WHY do they say this?

[hang on]

It has become common, of late, to proclaim Tendulkar the equal or superior of Bradman.

Simon Hughes of the Telegraph - that bastion of conservative, reactionary reportage - has merely become the latest to make such a claim. Nasser Hussein, Richard Hadlee, Colin Croft, inter alia, have also made such 'lese majeste' claims, instantly incurring the wrath of all antipodeans, while simultaneously basking in the glory of most Indians.

My question is: WHY?
Are there really any good cricketing reasons to think this way? Or are a combination of other i.e. socioeconomic factors - the growing clout of indians, the number of hits from Indians on an article/newssite that carries such a story - the reason of such seemingly outlandish claims? Or is it just something in the water?

Would appreciate a good debate on this, especially on the 'other' factors underpinning the spate of such proclamations.

 

[Weezy]

They're just sucking up to the Indians, simple as. Indians are whores for flattery, just look at those awful IPL ad's in which they make the players read ridiculous scripts about how great the IPL and India are.

 

[GIMH]

It baffles me when guys like that do this. I can understand it when it comes from some of the fans of low intelligence, but not the guys listed above.

There is zero argument to be had here. Even Jono, who sleeps cuddled up to a Sachin teddybear, accepts this.

 

[archie mac]

I think we will be able to assess more fairly when Tendulkar has been retired for ten years. I am sure anyone with any sort of a fair assessment will have Bradman clearly on top.

Personally I thought Viv better than STR

 

[hang on]

They're just sucking up to the Indians, simple as. Indians are whores for flattery,

better start minding your language, sunshine.

 

[Weezy]

better start minding your language, sunshine.

should I have said prostitute instead? perhaps hooker? what is the accepted term on this forum? ..............

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm sure there's an element of pandering to the fans. But mostly it's people with nothing to write about and can't think of anything original having to fill up columns, and writing something they think is going to be "debateable" just for the sake of it.

 

[hang on]

I'm sure there's an element of pandering to the fans. But mostly it's people with nothing to write about and can't think of anything original having to fill up columns, and writing something they think is going to be "debateable" just for the sake of it.

but wouldn't that automatically call into question their cricketing knowledge? assuming that they are speaking out of their proverbial, it would lead to a future credibility problem, surely? the immediate gains of enhanced readership for a couple of days would be offset quite easily by the loss of serious readers.

 

[hang on]

should I have said prostitute instead? perhaps hooker? what is the accepted term on this forum? ..............

do u actually have a problem with indians? or is it just some easy trolling that u are after?

 

[bagapath]

should I have said prostitute instead? perhaps hooker? what is the accepted term on this forum? ..............

don't tell me you don't realize indians will find it offensive!!! in case you want clarification, yes, it is offensive. only slightly to me (because I am a whore, but it has nothing to do with my nationality). but there may be others who may not like it at all. unless you want to deliberately needle people, you can choose better, more cultured language to express your thoughts. if not, you can drag some guys into a nasty finger pointing argument and get them, and yourself, banned from this forum.

 

[Weezy]

wow this place is even less fun than PlanetCricket

 

[hang on]

wow this place is even less fun than PlanetCricket

that's just perfect, then, champ.

time for u to trot off back there.

 

[Spark]

TBH it's hype. Hindsight will correct this I hope.

 

[hang on]

but well known cricket analysts/former players etc. should be inured to hype, at least to the extent that they do not prostrate themselves slavishly at its feet in as cartoonish a manner as possible.

 

[bagapath]

It has become common, of late, to proclaim Tendulkar the equal or superior of Bradman.

Simon Hughes of the Telegraph - that bastion of conservative, reactionary reportage - has merely become the latest to make such a claim. Nasser Hussein, Richard Hadlee, Colin Croft, inter alia, have also made such 'lese majeste' claims, instantly incurring the wrath of all antipodeans, while simultaneously basking in the glory of most Indians.

My question is: WHY?
Are there really any good cricketing reasons to think this way? Or are a combination of other i.e. socioeconomic factors - the growing clout of indians, the number of hits from Indians on an article/newssite that carries such a story - the reason of such seemingly outlandish claims? Or is it just something in the water?

Would appreciate a good debate on this, especially on the 'other' factors underpinning the spate of such proclamations.

Simon Hughes has always been prone to make over the top, ill informed assessments despite his decent knowledge of the game and his considerable writing skills. A few years ago he wrote about how old English seam bowlers were really no good and relied only on murky weather to get their wickets. Alec Bedser wrote back to that newspaper tearing Hughes' writing apart.

This recent one is a similar, over the top assessment. But, what I have realized in the last few years is that Sachin is going to be hailed as the second greatest batsman of all time by the majority whether we like it or not. equally worthy candidates like hobbs, lara, richards, hutton and hammond are going to get a raw deal, and that would be quite sad.

 

[four_or_six]

They're just sucking up to the Indians, simple as. Indians are whores for flattery, just look at those awful IPL ad's in which they make the players read ridiculous scripts about how great the IPL and India are.

Weezy, generalisations of all people from any country are not acceptable on the forum.

Keep the thread on topic please.

 

[hang on]

i have absolutely no issues with his being considered the greatest modern batsman. or the second greatest batsmen of all time. his claims to such a tag are considerably superior to those of other luminaries -- lara, sobers, richards et al. -- all of whose batting i have seen and marvelled at, and often prefer to watch in terms of pure flair, if not pure batting perfection.

 

[salman85]

None of us ever saw Bradman play,if we did i was in some very rare footage.We only have his statistics to go by.On the other hand,we have all seen Tendulkar play,and we are all aware of his statistics.Whether he is as good as Bradman or not is something that we will never know the answer to.However,i do not buy the notion that Bradman's greatness cannot be questioned.There are far too many things to ponder when making the Bradman-Tendulkar comparison,things that have probably been
mentioned many times before when it comes to this topic.

I do admit that it would be easier to convince a Tendulkar fan of the gap between Tendulkar and Bradman,than it would be to convince a Bradman fan of the gap between Tendulkar and Bradman.If you're going to go by statistics,then an average of 99 and 100 international centuries are both phenomenal records.But it will always be harder for someone great in the present to be deemed better than someone great in the past.It's not just there in sports,but generally in every walk of life.You get tangled in all sorts of variables as you try to make the comparison.

There are cricketing reasons behind why people would consider Tendulkar to be as good as Bradman,but most of it is down to subjectivity.

 

[Ikki]

I hide none of my disdain for this comparison. The day people seriously start discussing this all over the cricket world is the day the sport is dead and we are pandering to the masses. Tendulkar is not even clearly the best batsman of his own era, let alone even being near Bradman. The difference between the players is so large it is akin to comparing Darrent Bent with Pele.

This is the poll on the fox-sports site with the Hughes article:

A ****ing travesty.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Tendulkar and Bradman would have laughed at this thread before saying that the other was a greater batsmen. That's how truly great those players were.