Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[flute]

For starters, this is a false assertion because GG was not a replacement, he was already playing (since the T20 WC).

can you please clarify if you remember which position GG & SG were playing in 2007? your point is valid if GG was opening the innings along with SG or if SG was coming down the order, while GG was opening.

Don't you think GG is SG's replacement if GG started opening the inings after SG left eventhough both of them played together a bit in different positions?

Where the heck did bias come into this ? Are you dreaming ? Or do you not read ?

not dreaming my friend. I am still hung up on your original accusation ( and being repeated by Inoc) which is how this whole thread got diverted into comparison of GG Vs SG & bias etc.
I am still not able to believe that you of all people used my innocuous true statement ( borne out by subsequent events, things improved after SG left and GG came in at the top of the order) to lebel me biased.

[inoc]

flute

I hope you were kidding. If you are going to consider me anti-SG just because I said he failed to work on his fielding, did not like his shirt waving, slow at the top , then there is no point discussing this further. This post of your basically shows your own bias rather than mine.

I didnt consider you to be anti SG on the basis of your fielding, shirt waving posts. I called you anti SG on the basis of the number of posts (anti SG many times > pro SG).

this is a fact that you have accepted in this thread

Yes, I will readily agree that more of my posts are anti-SG than pro-SG

you proceeded to qualify bias and anti SG as separate things which is not wholly incorrect but when one action severely outweighs the other then the strict definition is blurred, certainly in the minds of the other readers here. I pointed it out to you in the same post that you will disagree, but thats not the point.

this started the whole discussion despite my reluctance in the first place.

you are now picking and choosing separate instances from my posts to try and ridicule me by transplanting motives, where none exist.

I will come to this bit again later on in the post.

Put aside your biases and think about it.

you want me to categorically show you why I consider you to be biased and here you are already calling me biased.
a bit more of your own standards should apply to you rather than the rest of the readers.

At the time of SG's shirt waving, many  people disagreed with it and even now many don't like it. If you think, I am biased against SG just because I don't like his bare chested show, then again it is a reflection on you , not me.

your definition of bias - again from this thread: (in italics)


Flute : "In my mind, bias is something without the benefit of reason,objectivity and logic"


read the relevant portion of my post which persuaded you to respond in such manner (in italics)

re shirt waving:

" which has been mentioned by most top players including ex players during their tributes on his retirement as the single most important instance which benefited Indian cricket with not a single article/tribute mentioning it as detrimental in any way or form. your stance here if not anti SG certainly does not gel with the vast majority of cricket followers in the country. you are entitled to your unique view."

where is the accusation of bias here.

I merely pointed out that your view as evidenced from the numerous tributes written recently, mostly point it to be a positive thing. As far as I can remember none criticised it. On that evidence you are outnumbered here - thats all. My personal opinion regarding the shirt waving is inconsequential here.

reflection on me - OK, I liked what he did, I thought it was a good answer back to Flintoff, I give very little importance to how that had a negative view of our culture, (numerous examples of expletives being mouthed by all and sundry are commonplace on TV)

I dont wish to go into the good, bad or ugly discussion of the shirt waving episode. we stand apart on our views of it and so let it be.

You are again living in a totally different world if you think many people agree with you when you say SG worked hard on his fielding and running between wickets. Many cricket followers will actually laugh at you at that assertion.

how convenient. when I pointed out that you were in a minority in the above paragraphs - it became a reflection of me (which mirrors are you using by the way )

now conveniently and without ever being able to show me the proof, you make a presumption that most people agree with you and not me.

my retort was based on published evidence and yours is based on a presumption.

Who is being logical here?
whose argument is based on reason/objectivity and logic? (your definition)
and who are you calling biased?

As for being slow at the top of the order in ODIs after his come back, it is a cricketing point I made and I proved to be correct looking at the team after the old guard moved on. If you are still not able to accept it, then again, it is a reflection of your own biases, not mine. Many people on this DG agree with me on this point. Feel free to take a poll if you want. Now, if you consider anyone who doesn't agree with you as biased, then that is different matter.

read your post this time again. (in italics)

Flute: "his slow batting at the top of the order in ODI at the fag end of his ODI career"


My response was regarding this statement and this statement alone. this was factually incorrect.

you are now quantifying/qualifying the above statement to nullify my response, which I feel is not honest.

however, if you add the following existing conditions at the time.....

SGs SR in that climate/ his age/ his fielding/the fact that we were building towards 2011/ emergence of younger potentially better ODI cricketers etc etc

.... my views on it are well documented in this DG and they are not far removed from what you are suggesting.

if you need proof for your bias, here it is. You are clearly labelling a poster just because you do not agree with his cricketing points, contrary to your belief, the cricketing points many people agree with. Even if not many agree with me, it doesn't automatically follow that I am biased, because I give reasoning for my views. Your views/criteria for calling someone biased/anti astound me. I am amazed you are not able to differentiate between criticism/disgreement and bias.

I hope this post so far should answer this paragraph. My amazement is the ease with which you call others biased, while reserving the stringent of criteria for your own self, and flouting them willy nilly to suit your arguments.

I am being very consistent here.

sorry to disappoint you, but, you are not.

In your eagerness you are not able to see my point. I strongly disagree with labeling a person instead of debating the point under discussion.

and then go ahead and do it anyway.

I for one, will never do it again ( I did do it initially long time ago). I try my best to forget everything that happened in other threads and continue my dialogue giving the other poster clean slate to articulate their points. This is virtual world, it is ridiculous to hold bad feelings on particular posters. I might not have been always successful but I always consciously try to stick to it.

I think most of us do this all the time. you are no exception. Otherwise, if we believed in the online persona, we wouldnt be coming back and joining in on other discussions all the time for years now. you are trying to sound as if you are the only one who does it - it is a given in a forum like this. yes there are circumstances when the line is crossed but good sense prevails most of the time.

