a celebration of modern cricketing icons

[Beleg]

you get a lot of old foggies and misguided young lads on this forum praising the likes of trumper and stuff to the heavens and beyond. many of them are decidedly biased against the modern cricketing generations due to a variety of reasons.

this thread is meant to be a celebration of the achivements of the like of jayasuria, tendulkar, kumble, inzamam, waugh, gilchrist, warne, azharuddin, thorpey and numerous others who catch the wrong end of the weight-of-history stick. their longevity, their commitment, their performance puts them on a completely different pedestal to fellas like ye olde morris and trumper and tayfields and a bunch of others.

cross-generational comparisons are useless, but i'll come out and say that, if anything, in almost every case, the modern cricketer is far superior to their predecessors. and yes, it matters when you're trying to determine someone's greatness.

discuss. flame.

 

[Shri]

discuss. flame.

A flame is the visible (light-emitting) part of a fire. It is caused by a highly exothermic reaction (for example, combustion, a self-sustaining oxidation reaction) taking place in a thin zone. If a fire is hot enough to ionize the gaseous components, it can become a plasma.

The color and temperature of a flame are dependent on the type of fuel involved in the combustion, as, for example, when a lighter is held to a candle. The applied heat causes the fuel molecules in the wick to vaporize. In this state they can then readily react with oxygen in the air, which gives off enough heat in the subsequent exothermic reaction to vaporize yet more fuel, thus sustaining a consistent flame. The high temperature of the flame tears apart the vaporized fuel molecules, forming various incomplete combustion products and free radicals, and these products then react with each other and with the oxidizer involved in the reaction. Sufficient energy in the flame will excite the electrons in some of the transient reaction intermediates such as CH and C2, which results in the emission of visible light as these substances release their excess energy (see spectrum below for an explanation of which specific radical species produce which specific colors). As the combustion temperature of a flame increases (if the flame contains small particles of unburnt carbon or other material), so does the average energy of the electromagnetic radiation given off by the flame (see blackbody).

Other oxidizers besides oxygen can be used to produce a flame. Hydrogen burning in chlorine produces a flame and in the process emits gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCl) as the combustion product. Another of many possible chemical combinations is hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide which is hypergolic and commonly used in rocket engines.

The chemical kinetics occurring in the flame is very complex and involves typically a large number of chemical reactions and intermediate species, most of them radicals. For instance, a well-known chemical kinetics scheme, GRI-Mech , uses 53 species and 325 elementary reactions to describe combustion of natural gas.

There are different methods of distributing the required components of combustion to a flame. In a diffusion flame, oxygen and fuel diffuse into each other; where they meet the flame occurs. In a premixed flame, the oxygen and fuel are premixed beforehand, which results in a different type of flame. Candle flames (a diffusion flame) operate through evaporation of the fuel which rises in a laminar flow of hot gas which then mixes with surrounding oxygen and combusts.

 

[Beleg]

^

i bet them gramps couldn't wiki worth DOGs BOLLOCKS.

 

[Shri]

^

i bet them gramps couldn't wiki worth DOGs BOLLOCKS.

Indeed.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

you get a lot of old foggies and misguided young lads on this forum praising the likes of trumper and stuff to the heavens and beyond. many of them are decidedly biased against the modern cricketing generations due to a variety of reasons.

this thread is meant to be a celebration of the achivements of the like of jayasuria, tendulkar, kumble, inzamam, waugh, gilchrist, warne, azharuddin, thorpey and numerous others who catch the wrong end of the weight-of-history stick. their longevity, their commitment, their performance puts them on a completely different pedestal to fellas like ye olde morris and trumper and tayfields and a bunch of others.

cross-generational comparisons are useless, but i'll come out and say that, if anything, in almost every case, the modern cricketer is far superior to their predecessors. and yes, it matters when you're trying to determine someone's greatness.

discuss. flame.

Just to highlight some of this drivel, I highlighted two players; one a player kicked out of the game for actions totally contradictory to the ethics of the sport and which could have damaged the sport forever; and one a pioneer who helped develop the style and strokeplay that would be taken up and enhanced by those that come afterwards.


Just cause I'm more educated than my grandfather, doesn't give me the right to go around calling my grandfather dumb!

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

A flame is the visible (light-emitting) part of a fire. It is caused by a highly exothermic reaction (for example, combustion, a self-sustaining oxidation reaction) taking place in a thin zone. If a fire is hot enough to ionize the gaseous components, it can become a plasma.

