Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[OverratedSanity]

It's disrespectful...so i'd urge you to cut it out. Your mate has been reduced to being some "pretend commentator" because he can't stand the fact that he got banned trying to troll me and looked very silly in the process. Don't go down the same road OS...lets debate the issues and leave the negative stuff alone.

If I see a post I don't like, I'm allowed to say I think it's rubbish. I don't see how it's disrespectful to you as a person.

 

[Noah]

Kohli was around 25 when he scored that...Kraigg barely 22, I have hope.

So what? The fact that Kraigg Braithwaite is a young, promising player has nothing to do with this.

You questioned whether there was anything special about Kohli's tour of SA because you believe it was equivalent to Brathwaite's when there are reasonably obvious differences. In defence of that position you've:

1. Avoided the issue by choosing to criticise the accidental omission of one game, even though the game actually seems to work against your position
2. Once again avoided the issue by bringing up age, which doesn't change (in absolute terms) the quality of the innings

This is complete nonsense.

 

[WindieWeathers]

So what? The fact that Kraigg Braithwaite is a young, promising player has nothing to do with this.

You questioned whether there was anything special about Kohli's tour of SA because you believe it was equivalent to Brathwaite's when there are reasonably obvious differences. In defence of that position you've:

1. Avoided the issue by choosing to criticise the accidental omission of one game, even though the game actually seems to work against your position
2. Once again avoided the issue by bringing up age, which doesn't change (in absolute terms) the quality of the innings

This is complete nonsense.

SIGH!!..you really don't get it do you? my bringing up Kraigg's ton in relation to Kohli's was simply saying that Kohli didn't do that much better than a 22 year old rookie!!..but if you'd listen to you and your mates "he tore SA apart"..which he clearly DIDN'T.

This exchange is exactly the reason why i said from the outset that we should agree to disagree because tbh going round and round in circles is very tedious and i haven't got the patience for it.

 

[cnerd123]

It's disrespectful...so i'd urge you to cut it out. Your mate has been reduced to being some "pretend commentator" because he can't stand the fact that he got banned trying to troll me and looked very silly in the process. Don't go down the same road OS...lets debate the issues and leave the negative stuff alone.

The irony is strong in this one.

 

[cnerd123]

SIGH!!..you really don't get it do you? my bringing up Kraigg's ton in relation to Kohli's was simply saying that Kohli didn't do that much better than a 22 year old rookie!!..but if you'd listen to you and your mates "he tore SA apart"..which he clearly DIDN'T.

This exchange is exactly the reason why i said from the outset that we should agree to disagree because tbh going round and round in circles is very tedious and i haven't got the patience for it.

Oooh the age argument. WW clearly hasn't been reading the Sanga/Sachin thread.

 

[cnerd123]

Noah tucking into WW here with disdain. Solid stuff.

 

[Noah]

SIGH!!..you really don't get it do you? my bringing up Kraigg's ton in relation to Kohli's was simply saying that Kohli didn't do that much better than a 22 year old rookie!!..but if you'd listen to you and your mates "he tore SA apart"..which he clearly DIDN'T.

I understand why you brought up Kraig Brathwaite. My objection is that your statement is not correct. Kohli did do better than Brathwaite but instead of actually trying to discuss that you've used every possible red herring and misdirection to avoid having to defend that very silly position.

Kohli scored 119 and 97 and thoroughly dominated Steyn and Philander. He was awarded man-of-the-match and put India in a dominant position in a game when the expectation was the South Africa would roll India. And over the entire series, he scored the second most runs of any player with 272 @ 68. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that he was quite dominant.

By contrast, Brathwaite made three starts and only converted one of those into an impressive innings. He finished the series with 183 runs @ 30.5.

The difference between their performances is as clear as the nose on my face and yet you still find new ways to avoid actually addressing that issue. So far we are up to:

1. Avoiding the issue by choosing to criticise the accidental omission of one game from my post, even though that game actually seems to work against your position
2. Once again avoiding the issue by bringing up Brathwaite's age, which doesn't change (in absolute terms) the quality of the innings
3. Then claiming that I don't understand what you meant (I really do, I just think it is rubbish)
4. Finally, saying that you tire of such tedious debates so that you don't have to justify an opinion that has no qualitative or quantitative backing

 

[cnerd123]

Ooof that's gonna hurt.

WW to reply with many smilies and capitalised words. Probably also another pot shot at me.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I understand why you brought up Kraig Brathwaite. My objection is that your statement is not correct. Kohli did do better than Brathwaite but instead of actually trying to discuss that you've used every possible red herring and misdirection to avoid having to defend that very silly position.

Kohli scored 119 and 97 and thoroughly dominated Steyn and Philander. He was awarded man-of-the-match and put India in a dominant position in a game when the expectation was the South Africa would roll India. And over the entire series, he scored the second most runs of any player with 272 @ 68. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that he was quite dominant.

By contrast, Brathwaite made three starts and only converted one of those into an impressive innings. He finished the series with 183 runs @ 30.5.

The difference between their performances is as clear as the nose on my face and yet you still find new ways to avoid actually addressing that issue. So far we are up to:

1. Avoiding the issue by choosing to criticise the accidental omission of one game from my post, even though that game actually seems to work against your position
2. Once again avoiding the issue by bringing up Brathwaite's age, which doesn't change (in absolute terms) the quality of the innings
3. Then claiming that I don't understand what you meant (I really do, I just think it is rubbish)
4. Finally, saying that you tire of such tedious debates so that you don't have to justify an opinion that has no qualitative or quantitative backing

LOL where the hell are you getting your stats from? YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN as he actually averaged 36 as stated HERE ....and you say my argument is "silly" when you can't even get basic statistic right?

