India 316 allout
Windies 30/1
Looks like another big defeat coming up for the Windies.
I dunno I think there is some curse on us by some Indian pundit.
The indians are getting better and we are getting worser..I would love to trade Nazir for Shewag :D
Kudos to indians!They are playing an awesome cricket maybe they hit the peak too soon ..who knows
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sherrybaba: *
Nazir for Shewag :D
[/QUOTE]
Yes please :D
I think Windies can still comeback, they lead by 34 runs with 6 wickets remaining, anything between 150 and 200 will give India alot of trouble, the still have Sarwan, who is a really good batsman, Ryan Hinds, never heard of him and Ridly Jacobs who is very useful down the order.
I said it from the begining, since the first time I saw Sehwag, he is exactly like Tendulkar and play doubted that. I think this guy is going to be the next or even bigger Tendulkar, he is more aggressive and more consistent, plays well under pressure, perfect batsman for a one day team. The way he is going rightnow, he will pass Bradman, Tendulkar and Gavaskar in the next 6 or 7 years.
Yes I would love to have Sehwag in my team, I don't think he fears any bowlers, its a shame he hasn't played against the best bowlers in the world like Shoaib, Wasim, Waqar, McGrath and Warne.
Having Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvraj, and Kaif in the line, I think India doesn't have to worry about having even single bowler in their lineup, they should go with 11 batsman and post aroun 320+ every time and they are bound to win matches with Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Kaif bowling 10 overs each.
*West Indies 186-4 *
Shewagh can never be like Tendulkar - The Guy scores couple of hundreds and starts his badbolapan - "We will beat WI in 4 days at the end of the first day".
To be like Sachin - Shewagh has to bat like him on the field for another 10 years and behave like him off the field. I dont think he can do either of the two.
Saying that he will pass Bradman & Gavaskar vis another joke. No one can be better than Sir Don.No matter how good one plays. Sir Don will always be the greatest.
West indies all out 229
India 81/2
India won by 8 wickets.
Well played India.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
No matter how good one plays. Sir Don will always be the greatest.
[/QUOTE]
Is there a LAW or something in this regard. Worshipping GREAT players from the past is OK but this is sheer fanaticism and illogical. I am wondering if Asif_k did even ever see Don Bradman batting... you have to SEE two players bat under the same contemporary setting to decide who is GREATER than the other.... Bradman may have been very good in his time but he was certainly not SUPER HUMAN........remember also that today's cricket is much more professional and technology driven (e.g. the opponents watch videos to plan strategically etc.), there is much more international cricket(players like Tendulkar/Sehwag have to be on their toes all the time) and in Bradman's time there was no ONE-DAY MATCHES - an important aspect of today's cricket.....
Did someone say about comparing apples to oranges !!
Who cares about Bradman!
None of us ever saw him play, I think greats like Sachin and Richards are better than him.
From all we know it, Bradman is probably some madeup figure, he was probably good in his days but since then the bowling has changed, back then cricket used to be played on dead pitches but now days you have so much variety of pitches. Now days you have the likes of Akhtar and Murali who are world class and Bradman would have a hard time playing against him.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
Who cares about Bradman!
None of us ever saw him play, I think greats like Sachin are better than him.
[/QUOTE]
Right said !!! Thats a classical problem of comaparison, where there is not much of a common background. But can u envison someone 50 years down the line doing the same kinda analysis and trying to find out , who was the greatest? I think in that case the context 'll b reduced to just stats or may b someone can come up with some statistical model taking into account the quality of opposition. But that kinda research is far fetched and I beleive the best way to 'measure' the greatness is the records. More the records , better the player!
Indian_Teen, 50 years from now people will be able to watch Tendulkar old cricket matches but rightnow there is barely no proof of Bradman, if he was so great then why don't they ever show anything on TV.
Its not like Bradman lived in Pakistan at that time, I'm sure they had cameras in Australia.
Here in USA they show biographies of baseball legends all the time from 1930s, thats around the same time of Bradman.
Umair what are you trying to say. In your posts above you have said it might be madeup figure and why are they not showing anything on TV. Are you doubting his records or that he existed all together or that it is a figment of our imagination?
I am not doubting his record, it is probably true but if he was that great that why don't they have anything else just than the lame 99.94 avg. Even if its true, he would be just another ordinary batsman if he were to play today's version of test cricket and fast paced one day.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
Indian_Teen, 50 years from now people will be able to watch Tendulkar old cricket matches but rightnow there is barely no proof of Bradman, if he was so great then why don't they ever show anything on TV.
Its not like Bradman lived in Pakistan at that time, I'm sure they had cameras in Australia.
Here in USA they show biographies of baseball legends all the time from 1930s, thats around the same time of Bradman.
[/QUOTE]
Thats what I mentioned as 'classical problem of comparison' ! Do u ve ne video of Lincon/Washington; yet they are the best prezs of US, not Bush. There are many other factors as well, which decide the 'success => greatness ' and foremost of them is records. I hope I make myself clear.
comments/arguments/suggestions ?