Name : ai

Comment : 抜け毛 原因 AGA 検査 ハゲ 予測 抜け毛 予防 抜け毛 対策 石鹸 加齢臭対策 薬用柿渋石鹸 柿渋石鹸 加齢対 加齢 臭い 対 EGF FGF ヒアルロン酸 EGF FGF お試しセット EGF FGF 美容液 EGF FGF 美容液 レーシック 失敗 スポーツ 視力 コラーゲン ナノテクノ コエンザエムq10 トライアルセット はり たるみ 富士フィルム 部分やせ セルライト ビーグレン 毛穴スッキリ ビーグレン たるみ リフトアップ ニキビ 敏感肌 ビークレン ビーグレン 美白 シワ ビークレン

Name : links of london

Comment : The links london sweetie chain necklace of a few signature sterling silver rings, provided by links of london Store. you can also add a certain charm to this links london sweetie chain necklace to show a different style at random.

Name : links of london

Comment : Purchasing links london Rings is an affordable and easy process with guaranteed quality and low prices. links of london Rings would make an excellent gift for any fashion enthusiast because links london represent each person’s individual style.

Name : ugg classic tall

Comment : 10.01.14 sl cq Would you like to get the fashion ugg boots,from here.ugg classic tall boots,no tax and free shipping here,ugg cardy boots.So nice ugg boots online sale,ugg classic tall black The Winter coming,ugg classic short,i think you will own the comfortable boots for yourself,do you think so?ugg boots on sale.To own your boots,from here ugg classic tall boots.

Name : Find Locksmith Melbourne New York

Comment : Thanks for sharing this article, it was very helpful. Keep up the great work. find locksmith l locksmith melbourne l locksmith new york ------------------------------- FIND LOCKSMITH MELBOURNE NEW YORK

Name : ugg boots

Comment :

UGG boots for sale,you can choose UGGS online,the officl ugg outlets online,find UGG fashion ,all UGGS boots are free shipping,australia ugg,,ugg outlet,ugg australia,you can choose the UGG Bailey Button,UGG Classic Cardy,UGG Classic Tall,andd UGG Classic Short,pick discount ugg boots on www.souggs.com now.

Name : ugg boots

Comment :

UGG boots for sale,you can choose UGGS online,the officl ugg outlets online,find UGG fashion ,all UGGS boots are free shipping,australia ugg,,ugg outlet,ugg australia,you can choose the UGG Bailey Button,UGG Classic Cardy,UGG Classic Tall,andd UGG Classic Short,pick discount ugg boots on www.souggs.com now.

Name : Vimalan

Comment : this is a funny and very narrow minded analysis... There are far too many parameters involved than just choosing something like MoM. Things like bowlers faced, pitch quality, performance of bowlers in the same match, etc. for starters, read the one done by Anand recently in Cricinfo. That is far more closer to complete analysis than this stupidity.

Name : links of london jewellery

Comment : We must links of london jewellery face the situation that abercrombie exists and take actions street light to solve our environmental problems. For instance, new laws must be passed tiffany and co to place strict control over industrial pollution, the pub!ic must receivet links london jewelry he education about the hazard of pollution and so on. ed hardy clothing We hope that all these measures will be effective and bring back a healthful environment. Our government is aiming to build a \\\'harmonious society\\\'. abercrombie & fitch I think it is every citizen’s duty to Tiffany jewellery work hard to achieve th is goal. As high school students, what should we tiffany & co jewellery do?

