When I say, "Of late, this man (Sachin Tendulkar) is not playing well or he is not a match-winner"; and I promptly get replies of nature, "he is a terrible player", "the people in the world are fool, as they consider him a genius", "Others are pathetic, he is still playing well", "He averages well above all others in the team" or "Get your statistics right".
Take another case: as I say; "Of late formula-one is not much interesting. As you know who's (Michael Schumacher) going to win; even before race starts" and I promptly get replies on face "Schumacher should start driving badly to make it more interesting", "Schumacher should quit racing", "Ferrari should stop improving their cars", "The rules should be changed to suit other teams in F1" etc.
I guess, I am just making a general statement. Both these statements don't have anything that suggests I am criticizing. It doesn't mean that Sachin is not a genius. I just felt it, as of past few months or so, he hasn't played an innings that you can cherish or remember. In other example, it doesn't mean others should stop racing. It doesn't mean Schumacher should drive badly. It doesn't mean Ferrari should stop improving their car. It doesn't mean Schumacher should quit racing. According to me, it simply means there is virtually no competition, no competition at all. Hence it has become boring to watch.
People sometimes have so prejudiced views that they never are willing to look from another angle. Never willing to acknowledge that this man is not playing well of recently. Is it a correct logical reasoning or I am in general "Wrong"?. When I get these type replies, it usually ends up in lots of verbal-exchange, and I can't help it. Because I think I am correct and I am not willing to take-a-back-seat either.