If you see me not being consistent with the above stated position, please do point it out and I promise to retract my post. There is no perch, no exalted thing here, I think it is just plain stupid & ridiculous & childish to hold grduges/dislike for mere virtual handles.

I believe I have done so. It is for you to take it aboard.

Above doesn't mean, I let posters constantly attack me ignoring the topic under discussion. Based on posters previous behaviour, I either ignore or banter or ridicule or joke since they are anyway not discussing the point. As I found out, ignoring doesn't always work. But, you will not find me veering the discussion down the drain by labelling them or calling a poster's intentions into question.

this is very commendable on your part and I wish others, me included could be as responsible.

Now, coming to your point about my alleged inconsistency. I am not a fool, when I say, I disagree with labeling people during a discussion, it doesn't mean I think nobody has biases, far from it, I do form opinions about different handles based on their posting pattern but I always try to give them benefit of doubt from post to post & thread to thread in the interest of discussion/debate. Why I do that? many times, the opinions I form are wrong, very few are articulate enough to put their thoughts into writing and give a completely different meaning to their post. In this particular dialogue we are having, the point of discussion is biased opinions of posters. You are discussing my biases and I am discussing your biases, and in that context, it is only fair for me to take the liberty to characterise your posts since that is what we are talking about now. You will never find me carrying this into another thread and starting off with your "bias" each time we discuss SG and I hope and expect the same from you. Remember, so far, all I said about you is that if you find diagreeing with SG's shirt removal as biased then that reflects your own bias. I did not exactly call you a worshipper and no I do think you are a worshipper of SG. The context as I clarified earlier was, if you are not able to take criticsm of SG, then it is better to build a temple rather than develop ill will towards others by accusing them of bias. I hope you see the difference. Hope this clarifies my position.

this is the bit that I said I will come to later on in the first few lines of my post.

we all have opinions about other posters whether you put it down in writing is another matter. the opinions exist nevertheless.

we all club together posters in groups consciously or subconsciously. that is why when you make strict definitions separating anti SG posts from biased posts, the definitions are blurred in the mind. it is the posting pattern of a poster which determines whether he is biased or not and in that sense the numbers matter.... a fact that you alluded to as ridiculous and beyond discussion in an earlier post, questioning my capabilities at logical discussion.

here it is: again in italics

flute: "Inoc, is this the depth of your logic then? count anti SG posts and pro SG posts and if one is more than the other, you call that poster biased?

In fact, in case of anti SG posts, like Bush's 2000 election, there is not even full counting on this DG, if there is one anti-SG post, that is it, you are out, you can never ever be a SG fan or SG supporter."

I hope you understand the logic a bit better this time, because you have me clubbed as a biased SG supporter (should have just said 'gangulian') based on similar perceptions.

just like you moan 'one anti SG post, that is it', similarly one pro SG post or one criticizing a SG criticism, is it as well. you seem to portray yourself as a very intelligent and understanding person - it stupefies me why you did not understand that this was two sides of the same coin.

you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I called you biased because I did not agree with you regarding the 'shirt waving incident' but chose to ignore my clearly stated reasoning in the same post. it is because your perception of me as a poster is pro ganguly (it is incorrect - but that is another discussion )

it does not depend on a few positive or negative posts one has made against the grain - the crux of my initial post in this regard.


I intend this to be my last post in this matter, unless I find something relevant to respond to.

[kban1]

can you please clarify if you remember which position GG & SG were playing in 2007? your point is valid if GG was opening the innings along with SG or if SG was coming down the order, while GG was opening.

Don't you think GG is SG's replacement if GG started opening the inings after SG left eventhough both of them played together a bit in different positions?

This is the lamest argument of them all.

GG was playing as no 3, SG as an opener. So ?

Whats the difference here --both were playing in the top order.

For that matter, SG played a couple of matches at no 3. And before he was dropped, he played  a lot of matches at no 3. What does that prove or show ?

if your argument is GG got the openers position only because SG was left out, one could easily argue that the same switch could have been effected by dropping SG to 3. Unless the argument is that GG would not cut it at no 3, I fail to see this dstinction.

And As i said before, its rather dangerous to compare GG's current Sr as opener with SG's SR as opener a year ago.

One important factor -- confidence / security. 2nd important factor --in 2007, we played quite  a few matches (england, ireland) in helpful conditions where the ball does more and therefore induces slower SRs

As I explained earlier, when Sg and GG are compared under same conditiions (matchwise) and same conditions environmentally (both insecure), GG is definitely not the better player.

[inoc]

I have to disagree with the following even without bringing SG's poor fielding and running between the wickets into the picture.

3. his slow batting at the top of the order in ODI at the fag end of his ODI career

factually incorrect. SG scored at exactly the same rate that he did for his entire career (incidentally when everybody considered him to be an ODI great) and scored at four points above his career average,

That is the problem ... his strike rate remained the same while average innings totals in ODIs went up ... his strike rate may have been great earlier but was not good enough in the current environment.

india won 19 of 32 matches since his return (despite the world cup debacle), more than indias average and certainly more than the 13 they won of thirty, in the previous year.

And I can say the following:

India's W/L ratio (against non minnows):
Since SG's return till he was droppped: 1.5 (0.83 overseas)
After SG was dropped: 1.62 (1.37 overseas)

Shall we say a definite improvement because he was dropped?

scored more than a thousand runs in the year a fact we are hailing GG for this year but often forgotten with regards to SG.

SG scored 892 runs against non minnows in 2007 - average of 37 at a SR of 73

GG has scored 817 runs in 2008 - average of 41 at a SR of 87

SR difference of 14 pts AND a higher average! Is it any wonder that we are hailing GG as a much superior replacement?