The color and temperature of a flame are dependent on the type of fuel involved in the combustion, as, for example, when a lighter is held to a candle. The applied heat causes the fuel molecules in the wick to vaporize. In this state they can then readily react with oxygen in the air, which gives off enough heat in the subsequent exothermic reaction to vaporize yet more fuel, thus sustaining a consistent flame. The high temperature of the flame tears apart the vaporized fuel molecules, forming various incomplete combustion products and free radicals, and these products then react with each other and with the oxidizer involved in the reaction. Sufficient energy in the flame will excite the electrons in some of the transient reaction intermediates such as CH and C2, which results in the emission of visible light as these substances release their excess energy (see spectrum below for an explanation of which specific radical species produce which specific colors). As the combustion temperature of a flame increases (if the flame contains small particles of unburnt carbon or other material), so does the average energy of the electromagnetic radiation given off by the flame (see blackbody).

Other oxidizers besides oxygen can be used to produce a flame. Hydrogen burning in chlorine produces a flame and in the process emits gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCl) as the combustion product. Another of many possible chemical combinations is hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide which is hypergolic and commonly used in rocket engines.

The chemical kinetics occurring in the flame is very complex and involves typically a large number of chemical reactions and intermediate species, most of them radicals. For instance, a well-known chemical kinetics scheme, GRI-Mech , uses 53 species and 325 elementary reactions to describe combustion of natural gas.

There are different methods of distributing the required components of combustion to a flame. In a diffusion flame, oxygen and fuel diffuse into each other; where they meet the flame occurs. In a premixed flame, the oxygen and fuel are premixed beforehand, which results in a different type of flame. Candle flames (a diffusion flame) operate through evaporation of the fuel which rises in a laminar flow of hot gas which then mixes with surrounding oxygen and combusts.

Damn you did that quick. Chemistry major huh?

 

[Shri]

Damn you did that quick. Chemistry major huh?

More like a Copy n Paste Phd in wiki.

 

[Beleg]

Just to highlight some of this drivel, I highlighted two players; one a player kicked out of the game for actions totally contradictory to the ethics of the sport

and how does that supposed 'slight' detract from his cricketing abilities? yup, it doesn't. red herring if there ever is one.

and which could have damaged the sport forever;

chief, it'd be well worth educating yourself on the history of 'match-fixing' in cricket. sweeping statements and self-indignant waffling ain't going to cut it. critique his cricketing abilities - not his morals.

and one a pioneer who helped develop the style and strokeplay that would be taken up and enhanced by those that come afterwards.

blah blah blah blah blah blah. but you mentioned the key word yourself: enhanced. yup. so you do implicitly accept the superiority of the modern batsmen - however, the rose-tinted googles take some time to come off. i hope, in due time, they will.

Just cause I'm more educated than my grandfather, doesn't give me the right to go around calling my grandfather dumb!

a) the second part of your statement is not a corollary of the first bit. dumbness is a subjective measure and linking it to formal education is indictive of an inability to appreciate naunce and connotations on your part.

b) it's not a suitable simile. your increased awareness allows you to make a more informed decision on certain topics than your gramps. and that's not an indication of your gramps intellect - he simply didn't have access to the same tools that you have, ergo, he was limited - granted, by necessity, but limited nonetheless. a cricketer's place in the cricketing panatheon is based on their performance.

you cannot provide an automatic handicap to the players of yesteryears based on an assumption of parity.

well, you can, but your results will be about as objective as ian healy on the aussies performance. this is why i started with the premise that it's useless to compare somebody who played cricket a hundred years ago to somebody liked duminy. for all intents and purposes, they were playing two different sports.

your comparison is not only doing the modern cricketer a great disservice but it's also unfair to the old foggies - you're pitting them against those they can't inherently compete with.

 

[Evermind]

you get a lot of old foggies and misguided young lads on this forum praising the likes of trumper and stuff to the heavens and beyond. many of them are decidedly biased against the modern cricketing generations due to a variety of reasons.

this thread is meant to be a celebration of the achivements of the like of jayasuria, tendulkar, kumble, inzamam, waugh, gilchrist, warne, azharuddin, thorpey and numerous others who catch the wrong end of the weight-of-history stick. their longevity, their commitment, their performance puts them on a completely different pedestal to fellas like ye olde morris and trumper and tayfields and a bunch of others.

cross-generational comparisons are useless, but i'll come out and say that, if anything, in almost every case, the modern cricketer is far superior to their predecessors. and yes, it matters when you're trying to determine someone's greatness.

discuss. flame.

I agree with this. Comparing Sachin to Bradman is as good as comparing Sachin to Babe Ruth. Their stats are completely incommensurable. I think you can generally separate out eras - for me, pre-packer players are playing a completely different game, just for the sake of comparison.

Look at Trumper, for example. He faced only the SA and the English attack all his life. If we want to compare him to Ponting, let's assume Ponting only plays 2 attacks too - Pakistan and NZ - and he ends up with an average of 72.92. We will never know if Trumper would be as good as Ponting in SL, playing against the best spinner on his home turf. The diversity of skill required now is far, far greater than that required in the past.