Name : tiffany

Comment : The Population Action International study gives several solutions to the water problem.tiffany rings One way, it says, is to find ways to use water for more than one purpose.tiffany & co ring Another way is to teach people to be careful not to waste water.Tiffany Bracelets A third way is to use less water of agriculture. Tiffany Bangles The report also says long-term solutions to the water problem must include controls on population growth.Tiffany Pendants It says countries cannot provide clean water unless they slow population growth by limiting the number of children people have.Tiffany Necklaces 17Global warming, modelled on computer here,Tiffany Earrings kills more people than terrorism.Tiffany Cuff Links Global warming threatens to reverse human progress, and make unachievable all UN targets to reduce poverty,Tiffany Key Rings according to some of the world\'s leading international and development groups tiffany & co Bracelet In a report published today, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth,tiffany & co Bangle WWF and 15 other groups say rich governments must immediately address climate change to avoid even \"obscene levels \" of worldwide poverty.tiffany & co Pendant Now more and more people are focusing on the nature.tiffany & co Necklace It is no doubt that the nature is important to every human being.tiffany & co Earring No nature, no life. Because of the supplies of the nature, we have lived happily for a long time.tiffany & co Cuff Links And we started to gain every thing available from the nature.tiffany & co Key RingsGlobal warming, modelled on computer here,Tiffany Earrings kills more people than terrorism.Tiffany Cuff Links Global warming threatens to reverse human progress, and make unachievable all UN targets to reduce poverty,Tiffany Key Rings according to some of the world\'s leading international and development groups.tiffany & co Bracelet In a report published today, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth,tiffany & co Bangle WWF and 15 other groups say rich governments must immediately address climate change to avoid even \"obscene levels \" of worldwide poverty.tiffany & co Pendant Now more and more people are focusing on the nature.tiffany & co Necklace It is no doubt that the nature is important to every human being.tiffany & co Earring No nature, no life. Because of the supplies of the nature, we have lived happily for a long time.tiffany & co Cuff Links And we started to gain every thing available from the nature.tiffany & co Key Rings

Name : Samitabh Datta

Comment : Wonderful.. Relly Wonderful.. Hats off..

Name : HW Team

Comment : Rakesh Agarwal, we'd made it clear it is the same thing (but facilitating off-line browsing), why would you expect anything different? Karan, we've grown weary telling you that everything is on the site. There are no "tables" and "actual stats" (whatever the hell that means) - everything is on the site. The parameters are reflected in the stats we give before each profile and elaborated in the 'Elaborations" page. We cannot spoon-feed beyond that unfortunately. If you don't get it still, this is not for you. Better luck elsewhere.

Name : Rakesh Aggarwal

Comment : disappointed, whatever is in the E-book was already on the website..

Name : Rakesh Aggarwal

Comment : disappointed, whatever is in the E-book is already on the website..

Name : Rakesh Aggarwal

Comment : E-book is now available, i am currently reading it and will post my views....

Name : Karan

Comment : Meh. Still none of the tables or actual stats you have used and how you have used them. Are you planning to bring these out or will it remain a secret?

Name : HW Team

Comment : The ebook will be up by saturday the 28th for sure.

Name : I, me, myself!

Comment : When the hell will your ebook come out? It's been over a month now since you've promised it will come in a week!

Name : HW Team

Comment : PMV Subramanian, the e-book will be up by the end of this week. Just a bit of fine-tuning being done on it.

Name : PMV Subramanian

Comment : I am of the opinion that Dravid\'s contribution is far ahead than others, which most of my friends disagree. I am checking this site every other day for statstical analysis. Though it is stated that E book comes out next week, the same is not uploaded. When can I expect the same?

Name : Karan

Comment : Where do I see the numbers and parameters guys. All I see are paragraphs with specific examples but no tables or assiging of weightage. Please direct me to the pertinent link so I can go through the same. Cheers

Name : HW Team

Comment : Karan, thanks for your comments; we appreciate the feedback. But you might be reading more into it than is there - the parameters are clearly defined and used - the logic is transparently put forward. No algorithms and formulae - it is just plain common sense once you put these parameters in front of you - try it.

Name : Karan

Comment : No worries. Apologies if my reading of MoM was wrong, I remembered it being more of a recent phenomenon, as the list of MoM awardees seems dominated by players from 1990 onwards. The reason I focussed on Sachin is that its the most glaring part of your list. Like I said good on you for the effort, but since your initial claim was \'India\'s 20 greatest cricketers\' I felt a need to voice my opinion. If it was India\'s cricketers as rated by abc using xyz parameters it would be perfectly acceptable. Also I would be interested in seeing your data and how you have used it (weightage, etc). Without that its just shooting in the dark from me. Cheers