KIC

your argument is superfluous although apt.

my response was for a particular statement not in any way analysing SG/GG.

It has however kindled an interest which I will follow and post if and when I have the time.

Suffice to say in this instance you didnt understand what I meant.

[justforkix]

A more accurate measurement of their performance comes in matches in which they played together.

If I break this down even further, and exclude the minnow games from this list of games that they played together:

SG:
M        I       NO    Runs      Avg            SR
13      12       0      360       30.00       78.77

GG:
M        I       NO    Runs      Avg            SR
13      13       3      322       26.83       71.23

Same opposition, no minnows, 3 extra not outs and yet......Gee, looks like a different picture when one actually drills down.

Cool, given that the numbers look pretty much the same in the games they played together and given that GG is a better fielder/runner than SG, there was nothing wrong in terming GG a better replacement to SG

ps: its only 1 not out for GG - 4* vs. Aus.

First of all, I should correct a typo -- GG had only 1 not out and not 3 in the figures I posted (the matches he and SG played together). As such, my comment about 3 not outs is inaccurate as well.

Second, I know one of the not outs was in a washed out game in which he scored 4 vs Australia.

If you exclude that one innings and the one not out, then their figures read as follows:

SG:
12 innings, 360 runs, average 30.00, SR 78.77

GG:
12 innings, 318 runs, average 26.50, SR 72.30

The fact then becomes clear that an average of 3.50 below and a SR of 6.50 below what SG had over the same period does not make him "a much superior replacement". That is the point under discussion here.

But it is clear that it is a comparable replacement even though GG was not playing so well and SG was playing well at that time !!

first with GG:
A majority of his matches were played under Dravid. During that time, he was not a surety in the playing XI. yes, some of these matches were played on bowler friendly conditions in England but both his average and SR reflects his level of comfort and confidence regarding his team role.

Then the T-20 win comes along and MSD takes over as ODI captain. First thing MSD does is reassure the players that they will get a long run without being dropped --that they need not worry about the damocles sword hanging over their head, but need to go out and perform. GG was one of those singled out by MSD for support because MSD saw the potential in him. This is very similar to what SG did when he took over as captain -- he believed, he gave them a free rein and told his players you will not be discarded after 2-3 failures, and we all know what happened once the players had that confidence.

back to MSD and GG, see where GG's performances take off. His average soars, his SR jumps from low 70's to 80's and he is now a mainstay of our top order. hats off to GG and MSD.

HUH ?!? And I could say it was nothing to do with any of this and just that GG was not in such greta form during 2007 and scored great in domestics including big ones in SF and F of Ranjis and got into rich vein of form and then carried it over to internationals in 2008.

And now SG:
he comes back after the Chapell fiasco and in his first ODI he scores a 98 with a SR of 89+. The run continues but right in the middle of his comeback (after 15 months outside), the BCCI decide to rest him. In fact he was rested in the 3rd match itself after he scored 98 & 13 in the 1st 2. Shah even went as far as to say he has been dropped. During this time, SG said "why rest me ? I havent played for 15 months, let me play, I am eager".

Then comes the WC. And after the failure therein, the Indian team is pilloried in the press, by the BCCI and everyone concerned. Sg who has just returned to the team is pilloried for the result (even though in the pivotal match against Bang, he was the one who scored and he DID try repeatedly to score faster by improvising /stepping away except his shots ended up going directly to fielders --I'm sure you remember that), malicious rumors are floated around that he played per some fictitious contract which rewarded time at the crease. Further malicious rumors about him and SRT being destabilizing forces in the dressing room, each angling to sabotage RD and take away the captaincy are floated in the press with the BCCI buying in and the erstwhile captain not saying a word in public to dispel the rumors. The BCCI reacts by dropping SRT and SG from the Bangladesh ODI's and calls it a punitive dropping even though DBV's selection commitee refuses to toe the BCCI line and calls it resting.

Knowing that he is the most vulnerable of the players in the Indian team, given the current BCCI using him as a pawn to settle old political scores with Dalmiya, knowing that he is without support altogether, knowing that the sword is hanging over his shoulders cant be the scenario that boosts confidence or evokes warm fuzzies, can it ? Especially after he is dropped / rested on every whim ?

So he goes into a shell when he is playing. Recall circa 2004-5, when his poorer ODI performance came by sometimes due to his decision to take some risks to score fast --it ended up hurting him because people /selectors tend to fall back on numbers because by then context of the game fades from memory. he probably decided to make a slight trade off -- slightly lower SR but a higher average because the runs would ensure his place in the side. Its a thinking that stems from insecurity

Insecurity further bred by rumors / leaks circling around that selectors want him out of the ODi squad as does captain MSD yet both selectors and captain assure him nothing is wrong when he asks them.

Insecurity about his role, about his place leads to lower output --runs and SR. One bad series against Pak and he is out.

Its an instructive tale -- the support and confidence GG got worked wonders in transforming GG from an avg player to the jewel in the ODi team.

The lack of support and the consequent insecurity resulted in the opposite results for SG.

Its quite easy to make assertions based on numbers, and they are clean and easy because they are simplistic, its a tad more difficult to look beyond the numbers into everything that goes into the performance thats the basis for numbers. I think you will find this easier to grasp than several others on this DG.

One can come up such stories and excuses for every failure of batters or bowlers.

[justforkix]

if someone saying that people ignored the 1000 runs Sg scored in a year but they are all praise for GG can be taken to be a criteria /parameter to establish one player's superiority over another, then all I can say is that you are clutching at straws.

Yes of course - KIC pointed out why the SG's 1000 runs was ignored while GG"s 1000 runs were praised. One was scored at S/R of 73 while the other scored at a S/R of 90 -  A HUGE DIFFERENCE !!!