The reason people are talking about Trumper a lot is because some people waxed lyrical about him a hundred years ago. If some others were to do the same about Ponting, would that put him on the same level as Trumper? It's so arbitrary.

I would never rate someone like Grace in top 10 list of batsmen - the guy didn't play tests. It's possible that he was facing Powar, Sami, Fernando, Plunkett and Mahmood -equivalents all his life. The game has become more athletic, more demanding, and I have a feeling that a large number of the "greats" would've been weeded out a long time ago in today's game.

 

[SJS]

Just cause I'm more educated than my grandfather, doesn't give me the right to go around calling my grandfather dumb!

And of course not everyone is more educated than their fathers/grandfathers (or people of their fathers/grandfather's generation)

 

[The Sean]

Why does a deserved celebration of truly wonderful modern players have to be accompanied – even inspired - by a denigration of the greats of the past and those who admire them?

 

[SJS]

Why does a deserved celebration of truly wonderful modern players have to be accompanied – even inspired - by a denigration of the greats of the past and those who admire them?

Because a celebration of (or even a long discussion on) the players of very old times seems to touch a raw nerve. An inability to contribute meaningfully to that debate brings forth a complete denunciation of the same which can be done without even knowing anything about it (those times and the players of those times).

Outright condemnation is often used to camouflage lack of understanding - and this is true not just in matter cricketing.

 

[bagapath]

..................................................... but i'll come out and say that, if anything, in almost every case, the modern cricketer is far superior to their predecessors. ..........................

you will say that because that is all you know. instead of making such sweeping statements which betray the lack of wisdom behind those words, catch up on some cricket reading and try to understand what the fuss is all about. if not, restart this thread and stick to celebration of modern cricketers without unnecessarily pulling down old cricketers and forum members who enjoy discussing them.

 

[Sanz]

I dont know how I would react if my grandchildren called the likes of Akram, Lara, Mcgrath, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting etc as some sort of inferior talent/players to those of their generation.

It is an absurd thread and tone of the thread is very demeaning to the sport itself and even more so to those who laid the foundations of the game for the love of the game and not for any materialistic gain.

 

[Uppercut]

Because a celebration of (or even a long discussion on) the players of very old times seems to touch a raw nerve. An inability to contribute meaningfully to that debate brings forth a complete denunciation of the same which can be done without even knowing anything about it (those times and the players of those times).

Outright condemnation is often used to camouflage lack of understanding - and this is true not just in matter cricketing.

Sometimes, yes- that seems to be the case here. Other times it touches a nerve because celebrating a bygone era is inadvertently devaluing another. It's not entirely due to lack of understanding that people who believe otherwise wish to dispute this.

It seems very belligerent I'm sure, but- to demonstrate it more clearly- what if i were to start a thread entitled, "A Celebration of Ricky Ponting- The Greatest Batsman of the Modern Era"? Tendulkar and Lara fans would be up in arms, when all i really wanted to do was talk about how good Ponting is.

Discussing the brilliance of the past does the same thing, although more subtly. Some will always prefer the modern era, and defend it fiercely when noone even intended to attack it.

 

[Sanz]

Because a celebration of (or even a long discussion on) the players of very old times seems to touch a raw nerve. An inability to contribute meaningfully to that debate brings forth a complete denunciation of the same which can be done without even knowing anything about it (those times and the players of those times).

Outright condemnation is often used to camouflage lack of understanding - and this is true not just in matter cricketing.

What a load of crap. Worst post in the thread so far. Far worse than the 1st post and perhaps such an attitude is the reason why such threads are created.

 

[grecian]

Damn shame a thread can't be voted nil. A good thread may have been one talking up modern players, but this is clearly an attempt to slate an older generation of players and people that dare advocate their greatness.

TBH, it seems a ridiculous propisition to me, to believe all the most talented players of a game appeared in the last 10 years

 

[SJS]

Sometimes, yes- that seems to be the case here. Other times it touches a nerve because celebrating a bygone era is inadvertently devaluing another. It's not entirely due to lack of understanding that people who believe otherwise wish to dispute this.

It seems very belligerent I'm sure, but- to demonstrate it more clearly- what if i were to start a thread entitled, "A Celebration of Ricky Ponting- The Greatest Batsman of the Modern Era"? Tendulkar and Lara fans would be up in arms, when all i really wanted to do was talk about how good Ponting is.

Discussing the brilliance of the past does the same thing, although more subtly. Some will always prefer the modern era, and defend it fiercely when noone even intended to attack it.

Have you seen my list of the ten greatest batsmen ? Do you see modern batsmen there?

