmm probably but my prime will be somewhere between 16 to 30, perhaps 27 ?

 

[Turbinator]

Thinking of starting a CC Appreciation Society btw ... cuz' c'mon this man is a legend and this thread is the proof for it!

 

[Dasa]

Haha best thread. I want to see a maths duel tbh.

 

[thierry henry]

Seriously though, I was just thinking...if a batsman is only good if he can succeed against the best bowlers, than surely a bowler is only good if he can succeed against the best batsmen. However, given that a batsman who fails against good bowlers can no longer be regarded as good, it is therefore impossible for a bowler to succeed against good batsmen, given that the moment the bowler succeeds against the batsman, the batsman is no longer good. It is therefore impossible to be a good bowler.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hahaha. That reminds me of an argument I had with C_C on here once about judging the quality of bowlers and thus the quality of successful batsmen in an era by their averages, when their averages are entirely dependent on the batsmen...

 

[shortpitched713]

How 'bout the game has changed mates. Batsmen and bowlers tend to have somewhat higher averages in Test cricket than they used to.

 

[Ikki]

Oh snap, he still hasn't named the book?

"Pele said this, Gretsky said that" "Medical knowledge says this". What a joke.

 

[Ikki]

Chill-out guys, or the billy-badass here will want to math duel you.

What a little geek.

 

[social]

Oh snap, he still hasn't named the book?

"Pele said this, Gretsky said that" "Medical knowledge says this". What a joke.

Found his favourite Sachin book

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6462199.stm

 

[Ikki]

Found his favourite Sachin book

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6462199.stm

Hahahaha

Classic.

 

[honestbharani]

You may be his number one fan now, but that's completely irrelevant and not worth discussing unless we compare you to his fans throughout different eras. It's much easier to be a fan now of course, given this hilarious thread, but when he had only made a few posts and no-one knew who he was, it was a much harder thing to do, so you really don't rate that highly...

yeah, the posting standards since 2000 has been very very low, tbh. It was muc more difficult being a good poster in the 90s when we had the great posters from West Indies, Australia, India and also the forums didn't allow for long posts that easily........







Oh, wait a minute..................

 

[honestbharani]

Lara became a regular in both forms of the game in 1993.
Tendulkar right after his debut (ie, 1989).

If my math skills arn't as wonky as Kazo's , then thats four years.

So not only does Lara become a regular 4 years after Tendulkar, he is also 4 years older.
Effectively meaning a lot less mileage on his body.

Besides, if you wanna compare Pele to someone, compare him to Bradman. Not Tendulkar- that is diego/johann cruyff league.

Another factor to be considered is that the Indians are generally not as fit as West Indians or Aussies. Not that it can be used as an excuse at the international level, but still, it is a fact.

 

[Burgey]

very good hbh.
I was only thinking the other day when we had our sometimes heated discussion re the Sunny vs the Aussies debate, that it wasn't a patch on arguments which took place pre-2000.......

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, and Lara has no pressure on him at all.

I accept your first part, now you have to accept that Lara is also doing very well despite being 4 years Sachin's senior. If a 21 year old Lara is physically more mature than Tendulkar at age 16, then a Tendulkar at age 28 should be in better shape than a Lara at 32 - let alone now, where Lara is 37-38.

Also, Sachin himself has said (and he said this in general than in particular) that the expectations from the fans really won't affect his style of play or anything, but expectations from the dressing will always do. And I think Lara has more expected of him from the Windies dressing room than Sachin has from the Indian dressing room.

 

[honestbharani]

when it comes to you, stupidity seems to have no bounds.

Tendulkar started playing when he was 16. Lara not till he was 24 as a regular.
when you start playing as a 16 year old, its FAR more demanding on your body because your body is NOT READY yet.
Not only has Lara played less than Tendulkar ( over 100 less ODIs and 5-6 less tests), he wasn't exposed to the harshness of international cricket (and the training that goes along with it) till he was fully developed AND THEN SOME. Plus Lara spends 90% of his time in the field sitting at slips. Not chasing leather at mid on or mid off like Tendulkar. Not to mention, Tendulkar has bowled nearly 2000 overs in cricket- which is nearly 2000 more than Lara. Hence your stupid idea that Tendulkar at 28 should be in better shape than Lara at 32 crashes before take-off. Such simpleton thinking i guess suits you.

nah, CC, u got this one wrong.... Lara has been fielding at mid on and mid off and even point and covers for a long time now. And SAchin over the last few series has been fielding around the slips quite a bit. The reason Sachin left the slips is because he was getting hurt in his hands, so its not like standing the slips is any less demanding. Try catching an Afridi drive that is edged........

 

[honestbharani]

1 year from debut to debut, 3-4 years from becomming regular.

Oh and another thing- if you are not up for the task to school me in math ( really- you are not up for it- really not), then don't make comments you can't back up, mate.
I called your math skills a disgrace and i am willing to put that to test. When you are ready to do the same, then you can question mine. Till then, its nothing more than hot air from you.


The bottomline is, Tendulkar has more miles on his body than ANY cricketer around today.
Add in the fact that he was exposed at a far more tender age, when his body was not ready, its pretty simple why he's carrying so many injuries and why injuries have chipped into his form.
That is the opinion of professional medical experts- which count a damn sight more than wannabe bootlickers like yourself.

Also, throw in the fact that Indians aren't as fit as some of the other professional sportsmen (again, not an excuse but a fact, nevertheless) and the fact that Sachin's game (unlike Lara's) is basically built on a very sound technique and when his foot movements start to go a little slower than usual, it obviously has a big impact on his batting. See how Sachin got out against Sri Lanka... HIs feet came into line a few fractions of a second later and he ended up getting bowled.

 

[honestbharani]

Seriously though, I was just thinking...if a batsman is only good if he can succeed against the best bowlers, than surely a bowler is only good if he can succeed against the best batsmen. However, given that a batsman who fails against good bowlers can no longer be regarded as good, it is therefore impossible for a bowler to succeed against good batsmen, given that the moment the bowler succeeds against the batsman, the batsman is no longer good. It is therefore impossible to be a good bowler.

u mean, like, there are actually are nor have ever been, any GOOD cricketers? :-0






That would save a lot of forum bandwidth, though, if it were the case.

 

[honestbharani]

very good hbh.
I was only thinking the other day when we had our sometimes heated discussion re the Sunny vs the Aussies debate, that it wasn't a patch on arguments which took place pre-2000.......

obviously...



The only way we can call ourselves good posters is if we get on a time machine and post in that era.......