And of course I need to ask you this because you decided to jump into the discussion to question why I presented the stats. You are the one who is deeming my usage of stats to be irrelevant to the discussion when

my usage is perfectly legitimate given the conclusion drawn by kic. I am responding to a specific point made by kic, and the basis for that analysis --my point has nothing to do with why SG was dropped, whether GG is a good player etc etc.

It does help if you pay attention to the context.

Nope, your post is quite irrelevant and it is you who needs to read the context better and not me !!

[justforkix]

Where and what I objected to is this ---

Gambhir's performance circa 2008 being compared with SG's performance circa 2007 to show he is much better substitute.

Second, you determine success or failure by matching against objective benchmarks -- lets say an avg of 40 and a SR of 80 and GG passes muster under both. You dont evaluate a player (GG) by pulling down another (SG) and that too after using disparate data sets pertaining to different time periods, different playing conditions, and different opposition -- THIS IS PRECISELY THE POINT I OBJECTED TO.

And I disagree with your first statement --  that Inoc's statement that SG was not given enough credit for a year in which he scored 1000 runs in ODI's while Gambhir has been, automatically creates the ground for a player vs player comparison to show who is better. As I said to jfk, this is a poor argument to justify the conclusion kic arrived at.

My comparison was meant to show how hollow the original comparison was in the first place. Compared with the same year, the same opposition, same environment, same match conditions, GG didnt do better.

So again, in any fair comparison (instead of using cherry picked stats), there is little support for the conclusion originally arrived at.

It is quite clear and obvious that you have misinterpreted the context and hence rest of your arguments and posts are quite irrelevant to the discussion in hand !!! The comparison was just to show why SG's 1000 runs was not given as much praise as GG's.

[kban1]

But it is clear that it is a comparable replacement even though GG was not playing so well and SG was playing well at that time !!

Again, you are stuck on an issue which is not even under discussion here -- GG being in the team / Sg dropping.

And its your assumption that GG was not playing well that time, and SG was in the form of his life.

Incredible argument -- "oh but he wasnt playing at his best but still was able to provide numbers that matched the other guy's best"

HUH ?!? And I could say it was nothing to do with any of this and just that GG was not in such greta form during 2007 and scored great in domestics including big ones in SF and F of Ranjis and got into rich vein of form and then carried it over to internationals in 2008

One can come up such stories and excuses for every failure of batters or bowlers.

of course part of it is form. Stuff which affected both, IMO. I explained how form can and does get affected by issues such as confidence, security etc. We have heard MSD and SG both talk about how they wanted to back players and give them the confidence so that they can perform to the best of their potential. I recall reading Gambhir allude to that in an interview as well.

This is not just cricketing pyschology, this is basic pyschology -- pressure, performance, security, confidence are interlinked (only more so in sports).

Your predeliction to being dismissive does not change these issues.

I was obviously wrong in thinking your objectiveness would help you appreciate the issue, but your responses tell me that your objectivity in this issue is severely compromised because you are arguing based on certain premises you hold dear. The fact that I am not talking about either Sg's dropping or GG's performance etc is completely lost on you as you keep trying to defend comparing GG vs SG by using performances from 2 separate years -- 2007 vs 2008. 

Yes of course - KIC pointed out why the SG's 1000 runs was ignored while GG"s 1000 runs were praised. One was scored at S/R of 73 while the other scored at a S/R of 90 -  A HUGE DIFFERENCE !!!

What will it take for you to understand that these two numbers are not comparable on a 1 to 1 basis because they happened against different opposititon, different conditions, different environment ?

And dont spin me your interpretation of KIC's post in order to justify your point. Read his post. He uses the stats to make the assertion that GG was a better replacement for SG, not what you claim.

Nope, your post is quite irrelevant and it is you who needs to read the context better and not me !!

It is quite clear and obvious that you have misinterpreted the context and hence rest of your arguments and posts are quite irrelevant to the discussion in hand !!! The comparison was just to show why SG's 1000 runs was not given as much praise as GG's.

Read above.

Just because kic responded to a comment which referenced people forgetting SG's contribution and praising GG's does not make his response read the way you want it to read. His response reads exactly the way he wrote it -- to quote

"SR difference of 14 pts AND a higher average! Is it any wonder that we are hailing GG as a much superior replacement?"

And that is what I objected to --especially given the fact that the conclusion was based on numbers culled from cherry picked stats.

Indeed, I should be the one understanding the context!!

Anyways, my last post to you on this issue -- conversing beyond this given the nature of your responses is pointless.

[justforkix]

But it is clear that it is a comparable replacement even though GG was not playing so well and SG was playing well at that time !!

Again, you are stuck on an issue which is not even under discussion here -- GG being in the team / Sg dropping.

And its your assumption that GG was not playing well that time, and SG was in the form of his life.

Incredible argument -- "oh but he wasnt playing at his best but still was able to provide numbers that matched the other guy's best"

Nope. I just repeated what you had said in your post. So, if any, it is your assumption, not mine.

I was obviously wrong in thinking your objectiveness would help you appreciate the issue, but your responses tell me that your objectivity in this issue is severely compromised because you are arguing based on certain premises you hold dear. The fact that I am not talking about either Sg's dropping or GG's performance etc is completely lost on you as you keep trying to defend comparing GG vs SG by using performances from 2 separate years -- 2007 vs 2008. 

Oh, of course, I can just flip it around and claim same lack of objectiveness from you for exact same reasons given by you. Will you accept similar silly excuses for RD"s poor run for the last 2 years !!!!

Yes of course - KIC pointed out why the SG's 1000 runs was ignored while GG"s 1000 runs were praised. One was scored at S/R of 73 while the other scored at a S/R of 90 -  A HUGE DIFFERENCE !!!

What will it take for you to understand that these two numbers are not comparable on a 1 to 1 basis because they happened against different opposititon, different conditions, different environment ?

