I like your way of disagreeing in such an agreeable manner.
But sorry, I cannot really dismiss all this just like that.
You can play rhetorical ploys by saying we're back where we were at two years ago. But I don't think so. This is not about Tendulkar or Lara. When I started doing the average rating on Excel, I thought Tendulkar will come out with higher points because his graphs 'looked like' he would. But it turned out that Lara did, by a slight margin. I would have accepted the rating if Tendulkar came out higher than Lara. Yes. But would that diminish my subjective bias, my gut feeling on Lara? Heck no.
The ratings mean exactly what they mean. They take info from the match scorecard, apply a bunch of factors, and then use some statistical formulas. They don't care about my infatuation of Lara, or your fanboyish liking of Tendulkar. That's why they are objective. Even though they have a certain margin of error. I am sure you know rudimentary statistics. It could very well be true that Sachin and Lara's ratings fall under that margin of error and if ALL the factors in the world were taken into account, may be Sachin would have come out better than Lara or vice versa.
The ratings are NOT some be-all, end-all conclusions that I am trying to force on everybody. Where will all the stupid, biased, subjective debates based on flawed averages and "would have", "what if", "how about" speculations go then? If EVERYBODY accepted the same thing, where is the MOJA?
Bloody waste of time? lmao. Dude, this whole thing is a 'bloody waste of time.' According to your logic, 99% of the threads on this board is a bloody waste of time. If we have already made up our mind about EVERYTHING, why are we even here to discuss things in the first place? Man, you amaze me!
You need to lighten up.
[Edited on 2-10-2003 by Arnab]