Oh and btw Kraigg also got a "MAN OF THE MATCH" award against SA just like Kohli did!!..so that's another flop on your part...that's why debating you is tedious, i don't want to have to correct people all the time.

 

[cnerd123]

Wow. You found the tiniest bit of math he did wrong, and decided it was therefore not worth arguing with him.

Impressive even by your high standards.

And hey, I was right about the smilies and capitalised words!

 

[Noah]

LOL where the hell are you getting your stats from? YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN as he actually averaged 36 as stated HERE ....and you say my argument is "silly" when you can't even get basic statistic right?

That'll teach me to do the match in my head.

But it really doesn't change the argument. 272 runs @ 68 looks quite different to 183 @ 36 doesn't it? A stupid mathematical error on my part doesn't change the massive gulf in the runs scored by those two.

Oh and btw Kraigg also got a "MAN OF THE MATCH" award against SA just like Kohli did!!..so that's another flop on your part...that's why debating you is tedious, i don't want to have to correct people all the time.

I think the difference between the man-of-the-match awards is quite clear. Kohli's was awarded for two quality innings that put India in an excellent position whereas Brathwaite made one quality innings in a game that petered out to a draw. Kohli was MOTM because he dominated the game, whereas Brathwaite played very well but I don't think he dominated the game to the same level.

Correcting people isn't tedious; it is incredibly simple and in no way prevents you from continuing the debate. Regardless of my inability to do basic arithmetic, Kohli still scored far more runs and dominated a game in a way that Brathwaite did not manage. The problem is that you'd much rather nit-pick at minor details than discuss that fact.

 

[cnerd123]

Noah showing fantastic restraint here, choosing to quietly pat the half volleys away instead of slogging them to the men waiting in the deep.

 

[WindieWeathers]

That'll teach me to do the match in my head.

But it really doesn't change the argument. 272 runs @ 68 looks quite different to 183 @ 36 doesn't it? A stupid mathematical error on my part doesn't change the massive gulf in the runs scored by those two.



I think the difference between the man-of-the-match awards is quite clear. Kohli's was awarded for two quality innings that put India in an excellent position whereas Brathwaite made one quality innings as a game that petered out to a draw. Not to mention that Kohli scored significantly more runs overall.

Correcting people isn't tedious; it is incredibly simple and in no way prevents you from continuing the debate. The problem is that you'd much rather nit-pick at minor details than discuss the overall issue.

I give you credit Noah..you've tried, you really have but the constant errors are undermining your argument...but hey look on the brightside, you've now won yourself a "fan" who's even answering posts for you!!..so "every cloud" as they say. Good luck.

 

[cnerd123]

I give you credit Noah..you've tried, you really have but the constant errors are undermining your argument...but hey look on the brightside, you've now won yourself a "fan" who's even answering posts for you!!..so "every cloud" as they say. Good luck.

 

[Noah]

I give you credit Noah..you've tried, you really have but the constant errors are undermining your argument...but hey look on the brightside, you've now won yourself a "fan" who's even answering posts for you!!..so "every cloud" as they say. Good luck.

Methinks calculating an average as 30.5 instead of 36 is a far smaller error than believing that 36 and 68 are similar ... or thinking that all MOTM awards are equivalent ... or thinking that judging two players performances just on the number of 100s is a valid metric.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wow this thread gets better and better every hour. ATG quality. We should have a Best of WW and Blocky thread which compiles all their great moments into one big beautiful pile.

 

[cnerd123]

Wow this thread gets better and better every hour. ATG quality. We should have a Best of WW and Blocky thread which compiles all their great moments into one big beautiful pile.

Honestly these two have made my day. Better than the Smith vs Kohli rivalry IMO.

 

[Blocky]

Wow this thread gets better and better every hour. ATG quality. We should have a Best of WW and Blocky thread which compiles all their great moments into one big beautiful pile.

What about the one where Indian cricketers discredit their ATG batsman of the past in order to make their current stars look better? That should go into a "greatest moments" thread.

The reality is you guys make just as many "****" calls as WW does, the issue is you don't have an OverratedSanity or a Sledger or a ***** following you around trying to point out every little mistake you make. It's highly amusing though, watching people get so upset and agonised because WW is almost bullishly supportive of his team over any other, for me, he reminds me of the Channel 9 commentary team and how they regard the Australians. He's actually not that "rare" of a personality type in sport, there are a tonne of nationalistic "my team is godly, your team is flawed" people supporting sport. He just happens to post here.

 

[cnerd123]

What about the one where Indian cricketers discredit their ATG batsman of the past in order to make their current stars look better? That should go into a "greatest moments" thread.

The reality is you guys make just as many "****" calls as WW does, the issue is you don't have an OverratedSanity or a Sledger or a ***** following you around trying to point out every little mistake you make. It's highly amusing though, watching people get so upset and agonised because WW is almost bullishly supportive of his team over any other, for me, he reminds me of the Channel 9 commentary team and how they regard the Australians. He's actually not that "rare" of a personality type in sport, there are a tonne of nationalistic "my team is godly, your team is flawed" people supporting sport. He just happens to post here.

Clearly what he is doing with Noah isn't just nationalistic bs tho. He is actively avoiding an argument on the most inane premises possible.

 

[Blocky]

Clearly what he is doing with Noah isn't just nationalistic bs tho. He is actively avoiding an argument on the most inane premises possible.

Sure, like I say, WW makes just as many **** calls as you guys do. :P