And dont spin me your interpretation of KIC's post in order to justify your point. Read his post. He uses the stats to make the assertion that GG was a better replacement for SG, not what you claim.

And what will it take you understand that it was in reply to inoc's post/claim !!!! Why don't you read his post also. it is a reply to a portion of inoc's post, not in isolation !!! And for the last time, it is never a comparison. It is an answer to why SG did not get as much praise as GG  for his 1000 runs in a year feat, as much as you want to put your own spin on it with the last line posted by KIC, while conveniently ignoring what the reply was for.

Just because kic responded to a comment which referenced people forgetting SG's contribution and praising GG's does not make his response read the way you want it to read.

neither does it read the way you it to be read !!!

His response reads exactly the way he wrote it -- to quote

"SR difference of 14 pts AND a higher average! Is it any wonder that we are hailing GG as a much superior replacement?"

And that is what I objected to --especially given the fact that the conclusion was based on numbers culled from cherry picked stats.

Indeed, I should be the one understanding the context!!

It is totally pointless to argue with you anymore since you are conveniently only part of the post without understanding the context in which it was posted.

[flute]

Inoc saab, you are being very inconsistent and flip flopping from post to post. I am not sure what exactly is your position about venomous posts or anti SG or bias. Anyway, I will try below. Rest assured this is my last post on this, I am no longer interested in finding out the reasons for your venomous posts comment. You have said very many words, never explained why you called my posts venomous. Graceful thing would have been to retract your statement.

I didnt consider you to be anti SG on the basis of your fielding, shirt waving posts. I called you anti SG on the basis of the number of posts (anti SG many times > pro SG).

this is a fact that you have accepted in this thread

So, if I continuously post some pro-SG posts to balance, in your mind, I will suddenly become more balanced? you crak me up. There is no use talking with you further if that is your criteria. By this logic, I never sawyou post anything negative about Sg, so you are biased. Kban posts more pro-SG posts and simply for that reason he is biased and pro-SG eh?
I am astounded.

you are also inconsistent. See your quote below. On one hand you are saying you don't consider me to be anti-SG based on fielding comment or shirt waving comment but below you also said , all those 3 instances are venomous for you. please make up your mind.

as I have shown above I consider those posts venomous since they are either outright lies or go against the general agreement in the cricketing fraternity.

you proceeded to qualify bias and anti SG as separate things which is not wholly incorrect but when one action severely outweighs the other then the strict definition is blurred, certainly in the minds of the other readers here. I pointed it out to you in the same post that you will disagree, but thats not the point.

we are talking about your own venomous posts comments not others. I respected you enough to question your opinion, there are many more whose comments I ignore. So, let us not bring in the perceptions of plethora of readers. Many agree with me, many don't agree with me, many do both on entirely based on logic, I deon't care.

you want me to categorically show you why I consider you to be biased and here you are already calling me biased.
a bit more of your own standards should apply to you rather than the rest of the readers.

I told you exactly why I consider you biased in this particular instance. You made an unsubstantiate comment about my supposedly being venomous , failed to support the same and you are now flip flopping from "I don't consider you anti-SG based on shirt waving" to "I consider your post venomous". I don't even know what you are saying anymore.

" which has been mentioned by most top players including ex players during their tributes on his retirement as the single most important instance which benefited Indian cricket with not a single article/tribute mentioning it as detrimental in any way or form. your stance here if not anti SG certainly does not gel with the vast majority of cricket followers in the country. you are entitled to your unique view."

where is the accusation of bias here.

I merely pointed out that your view as evidenced from the numerous tributes written recently, mostly point it to be a positive thing. As far as I can remember none criticised it. On that evidence you are outnumbered here - thats all. My personal opinion regarding the shirt waving is inconsequential here.


reflection on me - OK, I liked what he did, I thought it was a good answer back to Flintoff, I give very little importance to how that had a negative view of our culture, (numerous examples of expletives being mouthed by all and sundry are commonplace on TV)

I dont wish to go into the good, bad or ugly discussion of the shirt waving episode. we stand apart on our views of it and so let it be.

as I said above, see your own quote below and see how you consider all my comments( I alluded to )  about SG being venomous. My response was based on below comment. If you consider as cricketing POV venomous, then you have to biased about something, don't you think?

as I have shown above I consider those posts venomous since they are either outright lies or go against the general agreement in the cricketing fraternity.

how convenient. when I pointed out that you were in a minority in the above paragraphs - it became a reflection of me (which mirrors are you using by the way )

you got me wrong there. It is not a reflection on you because you said I am in minority. Please read my post again. I consider it a reflection of your own bias when you called my SG related comments ( fielding, slow batting at the top, shirt waving) as venomous. This comment has nothing to do with how many agree or disgree with me. So, from POV, your above quote about mirrors etc. is irrelevant

my retort was based on published evidence and yours is based on a presumption.

Who is being logical here?
whose argument is based on reason/objectivity and logic? (your definition)
and who are you calling biased?

what published evidence and what presumption? that SG's fielding sucked all thru his career is a secret for you?

My response was regarding this statement and this statement alone. this was factually incorrect.

you are now quantifying/qualifying the above statement to nullify my response, which I feel is not honest.

however, if you add the following existing conditions at the time.....

SGs SR in that climate/ his age/ his fielding/the fact that we were building towards 2011/ emergence of younger potentially better ODI cricketers etc etc

.... my views on it are well documented in this DG and they are not far removed from what you are suggesting.

thats the thing Inoc. In my post, I just alluded to some comments I made about SG recently in the process of questionning you about your venomous posts comments. I was only alluding to the points I made elsewhere on the DG not entirely explaining myself. I think this is a misunderstanding on our part. we seem to be on the same page here. Hopefully, your venomous posts comment is no longer applicable here.

