I meant the latter - from the start of the career to the end of the peak.Originally Posted by C_C
Once again, simple logic is to take it as "hardly anyone will average..."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.
More understanding than me? Maybe so. I've had injuries aplenty, so I understand dosages of pain equally well.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.
And I was not referring specifically to the pain but the pain combined with the knowledge of what the pain was forcing you to miss, combined with the knowledge of the long-term damage you were doing in order to get around what's causing the pain, is something you have absolutely no clue of, unless you've read his autobiography.
Congratulations on being able to correct me for the first time.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.
No, I'm not, it's not felt acceptible to do such things on the site.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 do, though, talk pretty regularly with most posters on MSN and let me assure you, that'd not happen if I was considered the possessor of hairbrained ideas.
Not by studying posts on an internet forum you're not.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.
And find me where I've said I've the literary skills to write books? On ANYTHING?
All I've said is I've the understanding of cricket to do so, and more significantly write shorter articles.
Nope, they're nothing remotely close, otherwise amateurs would have been humiliated every time they took the field. Yes, most professionals were better than most amateurs, and that, amazingly, is why most of the best players at both domestic and international level were professionals, especially bowlers.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.
Lucky you. Maybe you might have pro-American bias that's never been relevant to discussions, too.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.
No-one, however, needs to ask where your preferance lies with regards the major cricketing nations. Even you couldn't make Canadians look the best.
Indeed it is. Not all regions, however, are synonymous with ethenticity, and the India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka cricket triangle is one that isn't.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.
Maybe - if I didn't realise it was factually flawed.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.
No, cricket didn't "explode" as you put it until the 70s, but it was still very much around for most of the 20th-century.
What would have been the point of "All India" being given Test-status if the game wasn't incredibly popular?
And given that I'm not one to be spoon-fed rubbish such as pro-Anglo propaganda that's not a likelihood.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.
Of course, there's equal propensity for the thing to happen the other way around, Anglophobia is a large part of subcontinental and Arab society (for obvious reasons) and while I'm not for a second, unlike you, going to suggest that influences your values, there's absolutely no disputing it.
Like I've said earlier, maybe or maybe not you are aware of a bias towards your own lands in terms of cricketing assessment. I've said, time and again, that if you look hard enough and turn enough angles you can find statistics to prove anything. I'm not saying that it happens all the time with you, unlike Scallywag, but equally there are many occasions where I find your take on the validity of certain statistics flawed and the validity of others far greater.