సాహో కుంబ్లే.. ‘నీ ఘనతకు సలామ్’

[tennisluvr]

4 minutes ago, aatadista said:

There is no flaw in my analysis. I never considered any of the Indian players as match winners including Sachin. I never said he is not a match winner. He may be for you guys but not for me. My standards are very high to call him a match winner. There were instances in which Sachin single handedly tried to win the matches but most of the times those were wasted and ended up in losing cause in important series. I mentioned Man of the Match awards as it is the basic metric that every one sees to measure ones caliber once the player retires. Otherwise we need to keep telling stories such as how he used to bowl that googly or how he used to bowl flippers. 

Only thing I agree is he is fighter and he is probably one of the hardest working players during his time. 

Man of the match is not the only metric however. 5 wickets in an innings and 10 wickets in a match is a fair metric as well. The problem with statistical analysis is that it doesn't necessarily show the support a bowler like Shane Warne would have had in aiding him from the other end in the form of a Glenn McGrath for the better part of his career. 

Barring Srinath when he was fit and outstanding in patches, Kumble never had a consistent support at the other end till the entry of Harbhajan. That was also the time Rahul Dravid and VVS came onto their own and started putting up the score on the board that would have allowed Kumble to bowl more aggressively. 

The only ones who go by statistics to show who a better match winner are those that lack an understanding of the various facets a sport involves and the ones that have never witnessed these factors unfold in front of their eyes on the small screen. So it's pretty much useless trying to convince them otherwise or even consider having a meaningful discussion with them. 

[AmmaDonga]

odiyamma, where is TS @JANASENA

[aatadista]

11 minutes ago, tennisluvr said:

Man of the match is not the only metric however. 5 wickets in an innings and 10 wickets in a match is a fair metric as well. The problem with statistical analysis is that it doesn't necessarily show the support a bowler like Shane Warne would have had in aiding him from the other end in the form of a Glenn McGrath for the better part of his career. 

Barring Srinath when he was fit and outstanding in patches, Kumble never had a consistent support at the other end till the entry of Harbhajan. That was also the time Rahul Dravid and VVS came onto their own and started putting up the score on the board that would have allowed Kumble to bowl more aggressively. 

The only ones who go by statistics to show who a better match winner are those that lack an understanding of the various facets a sport involves and the ones that have never witnessed these factors unfold in front of their eyes on the small screen. So it's pretty much useless trying to convince them otherwise or even consider having a meaningful discussion with them. 

Cricket is no different than any other sport when it comes to measuring success. So stats and wins are always key to identify whether a player is great or not. How do you know Gary Sobers or Bradman or Graeme Pollock are great. Isn't it through stats? Few years from now no one will talk about how hard he fought. It will be the stats. Fortunately Kumble has one - most wickets to call him great fighter.