Teja.
Global Moderator
Particularly when Sutcliffe's full career is about half as big as Bradman's.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Greatest Cricketer Ever
- Thread starter vishnukumar
- Start date
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Sutcliffe actually played more Tests than Bradman I think (54 to 52 IIRC) and I have no problem with any analysis that says Sutcliffe was awesome - because by God he was.
I just don't understand why we're removing poor series' for one player and not the other - by that rationale I could ask to remove Bradman's series where the opposition decided they'd just as soon kill him as get him out.
I just don't understand why we're removing poor series' for one player and not the other - by that rationale I could ask to remove Bradman's series where the opposition decided they'd just as soon kill him as get him out.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Yep, Sutcliffe and Hobbs would open for my AT XI but using matches played as an indicator longevity is flawed, particularly for that period, IMO. Years played is a much better indicator. Sutcliffe had a late start to his int'l career and played for 11 years. Bradman played for 20. It is understandable to deduct a portion of a player's career while comparing him to another player who played for a shorter span but doing so when the other player played for twice as long is ludicrous.
As for all the people doubting whether Bradman could've sustained that record if he played a higher number of games, He has 28067 FC runs @ 95.14 including 117 centuries in 234 games. With that, I rest my case.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
So in your opinion, there is (and was) just one kind of surface in Australia, and just one kind of surface in England? I think you're rather wide of the mark. Even today, in the days of covered pitches, you'll see a great variation in conditions between (say) Headingley, Old Trafford, Lord's, the Oval, Sydney, Adelaide and Perth; and the variation in conditions is increased by the effects of the weather which is pretty changeable, especially in England.
Added to which pitches were uncovered in Bradman's day, which means that Bradman faced conditions of the sort that Sachin has never played on - such as facing Hedley Verity on a sticky wicket or Alec Bedser on a genuine greentop. He did, of course, play on some absolute belters, but then ago so has Sachin.
You might want to hang around a little on this forum before trying to patronise other posters. You never know, they might actually have something valuable to say, and you might learn something from them.
vishnukumar
Banned
they did to me ... so i did it back..
bagapath
International Captain
how about that sachin tendulkar vs michael holding stat which only you seem to know about? can you please enlighten me on that?
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Fair enough mate - you weren't given the warmest of welcomes to the site (I count myself culpable of this as well) and to be fair your opinion, while one I disagree strongly with, was thought out and reasoned.
In a way, I think you've been a victim of timing with your entry. Over and beyond the fact that most of us here think that the notion of Tendulkar being better than Bradman is flat-out wrong, there are more than a few of us who have also become a little jaded with the rather over-the-top Sachin-love that seems to be permeating cricketing opinions from fans to journalists to pundits these days to a level that Lara or Murali, to pick two examples of comparable achievement, never received. Your article has just added more fuel to that.
That, however, does't excuse the fact that a new member and passionate cricket fan has been made unwelcome with his first post - so welcome to the boards, and I hope you stick around to talk cricket with us for a while longer.
vishnukumar
Banned
Thanks... Everyone who is praising sachin now in media has called for his heads not long ago. So atleast now believe in my words , that how much mentally he had pressure when playing for india or his real life behavior.Fair enough mate - you weren't given the warmest of welcomes to the site (I count myself culpable of this as well) and to be fair your opinion, while one I disagree strongly with, was thought out and reasoned.
In a way, I think you've been a victim of timing with your entry. Over and beyond the fact that most of us here think that the notion of Tendulkar being better than Bradman is flat-out wrong, there are more than a few of us who have also become a little jaded with the rather over-the-top Sachin-love that seems to be permeating cricketing opinions from fans to journalists to pundits these days to a level that Lara or Murali, to pick two examples of comparable achievement, never received. Your article has just added more fuel to that.
That, however, does't excuse the fact that a new member and passionate cricket fan has been made unwelcome with his first post - so welcome to the boards, and I hope you stick around to talk cricket with us for a while longer.
I know comparing players of different era is very very difficult but i tried , what's wrong in that? constructive criticism is welcome but that's not what i received.
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
vishnukumar, believe me you won't find anyone on CW who doesn't think that Tendulkar is a great player, and one of the finest that there has been.
The problem is that the "Tendulkar is the greatest and there is no arguing with me" approach just makes others push back against you. It'd would be good if people just appreciate Tendulkar for the great player that he is rather than pushing him into some unwinnable Race To Be The Greatest Of All Time.
The problem is that the "Tendulkar is the greatest and there is no arguing with me" approach just makes others push back against you. It'd would be good if people just appreciate Tendulkar for the great player that he is rather than pushing him into some unwinnable Race To Be The Greatest Of All Time.
vishnukumar
Banned
No! i haven't said that. I am ready to argue , if not why i posted replies to their replies?
healthy argument is great you know that. I understand everyone loves sachin. ok! i will drop this thread now.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sigged.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
The thing is...your point is so ridiculous that it is tiresome to argue against it and that's probably why people are snide and dismissive. Pardon the patronising, but it's as if a little kid came upto you and tried to tell you the Earth is flat.
Other easily excited Tendulkar fans have come in here and argued it. Search around and you will see the arguments against it.
For now, stop posting articles where you'll impress some easily willing Tendulkar fan that he is actually better than Bradman. He'll then come in here, open a thread like you and we have to do this all over again.
Last edited:
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
bagapath
International Captain
you havent replied to my question, which I have asked twice, on sachin vs holding.
good idea. better not embarass yourself anymore inventing scenarios like sachin scoring hundreds against lillee and lindwall.
vishnukumar
Banned
I am sorry , its my mistake of mentioning holding name. Apologies
Fusion
Global Moderator
Ikki, is bringing the argument around full circle really necessary? He posted his thoughts, however ill-informed in most people's opinions, and then got bashed by almost every single poster in this thread. Then Jack posted the following:
People seemed to have taken the above advice on board and backed off on the hostility. And then you post what you did. If you think his point is completely outlandish, then either ignore it or respond without the hostility please. Doing so will help prevent another thread closure and bad feelings.
Fusion
Global Moderator
Bagapath, same for you as above. Please respond without the hostility.
bagapath
International Captain
cool.
here is my simple argument against your point. sachin's record is awesome. all those things you have said - longevity, versatility etc - definitely make him a great batsman. but, there are many many contemporaries and predecessors of his who can match those records.
for example, kallis and hayden scored hundreds at the same frequency. kallis averaged more than him. lara hit more doubles (and a triple and quadruple) than sachin. greg chappell had as complete a record as sachin against all opponents. viv richards had more match turning knocks than tendulkar. the last two also batted against great fast bowlers in an era without bouncer restrictions and full fledged protective gear. there have been other masters in the past, hobbs, hammond etc, who played on uncovered wickets, which are very difficult to bat on, and had stellar records.
the point is, sachin belongs to a special group of cricketers, alright. but he is not so far ahead of these other champion cricketers that he could be called the greatest cricketer of all time just because of his statistical achievements on certain fronts. also there are allrounders and bowlers and wk-batsmen too who belong in this elite group. you cant hand the title to him so easily.
bradman on the other hand is a cut above the rest any which way you cut it. there is no one cricketer who can even match 75% of his numbers. that is why he is universally acclaimed as the greatest ever and not just in indian tv channels.
got it fusion. was typing it with a grin on my face. obviously that didn't come through I guess.
Last edited: