Congratulations! Pakistan is the Number 1 ranked team in the ICC Test rankings! [August 2016]

[Proactive_]

Go watch the 2004 Series highlights on YT and see for yourselves and see how many wkts that were in the 120K :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRSicFyQgvM&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8zvYwIqBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK-Cv7xKjoQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaFTqa3CxGI

Did. Between 125-130 with a few balls in the first spell around 134-135. In any event, nobody would classify McGrath as being more than a medium fast bowler in any sense of the word so there goes your argument.

 

[Tusker]

So the likes of Viv Richards, Doug Walters, Zaheer Abbas, K. Srikkanth, Gordon Greenidge, I.Botham, Kapil Dev were tuk tuk batsmen? And that there are zero tuk tuk batsmen in 2018? Funny because most great test batters are still striking in the 50s, not much higher than in the 80s.

Exceptions. Besides player S/R in Test were not recorded for all matches back then which in itself is telling as they thought it wasnt important enough to be accurately tracked. But the RPO of the 70s to todays is a striking contrast ... runrates of 2.69 jumping to 3.23 over twice as many tests

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate

Read the reply again. I didn't want him dropped. I said that IF Kohli and Shastri's selection policies were applied to himself, he would have been dropped on multiple occasions and would have played many more games with the fear of being dropped, something he has instilled in the mind of the players of his team.

At this point you need to first decide and let us know EXACTLY what you meant by your epic post you made some time back. Feel free to elaborate for us mere mortals.

IIRC your post was "India can do away with Kohli in Tests" or words to that effect.

I take it that he is a useless player that we dont need which pretty much amounts to dropping a player. Reasoning here is players are dropped because they are not useful to the team. And you go ahead and validate that by citing ONE Single Test - Dharmashala where he didnt play

So explain away CLEARLY .

 

[Proactive_]

Exceptions. Besides player S/R in Test were not recorded for all matches back then which in itself is telling as they thought it wasnt important enough to be accurately tracked. But the RPO of the 70s to todays is a striking contrast ... runrates of 2.69 jumping to 3.23 over twice as many tests

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate

More to do with the bats, pitches and protective equipment than anything else.

In the 80s the same rate increased to 2.86. So somehow by your logic did the batsmen suddenly become more intent in the 80s itself?

At this point you need to first decide and let us know EXACTLY what you meant by your epic post you made some time back. Feel free to elaborate for us mere mortals.

IIRC your post was "India can do away with Kohli in Tests" or words to that effect.

I take it that he is a useless player that we dont need which pretty much amounts to dropping a player. Reasoning here is players are dropped because they are not useful to the team. And you go ahead and validate that by citing ONE Single Test - Dharmashala where he didnt play

So explain away CLEARLY .

My reply was to those who think that India would be minnow level without Kohli which is far from the truth.

 

[Tusker]

More to do with the bats, pitches and protective equipment than anything else.

In the 80s the same rate increased to 2.86. So somehow by your logic did the batsmen suddenly become more intent in the 80s itself?

its a Gradual change ... nothing happens overnight nor did I claim anything to that effect ... but go take a look at Barry Richards batting technique in the 70s to Virat Kohlis there is a big difference.

My reply was to those who think that India would be minnow level without Kohli which is far from the truth.

Show me who is saying that in the thread where you first made that epic post

Here is the thread: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...t-captain-than-MS-Dhoni&p=9573143#post9573143

 

[Proactive_]

its a Gradual change ... nothing happens overnight nor did I claim anything to that effect ... but go take a look at Barry Richards batting technique in the 70s to Virat Kohlis there is a big difference.

So haven't the bowling techniques, training, diet etc evolved as well or do they only evolve when you say they do?

Show me who is saying that in the thread where you first made that epic post

Here is the thread: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...t-captain-than-MS-Dhoni&p=9573143#post9573143

Don't know what's the confusion here. It's a general point directed towards the sentiment that Kohli's batting was compensating for his atrocious captaincy decisions in the Ind-SA series. If I were replying to someone in particular on that point, I would have quoted them.

 

[Tusker]

So haven't the bowling techniques, training, diet etc evolved as well or do they only evolve when you say they do?

They have but not to the extent that Ball dominating the bat. This is why you cant compare bowling avg from today to bowling avg from 80s.

Don't know what's the confusion here. It's a general point directed towards the sentiment that Kohli's batting was compensating for his atrocious captaincy decisions in the Ind-SA series. If I were replying to someone in particular on that point, I would have quoted them.

This is completely different from what you claimed in Post#243 where you claimed that India would descend to minnow level without Kohli (Nobody said that). Nor was it a general point as you were quoting Varun in that post.

as usual the confusion is of the comic kind as you are once again caught lying and as sure as the event of sun rising from the east you will now proceed to argue that both post#243 and #245 are telling the same thing.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Did. Between 125-130 with a few balls in the first spell around 134-135. In any event, nobody would classify McGrath as being more than a medium fast bowler in any sense of the word so there goes your argument.

Hahahaha! What a shift in goal post. You just mentioned in a previous post that Mcgrath bowled 120! He used to bowl around 135's - 138 and even 140. Funny, he was always classified Fast medium than medium fast

 

[Proactive_]

They have but not to the extent that Ball dominating the bat. This is why you cant compare bowling avg from today to bowling avg from 80s.

What is that even supposed to mean? Both batting and bowling standards evolve with time, and they have. You can't decided what evolved when and what not in YOUR own argument

This is completely different from what you claimed in Post#243 where you claimed that India would descend to minnow level without Kohli (Nobody said that). Nor was it a general point as you were quoting Varun in that post.

as usual the confusion is of the comic kind as you are once again caught lying and as sure as the event of sun rising from the east you will now proceed to argue that both post#243 and #245 are telling the same thing.

Obviously there is a sentiment that India would be a much much weaker team without Kohli, you got to be the most clueless person or the most dishonest person on the forum to claim otherwise. I won't unncessarily drag other people in this argument by quoting them, you can go around looking around the forum, you'll find plenty of instances.

 

[Proactive_]

Hahahaha! What a shift in goal post. You just mentioned in a previous post that Mcgrath bowled 120! He used to bowl around 135's - 138 and even 140. Funny, he was always classified Fast medium than medium fast

Quote me where I said that McGrath bowled "120". McGrath was hardly above 140 even at his peak and at 34 years old in 2004, he was considerably slower.

 

[Tusker]

Did. Between 125-130 with a few balls in the first spell around 134-135. In any event, nobody would classify McGrath as being more than a medium fast bowler in any sense of the word so there goes your argument.

Lying again? Here are the speeds for every ball bowled by McGrath in that highlights clip of 1st Test:

1st inngs:

1st ball - 130.5 - 16:10
2nd Ball - 132.5 - 16:22 - wkt
3rd Ball - 134.7 - 17:25 - Wkt
4th Ball - 136.8 - 18:27 - four

5th Ball - 129.8 - 20:24 - Wkt
6th Ball - 134.6 - 23:15 - four
7th Ball - 120.1 - 23:25 - wkt - slower ball

2nd inngs

8th Ball - 133.1 - 34:56 -
9th Ball - 132.0 - 35:08- wkt - lol
10th Ball- 134.0 - 37:34 - wkt - run out
11th Ball- 132.6 - 39:46 - wkt

 

[Tusker]

What is that even supposed to mean? Both batting and bowling standards evolve with time, and they have. You can't decided what evolved when and what not in YOUR own argument

Ball dominated the bat in the 70s and 80s ... the opposite is true now but that does not mean todays bowlers are crap when compared to

Obviously there is a sentiment that India would be a much much weaker team without Kohli, you got to be the most clueless person or the most dishonest person on the forum to claim otherwise. I won't unncessarily drag other people in this argument by quoting them, you can go around looking around the forum, you'll find plenty of instances.

in other words Varun never said India would become minnows without Kohli in the post you were replying to ... and that you were lying as always ... Right ?

 

[Proactive_]

Lying again? Here are the speeds for every ball bowled by McGrath in that highlights clip of 1st Test:

1st inngs:

1st ball - 130.5 - 16:10
2nd Ball - 132.5 - 16:22 - wkt
3rd Ball - 134.7 - 17:25 - Wkt
4th Ball - 136.8 - 18:27 - four

5th Ball - 129.8 - 20:24 - Wkt
6th Ball - 134.6 - 23:15 - four
7th Ball - 120.1 - 23:25 - wkt - slower ball

2nd inngs

8th Ball - 133.1 - 34:56 -
9th Ball - 132.0 - 35:08- wkt - lol
10th Ball- 134.0 - 37:34 - wkt - run out
11th Ball- 132.6 - 39:46 - wkt

Yeah because only these were the balls bowled by him the match. Even with those balls, the average comes out to be 131.8, hardly far away from the 130 which I said. When someone bowling 130 can average 25 in the series, your point concerning Hadlee gets refuted regardless since this is hardly any considerable pace, but obviously you won't address this point now since you've been thoroughly refuted -once again.

 

[Proactive_]

Ball dominated the bat in the 70s and 80s ... the opposite is true now but that does not mean todays bowlers are crap when compared to

I didn't say they were crap. It's YOU who is hell bent on discarding players from the 70s and 80s.

in other words Varun never said India would become minnows without Kohli in the post you were replying to ... and that you were lying as always ... Right ?

That point wasn't in reply to Varun. It was a general point that I was making.

 

[Tusker]

Why don't you prove how I'm a "big bhakt" first. Then we can discuss cricket in the 70s something which you're way too keen to extrapolate to something else.

So from your own words ... you rate players as the best of the decade and at the same time also say that you didnt claim that same player to be "anything" ... Classic

 

[Proactive_]

So from your own words ... you rate players as the best of the decade and at the same time also say that you didnt claim that same player to be "anything" ... Classic

Not "anything" related to what you were insinuating that I did. And oh, when are you starting to prove that I'm a "big bhakt". Still waiting. Just like I'm still waiting for the reply to the Australia of 2000s thread, a thread you abandoned after making some pretty outrageous claims

 

[Tusker]

Yeah because only these were the balls bowled by him the match.

Yeah thats exactly how it works ... when I ask you to watch a clip you watch speeds registered on those clips which you say you did and reported that he was bowling in 125-130 whereas data clearly proves otherwise .with only one ball 129.8 ... So blatantly caught lying again ? desperation much ?

Even with those balls, the average comes out to be 131.8, hardly far away from the 130 which I said. When someone bowling 130 can average 25 in the series, your point concerning Hadlee gets refuted regardless since this is hardly any considerable pace, but obviously you won't address this point now since you've been thoroughly refuted -once again.

Genius the avg speed is 133.06 excluding the intentional slower ball. Nice try including that slower ball lol. In any case even a peak Hadlee never bowled in the mid 130Ks as you are trying to make it out let alone a 35+ yr old Hadlee bowling in the Indian heat. The truth is McGraths slower ball is closer to Hadlees avg speed.

 

[Tusker]

Not "anything" related to what you were insinuating that I did. And oh, when are you starting to prove that I'm a "big bhakt". Still waiting.

The insinuation that you are yet to prove actually happened .... lol

Just like I'm still waiting for the reply to the Australia of 2000s thread, a thread you abandoned after making some pretty outrageous claims

That thread awaits a response from you to my question ... feel free to respond to my question and I will gladly continue. You know you would get owned if you responded to that simple question and decided to bail. lol

And speaking of abandoned threads ... I see that you ran away from the Imran vs Tendulkar thread, the TriSeries vs Bilateral thread just to name a couple ... you have some cheek )

 

[Tusker]

I didn't say they were crap.

So you were singing praises of Ish Sodhi, Moen, Rashid, Ashwin etc and covering them with glory in this thread ?

It's YOU who is hell bent on discarding players from the 70s and 80s.

how does calling a spade a spade amount to discarding ?

That point wasn't in reply to Varun. It was a general point that I was making.

Yes it certainly was in reply to Varun's post and most importantly the talk was about his batting getting affected due to captaincy. Nothing about India becoming minnow.

 

[Proactive_]

So you were singing praises of Ish Sodhi, Moen, Rashid, Ashwin etc and covering them with glory in this thread ?

So, the likes of Moeen and Rashid are good bowlers even by today's standards? You've got your arguments all mixed up pal. Me saying today's bowling is crap would be saying that the likes of Steyn and Anderson are crap when compared to the likes of Marshall and Holding.. something which I'M NOT. By your nonsensical argument - Every bowler whether good or bad has to be good because they're playing in today's era lol.

how does calling a spade a spade amount to discarding ?

Spade a spade as in what? You haven't made any earth shattering discovery that cricketing standards improve with time. They have and they will in the future as well. Doesn't mean that the greats of the eras gone by are redundant and shouldn't be recognized for their greatness. Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov never touched a rating of 2800 whereas a dozen have done it since them. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't recognize their feats in the field of chess. Same with cricket. Would you be ok if I say that Tendulkar would be a comparatively worse player technically than an average Ranji player in the 2040s and that his feats would amount to nothing 30 years from now because the standards improved with time?

Yes it certainly was in reply to Varun's post and most importantly the talk was about his batting getting affected due to captaincy. Nothing about India becoming minnow.

I already said that I was making a general point. Keep beating that dead horse.

 

[Tusker]

So, the likes of Moeen and Rashid are good bowlers even by today's standards? You've got your arguments all mixed up pal. Me saying today's bowling is crap would be saying that the likes of Steyn and Anderson are crap when compared to the likes of Marshall and Holding.. something which I'M NOT. By your nonsensical argument - Every bowler whether good or bad has to be good because they're playing in today's era lol.

Never said all bowlers today are good compared to old eras. Thats your own fertile imagination deducing faulty conclusions without understanding what is being said and is your problem. My point is the overall bowling quality today is far better than it was in the 80s.

But I see you cleverly left out Ashwin , Sodhi from your post ? Why dont you tell us how you were covering them with glory with your snide comments?

Anyhow lets cut to the chase here .... the WI of the 80s that you were gloating about did not win by beating teams packed with ATG bowlers. Plenty of ordinary bowlers back then too just like Moeen and Rashid. Just from India barring Kapil you can easily say almost all of them were ordinary bowlers.

Spade a spade as in what? You haven't made any earth shattering discovery that cricketing standards improve with time.

as in another spade ... so if you agree that whatever I said is well known why are you arguing against the points Iam making ?

Doesn't mean that the greats of the eras gone by are redundant and shouldn't be recognized for their greatness. Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov never touched a rating of 2800 whereas a dozen have done it since them. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't recognize their feats in the field of chess. Same with cricket. Would you be ok if I say that Tendulkar would be a comparatively worse player technically than an average Ranji player in the 2040s and that his feats would amount to nothing 30 years from now because the standards improved with time?

Conversely it doesnt mean that we ridicule current ERA players by arbitrarily claiming the OLD Era players had extra ordinary abilities. As an example I had posted a link where Imrans team was said (by [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]) to have batted last 2 days to save a test match which never happened. This is usually the context of my discussions with the Older ERA fanatics. It almost always ends up with them quietly slipping away from the thread. You will do the same too

I already said that I was making a general point. Keep beating that dead horse.

You also said that it was in response to a comment that India would become minnows minus Kohli. So which one of the two statements is true ?

And dont forget to respond to #256 and #257

 

[Proactive_]

Never said all bowlers today are good compared to old eras. Thats your own fertile imagination deducing faulty conclusions without understanding what is being said and is your problem. My point is the overall bowling quality today is far better than it was in the 80s.

But I see you cleverly left out Ashwin , Sodhi from your post ? Why dont you tell us how you were covering them with glory with your snide comments?

The overall bowling quality SHOULD be far better as should be the batting and the fielding, that's the basis on which the earth runs on. You improve with time. Nothing earth shattering regarding that. My issue is when you start deriding the greats of the eras gone by by your nonsensical comparisons as if they've done something wrong by not being as good as the standards of 30 years later. That's a preposterous argument. Every era has contributed to the field of cricket in some way or the other on which the succeeding eras have built on, a phenomenon which will carry on.

Also, I don't rate Ashwin and Sodhi that highly either.

Anyhow lets cut to the chase here .... the WI of the 80s that you were gloating about did not win by beating teams packed with ATG bowlers. Plenty of ordinary bowlers back then too just like Moeen and Rashid. Just from India barring Kapil you can easily say almost all of them were ordinary bowlers.

12 Non WI fast bowlers averaged below 30 in the 80s. WI destroyed them. WI destroyed India in India with 0 spinners, same with Pak. Based on the standards at that time.. there were a lot of quality bowlers and batsmen whom WI faced and disposed off. Only because they didn't fulfill your stupid criteria of not being of the standard of 30 years later doesn't mean that they didn't face credible opposition.

as in another spade ... so if you agree that whatever I said is well known why are you arguing against the points Iam making ?

Because of your incoherent attempt at downplaying the WI of the 80s to big up today's Indian team by comparing the standards of 80s with 2010s as if it's some sort of a real argument.

Conversely it doesnt mean that we ridicule current ERA players by arbitrarily claiming the OLD Era players had extra ordinary abilities. As an example I had posted a link where Imrans team was said (by [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]) to have batted last 2 days to save a test match which never happened. This is usually the context of my discussions with the Older ERA fanatics. It almost always ends up with them quietly slipping away from the thread. You will do the same too

I've near said that. You didn't know my views on this issue and still tried to shove in your irrational dislike for anything before the time you deemed the standards of cricket to be worth your appraisal.

Also, as I've said before.. I NEVER claim people of running away from threads like yourself. That's juvenile stuff. You replied to this very post after 3 days. If it were me, you would have already dug multiple victory flags in this thread claiming you've somehow made me run and hide and what not. Nope, I don't go down to that level pal.

You also said that it was in response to a comment that India would become minnows minus Kohli. So which one of the two statements is true And dont forget to respond to #256 and #257

I've already said that I won't unnecessarily drag other people to this argument.

 

[Tusker]

The overall bowling quality SHOULD be far better as should be the batting and the fielding, that's the basis on which the earth runs on. You improve with time. Nothing earth shattering regarding that. My issue is when you start deriding the greats of the eras gone by by your nonsensical comparisons as if they've done something wrong by not being as good as the standards of 30 years later. That's a preposterous argument. Every era has contributed to the field of cricket in some way or the other on which the succeeding eras have built on, a phenomenon which will carry on.

And my issue is with people like you bigging up older era cricket at the expense of Current ERA cricketers. Like you did in this thread when you said: "India being 15 points ahead of the pack has got to be the biggest joke of all time and that such things only suited the WI and AUS teams of the past"

Why dont you tell us why you were deriding modern era cricketers ?

Notice it was you who fired the first shots. It is the same with [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] , [MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] who are the other posters that do such things get owned trying to prove their preposterous exaggerated views about old era cricket that cannot be substantiated and eventually run away when cornered.

Also, I don't rate Ashwin and Sodhi that highly either.

Arent you forgetting someone else ? Bloody hell you dont rate Kohli and then you have the cheek to come here and lecture me on why we need to respect old era cricketers )

I dont rate Dennis Lille but unlike you I can back up my views with facts instead of resorting to lies and trolling like you do.

12 Non WI fast bowlers averaged below 30 in the 80s. WI destroyed them. WI destroyed India in India with 0 spinners, same with Pak. Based on the standards at that time.. there were a lot of quality bowlers and batsmen whom WI faced and disposed off. Only because they didn't fulfill your stupid criteria of not being of the standard of 30 years later doesn't mean that they didn't face credible opposition.

None of those bowlers except for pakistani bowlers bowled together. For instance Kapil has a great record against WI but did not win anything in WI.

Because of your incoherent attempt at downplaying the WI of the 80s to big up today's Indian team by comparing the standards of 80s with 2010s as if it's some sort of a real argument.

See above it was you who started that by bringing in the WI of 80s and I responded ... feel free to let us know why you are crying now.

I've near said that. You didn't know my views on this issue and still tried to shove in your irrational dislike for anything before the time you deemed the standards of cricket to be worth your appraisal.

Seee above your point about India being 15 points ahead and your comments about Hadlee, Chatfield being miles better than Boult, Southee in this very thread lol

Also, as I've said before.. I NEVER claim people of running away from threads like yourself. That's juvenile stuff. You replied to this very post after 3 days. If it were me, you would have already dug multiple victory flags in this thread claiming you've somehow made me run and hide and what not. Nope, I don't go down to that level pal.

Speaking of juvenile stuff - making idiotic posts by the truck loads and then brazenly lying to cover up then getting caught then trying to twist turn and shift goal posts thereby digging a deeper hole is insanely juvenile instead of admitting mistake and moving on ( See quoted posts #256, #257 , #196, #197 above right in this thread for examples ) . You just don't learn. And I admit it is a lot of fun to lead you into doing more of that ... all for the greater good to provide some comic entertainment to all readers sponsored by you

I've already said that I won't unnecessarily drag other people to this argument.

There is no other poster involved in this as nobody was claiming India would become minnows without Kohli. Besides this is a public forum its not like you will get sued lol

So which of the two statements below is true:

1. That it was a general comment
2. You were responding to a comment by someone saying: "India would become minnows without Kohli"

 

[shaz619]

Indians still burning over our no.1 rank in 2016 I suppose I would as well after we took England to the limit away from home

 

[Proactive_]

And my issue is with people like you bigging up older era cricket at the expense of Current ERA cricketers. Like you did in this thread when you said: "India being 15 points ahead of the pack has got to be the biggest joke of all time and that such things only suited the WI and AUS teams of the past"

Why dont you tell us why you were deriding modern era cricketers ?

Notice it was you who fired the first shots. It is the same with [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] , [MENTION=132062]Harsh Thakor[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] who are the other posters that do such things get owned trying to prove their preposterous exaggerated views about old era cricket that cannot be substantiated and eventually run away when cornered.

The only thing I learned from this piece is that the people you've mentioned have indeed got under your skin for some reason . I've never glorified past era cricketers like you claim, I've always judged them on the standards prevalent at those times which is the fairest assessment possible.. hell I think Dale Steyn is the greatest bowler of all time. Yet, you decide to shove in your agenda deriding past players when the discussion was going on with respect to the standards prevalent in different eras by your nonsensical arguments like Starc bowling against the tail and Hadlee being a 125 kph bowler.

India being 15 points ahead of the pack was a shot at Indian cricket team and that only. It had nothing to do with modern cricket or anything else. WI of the 80s maintained such leads by consistently winning home and away, while India had built up that lead playing solely in Asia and WI. After just one tour of SA, the lead is already down to 6 points which further vindicates my point.

Arent you forgetting someone else ? Bloody hell you dont rate Kohli and then you have the cheek to come here and lecture me on why we need to respect old era cricketers )

I dont rate Dennis Lille but unlike you I can back up my views with facts instead of resorting to lies and trolling like you do.

I never said I don't rate Kohli, I just don't rate him as highly as many others and I've backed up my claims on multiple occasions including in the 30th century thread.

None of those bowlers except for pakistani bowlers bowled together. For instance Kapil has a great record against WI but did not win anything in WI.

It still refutes your point that WI faced none to negligible credible opposition.

See above it was you who started that by bringing in the WI of 80s and I responded ... feel free to let us know why you are crying now.

And I compared the dominance of the WI of the 80s in their era with the "dominance" of the India of 2010s in their era. It's a fair comparison.

Seee above your point about India being 15 points ahead and your comments about Hadlee, Chatfield being miles better than Boult, Southee in this very thread lol

Again, your inability to comprehend the discussion at hand is really hurting you here. I obviously said that the attack of Hadlee & Chatfield in the 80s based on the standards prevalent at that time was a much more potent attack than Boult and Southee based on today's standards. You really need to come out of your little box of irrational hatred of any cricket that happened before your time.

Speaking of juvenile stuff - making idiotic posts by the truck loads and then brazenly lying to cover up then getting caught then trying to twist turn and shift goal posts thereby digging a deeper hole is insanely juvenile instead of admitting mistake and moving on ( See quoted posts #256, #257 , #196, #197 above right in this thread for examples ) . You just don't learn. And I admit it is a lot of fun to lead you into doing more of that ... all for the greater good to provide some comic entertainment to all readers sponsored by you

And I'm glad by your constant pair pe kulhadi posts which make my job of refuting your already nonsensical arguments even easier.

There is no other poster involved in this as nobody was claiming India would become minnows without Kohli. Besides this is a public forum its not like you will get sued lol

So which of the two statements below is true:

1. That it was a general comment
2. You were responding to a comment by someone saying: "India would become minnows without Kohli"

Again, I've ALREADY said this multiple times that the statement was a general comment based on the sentiment I had seen on this forum regarding Kohli's value to Team India. You can keep trying to make a mountain out of this molehill since your other arguments are pretty much buried 6 feet under at this point lol.

 

[Tusker]

The only thing I learned from this piece is that the people you've mentioned have indeed got under your skin for some reason . I've never glorified past era cricketers like you claim, I've always judged them on the standards prevalent at those times which is the fairest assessment possible.. hell I think Dale Steyn is the greatest bowler of all time. Yet, you decide to shove in your agenda deriding past players when the discussion was going on with respect to the standards prevalent in different eras by your nonsensical arguments like Starc bowling against the tail and Hadlee being a 125 kph bowler.

So once again ... why are you involved in a lengthy argument here if you agree with me that current ERA cricketers play at a higher standard ? )

India being 15 points ahead of the pack was a shot at Indian cricket team and that only. It had nothing to do with modern cricket or anything else. WI of the 80s maintained such leads by consistently winning home and away, while India had built up that lead playing solely in Asia and WI. After just one tour of SA, the lead is already down to 6 points which further vindicates my point.

By consistently winning against much inferior opposition than what Kohli has to face. This is like comparing Apples and tamatar based on color. Only you were capable of doing that.

I never said I don't rate Kohli, I just don't rate him as highly as many others and I've backed up my claims on multiple occasions including in the 30th century thread.

Dude you got royally pwned in that thread and ran away tail between legs and you have the cheek to claim you backed up your claims ? Same story in many other threads. I mean even the Pakistani trolls don't support you ... Have some shame ...

It still refutes your point that WI faced none to negligible credible opposition.

And I compared the dominance of the WI of the 80s in their era with the "dominance" of the India of 2010s in their era. It's a fair comparison.

Why because you say so ... well it doesnt why because I say so. lol two can play this game.

Again, your inability to comprehend the discussion at hand is really hurting you here. I obviously said that the attack of Hadlee & Chatfield in the 80s based on the standards prevalent at that time was a much more potent attack than Boult and Southee based on today's standards. You really need to come out of your little box of irrational hatred of any cricket that happened before your time.

Does it even occur to you that you are proving my point about standards ? ) Boult and Southee perform against far higher batting standards ( which you agree ) than Hadlee and Chatfield therefore that makes Boult and Southee better bowlers than Hadlee , Chatfield

And I'm glad by your constant pair pe kulhadi posts which make my job of refuting your already nonsensical arguments even easier.

Is that why you see people ridiculing you in this thread ?

Again, I've ALREADY said this multiple times that the statement was a general comment based on the sentiment I had seen on this forum regarding Kohli's value to Team India. You can keep trying to make a mountain out of this molehill since your other arguments are pretty much buried 6 feet under at this point lol.

"Please pretend that my comment about India would become minnows without Kohli did not happen" is that what you are begging me to do ? Pathetic liar ... and then you have the temerity to lecture others ...

And I see that you have doggedly refusing to answer posts #256, #257 another pathetic lie exposed

 

[Proactive_]

So once again ... why are you involved in a lengthy argument here if you agree with me that current ERA cricketers play at a higher standard ? )

The real question is - Why the hell are you even bringing in this nonsensical argument in the first place which has nothing to do with the discussion? Your insistence at trying to be the proponent of this "theory" that cricketing standards indeed improve with time is pretty amusing.

By consistently winning against much inferior opposition than what Kohli has to face. This is like comparing Apples and tamatar based on color. Only you were capable of doing that.

Factually wrong. There were a lot of Non WI batsmen and bowlers who did well in that era.

Dude you got royally pwned in that thread and ran away tail between legs and you have the cheek to claim you backed up your claims ? Same story in many other threads. I mean even the Pakistani trolls don't support you ... Have some shame ...

If getting royally pwned means being told by a salty clueless poster again and again that he won't consider any of my stat filters for some odd reason then indeed I'll admit I got pwned.

Does it even occur to you that you are proving my point about standards ? ) Boult and Southee perform against far higher batting standards ( which you agree ) than Hadlee and Chatfield therefore that makes Boult and Southee better bowlers than Hadlee , Chatfield

And you do realize that the standards aren't even the argument here, right? The argument is whether the Indian Team of 2018 is as dominant in it's era as the WI of the 80s was in it's and by the looks of it.. you're failed pretty hard at putting forth any coherent point in that regard

Is that why you see people ridiculing you in this thread ?

Oh, nice to see we've arrived at the point where you start crying to other people for help

"Please pretend that my comment about India would become minnows without Kohli did not happen" is that what you are begging me to do ? Pathetic liar ... and then you have the temerity to lecture others ...

And I see that you have doggedly refusing to answer posts #256, #257 another pathetic lie exposed

It's nothing but your inability to comprehend the posts you're receiving. And I've already debunked your little theory that medium pacers can't get wickets in Asia, so you better save that argument first before pointing fingers anywhere else.

 

[Tusker]

The real question is - Why the hell are you even bringing in this nonsensical argument in the first place which has nothing to do with the discussion? Your insistence at trying to be the proponent of this "theory" that cricketing standards indeed improve with time is pretty amusing.

you tell me ... afterall it was you who started the nonsensical comparison by draging in WI and AUS (See posts 179, 190 and 201. Not only did you start the comparison but you laughed at Kohli's captaincy record and made the epic comment : "Please don't commit cricketing blasphemy by comparing him with C. Lloyd for god's sake Goddamnit, " and then proceeded to lecture us on the virtues of not deriding past players. Welll I got news for you champ ... maybe you shouldnt deride current players too .. No ? Or maybe you dont understand the concept of Irony

But now that it has finally come back to bite you in your nuts I can see why you are squirming

Factually wrong. There were a lot of Non WI batsmen and bowlers who did well in that era.

There are just as many bowlers - if not more - in current times who avg < 30 . BTW keep in mind that you agree that they play at a higher standard. Thats even more reason why your rant on Lloyd vs Kohli is a non starter.

Just Last 5 yrs:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

If getting royally pwned means being told by a salty clueless poster again and again that he won't consider any of my stat filters for some odd reason then indeed I'll admit I got pwned.

Ohh yeah? I guess its time to bump that 30th Century thread again to see who pwned who.

And you do realize that the standards aren't even the argument here, right? The argument is whether the Indian Team of 2018 is as dominant in it's era as the WI of the 80s was in it's and by the looks of it.. you're failed pretty hard at putting forth any coherent point in that regard

There isnt even a level playing field here for any argument to even start ... Kohli plays atleast twice as much Intl Cricket as Lloyd did in his time and against far better teams that now regularly stay and play in India. And there is no comparison whatsoever as to the intensity, professionalism and the minute scrutiny that modern cricket is played under. Laughable and silly comparison that only you would make and then go on to whinge and cry when its turned back on you.