Name : HW Team

Comment : Karan, it is really very transparent and simple and you’re making it more complicated than it is because you seem unhappy about one conclusion (Sachin’s position). Just like you’re factually incorrect about MoM awards (they have been there regularly since the late 1970s/ early 1980s), you also miss the point quite a bit here. The fact is, MoM award or not, that some performances set matches or change the course of matches. In fact, in most Test matches, you can identify the top 2 or 3 performers very easily – the MoM award is usually picked from that, and 99.9 % times most people would not disagree with the choice in a 5-day match (different in an ODI). In the pre-MoM era also, it is not at all difficult to see who impacted the match the most, or a series the most; it is there in black-and-white. As far as who faced “great bowlers” and not, we’ve addressed that several times in various places of the Report, starting with the intro, no point in repeating ourselves. And, whoever said this is “a definitive analysis” – we sure didn’t. Though, we’d like to see more individual performances judged for their impact in a team context, as that doesn’t happen much for some reason. There is too much response from the gut (which is much easier than going below the surface a bit) in the evaluation of cricketers’ values to their respective teams and this is our little attempt to start a new debate, that’s all. You’re welcome to reject our parameters and do your own definitive analysis.

Name : Karan

Comment : Guys, my point really was that there is no definitive analysis. For eg. I don't quite understand your rationale for using MoM awards. Its basically one man's opinion at the end of the match, which is not always a universal opinion, and became a regular practice only in the mid to late 90s. Not all Test matches before that would have a MoM award. Would love to see your data set and the weightages you assign to each parameter. Please link it in case I have missed it. Again, different parameters will give you different results, Wisden did a pretty exhaustive list some years back and came up with Sachin as the second greatest after Bradman. Many would argue for Sobers or Hobbs, they would be right they would also be wrong depending on their preferred parameters. In the end besides the raw data set you use, how you use it is totally subjective. Also I was not talking purely about style of play when I said Dravid is not quite a Sachin. I look more at performances versus the very best. Taking a simple cut-off (against bowling attacks with at least one great bowler - definition 200 wickets at 25 or less) I see Sachin has scored 14 centuries in 58 matches. Dravid only 2 in 49. Thats one reason why Sachin will be discussed with Sobers, Hobbs and Pollock, while Dravid will not. Facing an attack of McGrath, Donald, Wasim and Murali I know which man I would choose. And most Indians know that too.

Name : HW Team

Comment : Karan, fun or not, this exercise is really against the notion that unless a spectator goes "wow" and “dominates a bowler”, he is not great enough. We just felt team results are rarely taken into the mix while determining a player’s greatness in this sport and when it is, it is more gut feel than actual match results. We happen to think that is ridiculous in what is eventually a team sport. The idea, for example, of deciding that Tendulkar is the greatest batsman simply because he looks like the most awesome player (which he does; no arguments there) is precisely what are seeking to challenge with this study. You’re welcome to use whatever parameters you like to prove what you like; we just set out to use Test match (and series) results dispassionately to see what they threw up. You’re welcome to your opinion and your notions…and thanks for at least going through ours before commenting on it, which is more than what many people are doing.

Name : Karan

Comment : Guys, I have gone through the methodology a bit and have seen many such analysis over the years. Fact of the matter is its mostly a fun exercise in the end and just tweaking of a few subjective factors (weightage, etc) will give wildly different results when you are comparing the top cricketers. As long as people keep in mind that its all fun and just someone\'s point of view its fine, nothing is definitive. In the end though cricket and players are what you see on the field. I think you will find it very hard to convince a person who has actually seen the game to put Sachin as the 4th greatest Indian batsman. Most would have him on the top purely on seeing him play. Dravid for all his stats and immense contribution to Indian cricket did not play the greatest bowlers of his time the way a Sachin or Lara did. I can\'t think of a single session of watching him bat where I went wow! He never dominated a Mcgrath or a Donald. A Murali or an Akram. An Ambrose or a Warne. And while Sachin or Lara will always be mentioned in that favourite debate of all fans - the all-time World XI, Dravid will not even be a fleeting thought. No offence to the great servant of Indian cricket, but he is not in the same class. Unless you juggle some numbers around of course ;) All in all a good effort, but with pretty much any statistical tool or formulation you would get a similar top 10-20 and whatever the final positions you will always get people disagreeing with you. Thats the beauty of these all-time debates. Cheers

Name : Sriram Taranikanti

Comment : Excellent analysis. Though there were factual errors, it could have been typographical. May like to correct them, This analysis will no doubt be ppropriately acknowledged

Name : HW Team

Comment : Rakesh, the Ebook will definitely be put up next week. We're still proof-reading it to ensure there are no mistakes. Sorry for the delay.

Name : Rakesh Aggarwal

Comment : when will the E-Book release??

Name : rahul rajpoot

Comment : it was really good.

