Shri
Mr. Glass
More like opinions are like assholes. Every body has one but none smells better."Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions like that are dangerously poor".
More like opinions are like assholes. Every body has one but none smells better."Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions like that are dangerously poor".
I understand your frustration since it seems pretty arbitrary. However, I can understand he gut reaction of someone rating Tendulkar ahead of Kallis. Tendulkar was in a different league as a batsman, but Kallis' all-round record is hard to ignore.Neither did Bradman, let alone Grace, let alone even Imran.
Best rate your mate number one then....
Argh, this does my head in. There's no logic here, only opinion. it's the nature of the argument I suppose.
But as someone posted on here a few years back now:
"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions like that are dangerously poor".
But that's just my opinion
As a cricketer I think I would have toI understand your frustration since it seems pretty arbitrary. However, I can understand he gut reaction of someone rating Tendulkar ahead of Kallis. Tendulkar was in a different league as a batsman, but Kallis' all-round record is hard to ignore.
Would you rank Shaun Pollock ahead of McGrath as a cricketer on this basis?
Nail on the head, as has always been the case, Indian's rate Tendulkar much higher than the rest of the cricketing world - (although same could probably be said for others.WG Grace - in a history class on cricket.
Sachin - for any Indian fan and some world fans who don't know or care much about the history of the game
Fair enough. I always thought Kallis and Pollock were the two most underrated cricketers of the modern era, given that one has a record similar to Sobers and the other to Hadlee.As a cricketer I think I would have to
Meh bowlers can just be replaced with bowling machines tbhYeah because I've always said he's ****.
Please- Nasser an expert? Come on mate.
Of course it's a great effort, but whether it makes him in the top two or three cricketers of all time is another matter entirely. I'd happily concede he belongs in the argument as the 2nd-5th best batsman of all time, but I don't see him as that high as a cricketer overall.
Haha true.Meh bowlers can just be replaced with bowling machines tbh
You can teach Asimo to bat.Meh bowlers can just be replaced with bowling machines tbh
You just named a bunch of bowlers. If you view bowlers as better matchwinners immediately than obviously Sachin could never win this argument. Neither could Viv or Lara.Nail on the head, as has always been the case, Indian's rate Tendulkar much higher than the rest of the cricketing world - (although same could probably be said for others.
For me personally, I'd rate Murali, Warne, Hadlee, Marshall & Imran all ahead of Sachin if we're talking test cricket as they won far more games for their respective countries.
I'm undecided on the Tendulkar vs. Kallis as cricketers thing. Same goes for Ponting/Lara vs. Kallis... I know their numbers are comparable but the intangibles like attacking strokeplay make it a tricky one to judge. How many would rate Kallis as a better cricketer than Richards?Yes, but why? I'm asking people to justify this stance is all. Because at first blush it appears frankly illogical (the argument him being in the top 2 or 3 I mean).
Just asking why people feel this is the case.
I mean, personally as a batsman Tendulkar > Kallis, but as a cricketer Kallis >> Tendulkar, because of what he brings to a team at the top level with bat and ball.
Same with Sobers v Tendulkar as cricketers, though I think in that instance one could argue Sobers at least = Tendulkar as a batsman.
I'd rate Viv just as high as Murali or Warne,You just named a bunch of bowlers. If you view bowlers as better matchwinners immediately than obviously Sachin could never win this argument. Neither could Viv or Lara.
but I rate Murali, Sachin, Viv and Warne in that order.I'd rate Viv just as high as Murali or Warne,
So do I. What I was pointing out was that Zinzan just named a bunch of all-time great bowlers and said "they won more matches for their team than Sachin". Well we've seen ad nauseum how biased CW is with bowlers being match winners whereas batsman aren't. So how can Sachin win that argument? And not just Sachin, any all-time great batsman.I'd rate Viv just as high as Murali or Warne,
Everyone does. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me either...So you rate Tendulkar ahead of a man who averaged the same if not more than him with the bat, was a better fielder and took 200 plus test wickets as well, and who played for 15 plus years at the top level?
Juz hang around till we do get someone who plays 1/4th more games than Sachin, will you?Someone who didn't play even a quarter of international matches as Sachin did? Fair enough I think.
And what you talk about Sachin is NOT romanticism??????????I am sorry, which part of that was cringeworthy? So a guy who managed to get appreciation of an elitist crowd in his country, which is as big as a state in India, is better than someone who turned perfectly sensible people across all strata of society into worshippers?
And what standard of cricket WG had to endure (lol at posts saying he played well into his 50s which rather gives an idea of the competition level than anything) not a patch on what Sachin has in his 20 year Plus career.
Of course elitists will continue to vouch for him based on some ancient manuscripts published on him, which invariably will only spread the cult of personality over time.
Sachin has influenced hundreds of millions of kids wanting to pick the bat across generations, and most importantly by setting a near perfect example of how to play the game, on and off the field. I shall discount the WG love as another example of the romanticism associated with preRadio days.