Oh, nice to see we've arrived at the point where you start crying to other people for help

Do you realize that you have already been ridiculed before I even started ?

It's nothing but your inability to comprehend the posts you're receiving. And I've already debunked your little theory that medium pacers can't get wickets in Asia, so you better save that argument first before pointing fingers anywhere else.

Debunking that happens inside the confines of your brain doesnt count. The fact of the matter is You brazenly lied that you watched the links I posted and claimed victory by saying McGrath bowled between 125-130. Such silly stunts work with primary school kids which is perhaps a more appropriate place for you to hang out rather than be here on PP where you will get bruised , battered and laughed at when you try such stunts.

 

[Proactive_]

you tell me ... afterall it was you who started the nonsensical comparison by draging in WI and AUS (See posts 179, 190 and 201. Not only did you start the comparison but you laughed at Kohli's captaincy record and made the epic comment : "Please don't commit cricketing blasphemy by comparing him with C. Lloyd for god's sake Goddamnit, " and then proceeded to lecture us on the virtues of not deriding past players. Welll I got news for you champ ... maybe you shouldnt deride current players too .. No ? Or maybe you dont understand the concept of Irony

But now that it has finally come back to bite you in your nuts I can see why you are squirming

I laughed at your embarrassing comparison of Lloyd and Kohli's captaincy because it's indeed that embarrassing. Kohli's captaincy is a study in getting the absolute worst out of your resources. The guy has turned the entire team into such a scenario where NOBODY except himself could be ever assured of their place irrespective of whether they're playing good or bad, made mindblowingly dumb selection decisions in the Test Series against SA possibly costing India a historic win, fought with the coach and got him removed to bring in Shastri and all his cronies, not to mention his antics towards both his teammates and opponents.

On the other hand Lloyd not just captained a team to great heights, he built it up from scratch after facing humiliations in Australia 75 and India's 400+ chase at home.

There are just as many bowlers - if not more - in current times who avg < 30 . BTW keep in mind that you agree that they play at a higher standard. Thats even more reason why your rant on Lloyd vs Kohli is a non starter.

Just Last 5 yrs:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

And India hasn't won anywhere in the last 5 years except Asia and WI. The WI team of the 80s went undefeated home and away. No comparison.

Ohh yeah? I guess its time to bump that 30th Century thread again to see who pwned who.

Sure. But make sure to address my stats that you've been dodging for months

There isnt even a level playing field here for any argument to even start ... Kohli plays atleast twice as much Intl Cricket as Lloyd did in his time and against far better teams that now regularly stay and play in India. And there is no comparison whatsoever as to the intensity, professionalism and the minute scrutiny that modern cricket is played under. Laughable and silly comparison that only you would make and then go on to whinge and cry when its turned back on you.

It's a level playing field because we're comparing WIs dominance in it's time to India's "dominance" in it's. And Kohli isn't doing anything which most of the other International players of this time aren't doing. You play according to the culture and conditions prevalent in your time and Kohli isn't doing anything special in that regard with respect to his era.

Do you realize that you have already been ridiculed before I even started ?

In your own mind. The only one getting ridiculed here is you because of your sheer cluelessness.

Debunking that happens inside the confines of your brain doesnt count. The fact of the matter is You brazenly lied that you watched the links I posted and claimed victory by saying McGrath bowled between 125-130. Such silly stunts work with primary school kids which is perhaps a more appropriate place for you to hang out rather than be here on PP where you will get bruised , battered and laughed at when you try such stunts.

I said McGrath primarily bowled in that range at that stage of his career. But obviously you'll twist it to make it seem like I said McGrath was physically incapable of bowling 130+ at that time and put in a 10 ball highlights package to "prove it" even in which there were balls below 130 lol.

 

[Tusker]

I laughed at your embarrassing comparison of Lloyd and Kohli's captaincy because it's indeed that embarrassing. Kohli's captaincy is a study in getting the absolute worst out of your resources. The guy has turned the entire team into such a scenario where NOBODY except himself could be ever assured of their place irrespective of whether they're playing good or bad, made mindblowingly dumb selection decisions in the Test Series against SA possibly costing India a historic win, fought with the coach and got him removed to bring in Shastri and all his cronies, not to mention his antics towards both his teammates and opponents.

On the other hand Lloyd not just captained a team to great heights, he built it up from scratch after facing humiliations in Australia 75 and India's 400+ chase at home.


And India hasn't won anywhere in the last 5 years except Asia and WI. The WI team of the 80s went undefeated home and away. No comparison.

Do you agree or not that it was YOU and not me or anyone started the comparison and ridicule without any provocation from anyone ? Yes or No ?

Sure. But make sure to address my stats that you've been dodging for months

already Done but I will respond to this gem on that thread ...

It's a level playing field because we're comparing WIs dominance in it's time to India's "dominance" in it's. And Kohli isn't doing anything which most of the other International players of this time aren't doing. You play according to the culture and conditions prevalent in your time and Kohli isn't doing anything special in that regard with respect to his era.

And the strengths and number of opposition , playing conditions etc are all the same to make this a valid comparison ?

In your own mind. The only one getting ridiculed here is you because of your sheer cluelessness.

This thread was in the deep freezer before it was bumped with the sole intention of laughing at your ridiculous posts. I had not even posted on this thread before it was bumped

I said McGrath primarily bowled in that range at that stage of his career...

Prove that with proper facts or concede. Right now its your words against video clips. But wait this is you and in your head this is a fact therefore you have already proven it ... tell me something new.

But obviously you'll twist it to make it seem like I said McGrath was physically incapable of bowling 130+ at that time and put in a 10 ball highlights package to "prove it" even in which there were balls below 130 lol.

about time someone schooled you on forum etiquette ... you see if you do not agree with the methodology then you make it known upfront. Thats the way to go about in a debate.

Brazenly lying and then having your bluff called out is something that works in Primary schools ... over here you will become a laughing stock and a butt of jokes.

 

[Proactive_]

Do you agree or not that it was YOU and not me or anyone started the comparison and ridicule without any provocation from anyone ? Yes or No ?

You see, this is EXACTLY how you run away from most arguments, this is an absolutely bookmarkable case of you dodging everything that I just posted by making a generic rhetorical point which has nothing to do with the discussion. And then, a few months from now you'll be bumping this same thread to claim some sort of a "victory" over the evil forces of the bygone eras

Typical.

already Done but I will respond to this gem on that thread ...
And the strengths and number of opposition , playing conditions etc are all the same to make this a valid comparison ?

Conditions are the same for all the teams in their respective eras which is the primary point in the argument.

Prove that with proper facts or concede. Right now its your words against video clips. But wait this is you and in your head this is a fact therefore you have already proven it ... tell me something new.



about time someone schooled you on forum etiquette ... you see if you do not agree with the methodology then you make it known upfront. Thats the way to go about in a debate.

Brazenly lying and then having your bluff called out is something that works in Primary schools ... over here you will become a laughing stock and a butt of jokes.

It's not my fault that you can't comprehend simple English and have to resort to twisting others' statements to wiggle out of an argument in which you've been debunked on like you claiming that medium pacers can't be good Test bowlers in India.

 

[Tusker]

You see, this is EXACTLY how you run away from most arguments, this is an absolutely bookmarkable case of you dodging everything that I just posted by making a generic rhetorical point which has nothing to do with the discussion. And then, a few months from now you'll be bumping this same thread to claim some sort of a "victory" over the evil forces of the bygone eras

Typical.

Run away ? I am right here. I just want to make sure you dont wiggle out from the topic of comparing current players to older era players.

So who started that topic in this thread which BTW has nothing to do with comparing players from different ERAs ? You or Me ?

Runtime incoming ?

Conditions are the same for all the teams in their respective eras which is the primary point in the argument.

They just arent ... WI never had to deal with a tough team like SA. Nor was the Aussie, Eng team any great in the 80s when compared to the Teams of this Decade.

It's not my fault that you can't comprehend simple English and have to resort to twisting others' statements to wiggle out of an argument in which you've been debunked on like you claiming that medium pacers can't be good Test bowlers in India.

First of all a bowler who predominantly bowls around 120K ( like Hadlee ) will be generally used as a part timer. You can label them Medium, Slow Medium, Fast medium or whatever but you will never find a passage of play where McGrath trundled at those speeds in that series. A hard fact that you better get used to or comeback here with evidence to prove your point. Untill then all you have done is lie thru your teeth and spew hot air

 

[Proactive_]

Run away ? I am right here. I just want to make sure you dont wiggle out from the topic of comparing current players to older era players.

So who started that topic in this thread which BTW has nothing to do with comparing players from different ERAs ? You or Me ?

Runtime incoming ?

There is no harm in comparing players from different eras only if you use the correct methodology of comparison, i.e who did better in their respective eras, not the nonsense that you started to spew about Starc bowling to tailenders.

They just arent ... WI never had to deal with a tough team like SA. Nor was the Aussie, Eng team any great in the 80s when compared to the Teams of this Decade.

And what consistently great teams has India defeated?

Australia- Which has a record of like 3-15 in Asia in the past 5 years?
England- Which came to India with the likes of Moeen and Rashid as their main spinners?
NZ? - Which came to India with Ish Sodhi and Santner as their main spinners?
WI?

Not to mention India just lost 2 months back in SA.

First of all a bowler who predominantly bowls around 120K ( like Hadlee ) will be generally used as a part timer. You can label them Medium, Slow Medium, Fast medium or whatever but you will never find a passage of play where McGrath trundled at those speeds in that series. A hard fact that you better get used to or comeback here with evidence to prove your point. Untill then all you have done is lie thru your teeth and spew hot air

And how did you ascertain that Hadlee was 120 kph? 115-120 is what women bowlers operate at. So if your argument is that Hadlee got 430 Test wickets bowling just about as fast as Jhulan Goswami does then I'm pretty sure there is no reason to further continue this argument lol.

 

[MenInG]

Ok so for Tusker and Proactive

Suggest you give this thread a rest as you are the only 2 people here.

Wait for some other views and then comeback later.

 

[Tusker]

Ok so for Tusker and Proactive

Suggest you give this thread a rest as you are the only 2 people here.

Wait for some other views and then comeback later.

Meh ... dont rob me of my free entertainment you heartless so and so ...
[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

The cricket ball used by Women is smaller and lighter )
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-4-the-ball/