I hope this post so far should answer this paragraph. My amazement is the ease with which you call others biased, while reserving the stringent of criteria for your own self, and flouting them willy nilly to suit your arguments.

again explained in detail multiple times. This discussion is entirely about bias, anti-pro etc. and it is only fair for me to discuss your own bias too. I am not sure in what words I can explain this to you. I am not objecting to your discussion of my bias ( since that is the topic we are discussing) but I am objecting to the validity of your bias/anti/venomous claims. I hope you see the difference. I also explained in detail why I considered you biased. I am not sure why you keep falling back on this "you are calling others biased but not ready to take the same bias criticism". That is not a valid train of thought Inoc because the discussion here is about bias. you are free to call my biases into questions as do I and we discuss the validity of those claims. What I object to is taking this discussion and using this in any other thread starting off with something like 'Inoc, I know you are biased, so your point about SG is not valid" type of comments.

sorry to disappoint you, but, you are not.

I explained in details my POV, in response you are resorting to single line negative remark. nothing much there to response.

I think most of us do this all the time. you are no exception. Otherwise, if we believed in the online persona, we wouldnt be coming back and joining in on other discussions all the time for years now. you are trying to sound as if you are the only one who does it - it is a given in a forum like this. yes there are circumstances when the line is crossed but good sense prevails most of the time.

Inoc, you are not being fair here. I explained my stand in response to a specific charge from you about me being  "inconsistent, talking from perch" etc. To bring home my consistency, I sincerely explained my attitudes towards posting etc. Now, you are turning around and telling me, "oh you are not the only one who does that" etc. Did I say anything about me being the only one? I was only responding to establish my consistency. Why are you being so negative about me here?

[inoc]

flute



I will indulge you one more time

Inoc saab, you are being very inconsistent and flip flopping from post to post. I am not sure what exactly is your position about venomous posts or anti SG or bias. Anyway, I will try below. Rest assured this is my last post on this, I am no longer interested in finding out the reasons for your venomous posts comment. You have said very many words, never explained why you called my posts venomous. Graceful thing would have been to retract your statement.

it is you who is flip flopping from one point to another. The discussion started with - posting a few posts against the grain does not take away the impression carried by the vast majority of the other posts.

I think you are clever enough to understand that this is true.

you have now moved on to my post to winning now, where I mentioned the word 'venomous'.

I also gave you the reasoning behind why I consider, the particular (three) instances you mentioned were venomous in my view. You may not agree but there is certainly no shying away from my part. you may agree or disagree and that may be another discussion but you have conveniently moved away from the original discussion to a frivolous side issue to try and maintain your viewpoint.

So, if I continuously post some pro-SG posts to balance, in your mind, I will suddenly become more balanced? you crak me up.

if those posts are truthful and genuine,then yes, you will seem more balanced. Is there anything wrong in this assumption. maybe you are just cracked up to begin with and I am wasting my time.

There is no use talking with you further if that is your criteria.

again that is not my criteria but one which you have hypothetically dreamt up and even then it is not so bad/incorrect.

By this logic, I never sawyou post anything negative about Sg, so you are biased.

Kban posts more pro-SG posts and simply for that reason he is biased and pro-SG eh?
I am astounded.

you have already called me biased and may be even Kban. so what is the astonishment for?

I am called a gangulian anyway despite having posted for SGs removal in 2005/2007. you dont remember me posting anything anti SG, this after reminding you the instances, I have done so, in this thread itself. It proves my original point. the impression carried from the majority of the posts is the impression in the minds of the readers. you being a part of the plethora of readers you so flippantly disregarded later on in the post. pause for thought... may be later.

the very thing I tried to tell you, which is now not even a part of this discussion.

to reiterate something I have tried to, in this DG, many times before, but have given up now, I was for SGs removal from captaincy, team, ODI team on each of the occasions it came to fore, unfortunately my vehement protests at his bad handling labelled me as a biased gangulian.

you are also inconsistent. See your quote below. On one hand you are saying you don't consider me to be anti-SG based on fielding comment or shirt waving comment but below you also said , all those 3 instances are venomous for you. please make up your mind.

how is this inconsistent. read carefully.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I don't consider you as anti SG  purely based on these three examples, but on your posting pattern.

I consider those (three) instances as samples from the larger pool of your comments where you have either misrepresented (SR), or downright lied (working on running between the wickets), or, held a contrary view on an act which is thought upon as a positive thing by everybody.

This coupled with my already created impression based on your posting pattern, leads me to believe they are antiSG, in other words trying to show him down.

nothing inconsistent at all, if there is any inconsistency it is on your part where you selectively choose different bits of my post and string them together to try and make a point.

I have already commended you on your so called ability, not that it shows, nevertheless, I did commend you when you insisted that you are capable of keeping your preconceived notions about a poster apart from the discussion at hand.

this has been missing in this particular discussion but thats OK with me.

we are talking about your own venomous posts comments not others.

no we were not.

we were talking about anti SG posts and bias.

you asked me why I called these posts venomous and I answered them.

It is you who is talking about this solely and not about what we were talking about in the first instance. Diversionary tactics?

I respected you enough to question your opinion, there are many more whose comments I ignore. So, let us not bring in the perceptions of plethora of readers. Many agree with me, many don't agree with me, many do both on entirely based on logic, I deon't care

hey this a DG. we are a discussion group.

thank you for questioning my comments.

'Many agree with me, many don't agree with me, many do both on entirely based on logic, I deon't care'

care to explain this bit.

can I ignore you because you are part of the whole. or should i ignore you as a whole. 

I told you exactly why I consider you biased in this particular instance. You made an unsubstantiate comment about my supposedly being venomous , failed to support the same and you are now flip flopping from "I don't consider you anti-SG based on shirt waving" to "I consider your post venomous". I don't even know what you are saying anymore.

flute, you should really try and understand. I said you demand stringent proofs for calling on your bias but proceed to call me biased based on loose criteria in your own head. I had, in the post itself, given you the reason why I called those posts anti SG, but instead of disagreeing with them, if you did, and maybe debate it, you called me biased.

see the difference.

It is not my problem that you may have selective reading/understanding problems which makes it difficult to follow a logical train of thought.

as I said above, see your own quote below and see how you consider all my comments( I alluded to )  about SG being venomous. My response was based on below comment. If you consider as cricketing POV venomous, then you have to biased about something, don't you think?

the cricketing point you mentioned and I replied to, before you qualified and quantified it, was factually incorrect.

if the cricketing point is a lie then, I see no reason for me not to pull you up on it.

you did further proceed to dilute the SR bit and concentrate on other bits to substantiate your points and I agreed with you then. I somehow end up being biased

you got me wrong there. It is not a reflection on you because you said I am in minority. Please read my post again. I consider it a reflection of your own bias when you called my SG related comments ( fielding, slow batting at the top, shirt waving) as venomous. This comment has nothing to do with how many agree or disgree with me. So, from POV, your above quote about mirrors etc. is irrelevant

conveniently so.

anyway I am sick of this venomous comment. I withdraw it.

those were flowery comments just misinterpreted by biased folks like me.

what published evidence and what presumption? that SG's fielding sucked all thru his career is a secret for you?

published statements that most people believed that the shirt waving was a positive influence, and not a single on saying it was negative.

published reports showing SG working hard on his fielding/ fitness, while an assuption from your side that he didnt work on his fielding.

no SG not being an Jonty is known to me as are many others in india and elsewhere and in this current teamas well. it is wrong to assume that it is so because he did not work hard on it, when there is evidence that he did.

thats the thing Inoc. In my post, I just alluded to some comments I made about SG recently in the process of questionning you about your venomous posts comments. I was only alluding to the points I made elsewhere on the DG not entirely explaining myself. I think this is a misunderstanding on our part. we seem to be on the same page here. Hopefully, your venomous posts comment is no longer applicable here.

phew. the venoms gone.

again explained in detail multiple times. This discussion is entirely about bias, anti-pro etc. and it is only fair for me to discuss your own bias too. I am not sure in what words I can explain this to you. I am not objecting to your discussion of my bias ( since that is the topic we are discussing) but I am objecting to the validity of your bias/anti/venomous claims. I hope you see the difference. I also explained in detail why I considered you biased. I am not sure why you keep falling back on this "you are calling others biased but not ready to take the same bias criticism". That is not a valid train of thought Inoc because the discussion here is about bias. you are free to call my biases into questions as do I and we discuss the validity of those claims. What I object to is taking this discussion and using this in any other thread starting off with something like 'Inoc, I know you are biased, so your point about SG is not valid" type of comments.

good so we are back to were we started.

I dont think I have the energy to continue

Inoc, you are not being fair here. I explained my stand in response to a specific charge from you about me being  "inconsistent, talking from perch" etc. To bring home my consistency, I sincerely explained my attitudes towards posting etc. Now, you are turning around and telling me, "oh you are not the only one who does that" etc. Did I say anything about me being the only one? I was only responding to establish my consistency. Why are you being so negative about me here?

It was not meant to be unfair and if it came across as such, my apologies.

this is a DG and if you want to be a participant you have to ignore biases, yes biases. they exist in real terms or perceived notions.

when a discussion moves on to another topic you tend to forget those particular topic centric biases, and carry on.

I will give you an example from my childhood days, fortunately only recently

we used to have three main discussions, every evening after we stopped playing football/cricket/hockey purely due to lack of light.

who is better:

1. Mohun Bagan v East Bengal
2. SMG v GRV
3. Kishore Kumar v Md Rafi.

we argued to the bitter end every time, and often during the same evening the topic would change and 'enemies' would become friends.

all of us remain the greatest of friends to this date.

I am ending this post, somewhat different in tenor to the start. The eternal optimist that I am I saw a glimmer of hope.

[keep-it-cool]

Kban,

This has to be the most hilarious example of over the top & out of context reply to a post ever. I'll bookmark this thread for reference.

Anyway, I'll try this once in brief:

Inoc said that SG is not receiving as much credit for scoring 1000 runs in 2007 while GG is getting credit for doing it in 2008. I responded to it saying that GG has scored those runs at a higher average & with a 14 pts higher SR.

I dont see how these stats are cherry picked - it was within the frame that Inoc had set.

Second, you seem to have taken offence at my contention that GG is a much superior replacement to SG because the data is based on two different calendar years. However, I find your entire line of analysis - comparing GG & SG in the matches where both played together - very funny.

When a new CEO takes over from an old CEO and does better, you would probably want to see both CEOs in action at the same time in the same company before arriving at a conclusion

What makes it funnier is that you know that one player was a certainty in the squad and the other was not over that period. The only fair comparison is SG's run as a certainty in the team v/s GG's run as a certainty in the team - which is what I have done.

SG ke liye itna load mat lo, kban .. thoda relax karo ..even Achillees had a heel problem.

[keep-it-cool]

I have to disagree with the following even without bringing SG's poor fielding and running between the wickets into the picture.

3. his slow batting at the top of the order in ODI at the fag end of his ODI career

factually incorrect. SG scored at exactly the same rate that he did for his entire career (incidentally when everybody considered him to be an ODI great) and scored at four points above his career average,

That is the problem ... his strike rate remained the same while average innings totals in ODIs went up ... his strike rate may have been great earlier but was not good enough in the current environment.

india won 19 of 32 matches since his return (despite the world cup debacle), more than indias average and certainly more than the 13 they won of thirty, in the previous year.

And I can say the following:

India's W/L ratio (against non minnows):
Since SG's return till he was droppped: 1.5 (0.83 overseas)
After SG was dropped: 1.62 (1.37 overseas)

Shall we say a definite improvement because he was dropped?

scored more than a thousand runs in the year a fact we are hailing GG for this year but often forgotten with regards to SG.

SG scored 892 runs against non minnows in 2007 - average of 37 at a SR of 73

GG has scored 817 runs in 2008 - average of 41 at a SR of 87

SR difference of 14 pts AND a higher average! Is it any wonder that we are hailing GG as a much superior replacement?

KIC

your argument is superfluous although apt.

my response was for a particular statement not in any way analysing SG/GG.

It has however kindled an interest which I will follow and post if and when I have the time.

Suffice to say in this instance you didnt understand what I meant.

I almost missed this post.

Anyway, I understand that you were discussing what is bias with flute based on various factors. I dont intend to get into that discussion.

All I am trying to say is that a person who acclaims GG's c1000 runs in a calendar year and does not do the same for SG or does it to a lesser extent is not necessarily biased - because there was a SR differential of 14 points. You may not hold that particular aspect to be as important as some others (like me) may. However, that is just a difference in view.. hardly bias. That was all that I meant to say there.

[flute]

inoc, I think we are not able to communicate correctly because of constant swipes at each other in the dialogue, so in good faith I will not respond to any of your swipes and continue the dialogue. I think our opinions are in fact not too far apart based on your lament about being called a gangulian. Please read below.

Here are a few brief comments

I am called a gangulian anyway despite having posted for SGs removal in 2005/2007. you dont remember me posting anything anti SG, this after reminding you the instances, I have done so, in this thread itself. It proves my original point. the impression carried from the majority of the posts is the impression in the minds of the readers. you being a part of the plethora of readers you so flippantly disregarded later on in the post. pause for thought... may be later.

the very thing I tried to tell you, which is now not even a part of this discussion.

to reiterate something I have tried to, in this DG, many times before, but have given up now, I was for SGs removal from captaincy, team, ODI team on each of the occasions it came to fore, unfortunately my vehement protests at his bad handling labelled me as a biased gangulian.

EXACTLY my complaint too. You are on one hand brushing aside my protest at being called biased just based on count of anti/pro posts and then going on to say that you are branded as gangulian inspite of asking for his removal.

Now, please pay close attention here. In this particular instance, I am discussing with you, it is your POV Vs my POV. Instead of giving your own personal view on this you seem to be repeatedly mentioning things like plethora of people get the impression, junta will assume things etc. Which is why I said, I don't care what other people on this DG think about it, I will debate with each of them if and when they come up with a post regarding this. Your original point about a lot of people getting the anti or pro impression ( wrong impression sometimes I am sure you will agree) is probably correct, but how is that relevant unless you personally want to go with the crowd and label people just because everyone else thinks so? I am talking to you and your views and your biases? When you yourself is complaining about being branded incorrectly as gangulians, how are you telling me that you are considering me an anti-SG buy based purely on numbers of posts?

Look at it again from the same perspective as your gangulian lament, you are saying you asked for SG removal at various times, I am saying I asked for SG's removal at around the same time that you asked for his removal ( most probably) and also asked for his inclusion many times and in fact also predicted his success when even his die hard fans were not sure ( a lot of them were already searching for excuses like too much pressure etc.). My point was not that I made 10 pro-SG posts so I am not biased, my point was, how can a biased guy ask for his inclusion? over to you, think about it.

anyway I am sick of this venomous comment. I withdraw it.

thanks you for the small mercies..

published statements that most people believed that the shirt waving was a positive influence, and not a single on saying it was negative.

again, why are you so hung up on so many people agree, many people agree thing? can't we stand on our own opinion? so, if a lot of people disagree with you, you will abandon your beliefs? crowd always wins, huh? nothing much will ever be achieved in the world if everyone abandons their theories or beliefs based on majority opinion, a lot of times in history, the whole world was stupid and only a select few got it right and the whole world came around to their view later on. Now, again, please don't assume I am trying to get onto the perch again, my point is not that this SG shirt waving is some sort of epoch making event or belief, but my point is, you can consider me biased if there is no reasoning behind my opinion or if my opinion if inconsistent if similar instance when other did the same. Say, if I support gambhir for his elbow or SS for his break dance or HS for his antics in the name of aggressive cricket and then turn around and pull down SG for his shirt waving, then I did be biased or unreasonable. you are free to point it out if it is indeed the case.

From my perspective, if anyone considers me biased purely because not many other people agree with me, then I definitely consider that a reflection of that person's own biases. From that perspective and that perspective alone, I called you biased. This is pretty much all I been saying since the start. I have been trying to tell you this point consistently but not getting thru. As you said, may be I am not able to write it correctly or you are not able to read it correctly.

published reports showing SG working hard on his fielding/ fitness, while an assuption from your side that he didnt work on his fielding.

Inoc saab, you got me wrong on this one.  As I mentioned earlier, I was only alluding to the negative remarks I made about SG, not entirely explaining my point. I had a detailed discussion with kban on this ( which is what I alluded to) and in that discussion I mentioned about how running between wickets & fielding being the two things SG failed to improve all thru his career and how SG's ODI career might well have improved if he worked on these two aspect. I also mentioned how he was able improve during his time out of the team but failed to do the same earlier. Kban's objection was that SG might well have been trying his best all thru and it also might have something to do with injury etc.

no SG not being an Jonty is known to me as are many others in india and elsewhere and in this current teamas well. it is wrong to assume that it is so because he did not work hard on it, when there is evidence that he did.

this is the things I fail to understand. Whoever asked SG to be Jonty or compared him to Jonty? it is about keeping pace with the changing times in ODIs.