Name : Jai

Comment : Good one

Name : Vistasp Hodiwala

Comment : This has got to be one of the most exhaustive surveys on Indian cricketers of all time; seen from the prism of their value to the team and shorn of all hype or sporting emotion. If one accepts the clarity of thought with which the parameters have been compiled, there is no reason to disbelieve its rather uncomfortable findings. Some of us have known this for long. On Sehwag's elevation over Sachin, I have only one thing to say: look at the facts. Such an explosion of talent and its full realisation in just less than half the Test Matches (but which still accounts for a substantial chunk to arrive at a judgment) than Sachin has played is a boon to Indian Cricket. For Sachin fans I think the author has summed up his talent in one line: At his best, no batsman in Test history has combined technical perfection, aesthetic flourish and absolute bloody-minded domination as immaculately as Tendulkar has. He also adds that "he's a once in-several-generations player." So, this is not about Sachin, it's about Indian Cricket on the whole. It's about who has (and is) delivered what in the team's grand context. Genius is what genius does, they say. Truly, this survey speaks for itself and it is different in the sense from all other surveys because the parameters are transparent, they are ones we can judge players upon and there is no room for too much subjectivity to cloud that judgment. Bravo HW for this fine effort.

Name : HW Team

Comment : Re: dyogesh. Regarding what you say about Lara, Ponting and the other Aussie players - interesting point, worthy of consideration, something we have debated extensively about. Let us clarify that. Basic mathematics say that when you are comparing two proportions, the denominators have to be the same. Which is why you can't compare Ponting and Sehwag on this parameter alone simply because their respective country's winning percentages - i.e. denominators - are different. You can compare Sachin, Sehwag, Dravid, Ganguly etc because they share the same platform - though that still isn't the only parameter you can use. Performance in winning matches is not the ONLY criteria we have picked - Gavaskar is ahead of both Sachin and Sehwag despite having a lower average in winning matches than the two because the team's performance then was different. Lara's 29% is in a totally different context from what we are talking about in this list, if you are to compare Sehwag with Lara there will be a host of other factors that you will need to bring into the equation before arriving at a conclusion. Lara's 29% has some semblence of relevance when we compare him with his West Indian peers, and even there, it can't be the only parameter used.

Name : HW Team

Comment : Re: dyogesh, the innings with Sachin's 103* and Sehwag's 83 is perhaps the perfect example of what we are trying to convey. Both are fantastic knocks, but Sehwag's 83 opened the gates and set the tone for India's victory, after which Tendulkar no doubt did well to carry it forward and get India home. We say Sehwag has more matching winning impact than Tendulkar, 'impact' being the operative word - Sehwag's SR is 78, Tendulkar's SR is 54 . What Tendulkar has done is also a fantastic, great achievement, which is why he is ranked so high - number 4 out of 270 cricketers. The rankings are not about talent, we all know Tendulkar is the most talented cricketer, it's about the players' impact on the result of the match.

Name : dyogesh

Comment : Ricky Ponting - 57 winning 50+ winning scores out of 81. Matthew hayden : 42/59. Justin Langer : 34/53. They should be way above And in fact if you take performances in winning matches, most Aussie players would be way ahead of others. What do our esteemed logicians think ?

Name : dyogesh

Comment : Here is further fallacy of your arguments : One left-hander made 24 50+ winning scores out of 82 50+ scores - 29%, 10% lower than Sehwag. He has the most runs in losing matches - 5000+ runs. His name is Brian Charles Lara.

Name : dyogesh

Comment : The authors seem to be biased against Tendulkar and perhaps there is an hidden agenda here. If Tendulkar had not made 103* then Sehwags 83 could have ended in a losing cause. Who is responsible for this ? Can you please qualify what is match-winning performance ? Simply put "The genius is penalised for the mediocrity of the rest". Check what is India's highest score in a single day made abroad and check the conditions in which it was made. And finally see the result. Who is responsible ? Convincing with logic !! What a joke...

Name : gaurav

Comment : congratulations on the effort. It's very thoughtful, however I find one potential flaw in finding greatness in winning percentage. Why? As you said the current Indian team is probably the best test team, especially abroad. So any century scored in this team has a higher chance of winning and hence, more "valuable" (on parameters 2,3,4). So I would say you can rank greatness of teams from different eras, but greatness of players within those teams? Tricky business!!!

Name : rakesh

Comment : great