Players who were born in 1848 (WG) or in 1877 (Trumper) are as old for me as they are for you (inspite of the thirty odd years that may separate us. The difference between Grace's time for me is same as Trumper's for you (more or less). So why should I have any great bias favouring Grace (or even Trumper). I may be older but I am not that old

We too had our favourites. Pataudi, Gavaskar and Vishwanath are for me as Tendulkar, Yuvraj and Gambhir are for you guys, yet you will not even find Gavaskar in my all time world XI though Sachin is touch and go.

Can you say the same for those who blindly support all modern cricketers and denounce all older ones.

One should be able to think for oneself and come to a conclusion based on knowledge and information which in the case of those before our times can come only from reading about them. We may still disagree, as I do with Archie Mac or The Sean or others at times, but at least we know why we choose a certain player. There are not many absolute certs when one is discussing players across a century but what we can do is to either know about greats of all times so as to be able to think for ourselves or accept that we do not know enough and temper one's points with that submission.

When I chose an all time world XI, I chose Barnes and Lillee as my new ball bowlers. They are separated by three quarters of a century. I choose Hobbs and I choose Sobers, again separated by half a century. I would unhesitatingly chose Murali as my spinner but for his bowling action issue and he is still playing.

I chose Grimmett instead of O'Rielly inspite of no less a cricketer than Bradman considering O'Rielly better. It doesn't make my choices better or correct. I am just explaining that my choices are neither based on whether a player is old or modern. Why should taht matter.

As for celebrating old cricketers, I do it here to share with those who may not have access, from my library of old cricket books. I can also start a thread to celebrate Sachin or Lara but why do you need that from me. You guys have seen them play live-hundreds of hours of their batting are available on film.

I do not celebrate Barnes or Trumper or Grace because I want to run down McGrath, Lara or Tendulkar but because we do not know enough about the first three.

Thats the difference between one kind of celebration and another.

 

[Uppercut]

Have you seen my list of the ten greatest batsmen ? Do you see modern batsmen there?

Players who were born in 1848 (WG) or in 1877 (Trumper) are as old for me as they are for you (inspite of the thirty odd years that may separate us. The difference between Grace's time for me is same as Trumper's for you (more or less). So why should I have any great bias favouring Grace (or even Trumper). I may be older but I am not that old

We too had our favourites. Pataudi, Gavaskar and Vishwanath are for me as Tendulkar, Yuvraj and Gambhir are for you guys, yet you will not even find Gavaskar in my all time world XI though Sachin is touch and go.

Can you say the same for those who blindly support all modern cricketers and denounce all older ones.

One should be able to think for oneself and come to a conclusion based on knowledge and information which in the case of those before our times can come only from reading about them. We may still disagree, as I do with Archie Mac or The Sean or others at times, but at least we know why we choose a certain player. There are not many absolute certs when one is discussing players across a century but what we can do is to either know about greats of all times so as to be able to think for ourselves or accept that we do not know enough and temper one's points with that submission.

When I chose an all time world XI, I chose Barnes and Lillee as my new ball bowlers. They are separated by three quarters of a century. I choose Hobbs and I choose Sobers, again separated by half a century. I would unhesitatingly chose Murali as my spinner but for his bowling action issue and he is still playing.

I chose Grimmett instead of O'Rielly inspite of no less a cricketer than Bradman considering O'Rielly better. It doesn't make my choices better or correct. I am just explaining that my choices are neither based on whether a player is old or modern. Why should taht matter.

As for celebrating old cricketers, I do it here to share with those who may not have access, from my library of old cricket books. I can also start a thread to celebrate Sachin or Lara but why do you need that from me. You guys have seen them play live-hundreds of hours of their batting are available on film.

I do not celebrate Barnes or Trumper or Grace because I want to run down McGrath, Lara or Tendulkar but because we do not know enough about the first three.

Thats the difference between one kind of celebration and another.

Aha, my post wasn't intended as to pass the blame for you for others' responses, nor to accuse you of provoking them by talking up Golden Era cricketers. I was merely trying to explain their reaction in terms of something other than ignorance.

Still, i'm quite glad you interpreted me as you did, because the response quoted is quite a post.

 

[SJS]

Aha, my post wasn't intended as to pass the blame for you for others' responses, nor to accuse you of provoking them by talking up Golden Era cricketers. I was merely trying to explain their reaction in terms of something other than ignorance.

Still, i'm quite glad you interpreted me as you did, because the response quoted is quite a post.

No my dear. I did not misunderstand your post. I realise it was not "to accuse (me) of provoking them by talking up Golden Era cricketers"

I just posted this after reading your post not in response to it. One does at times quote the last post not always meaning it to be the one that is being addressed