WHY do they say this?

[keeper]

Thank you.

 

[Howe_zat]

On Sehwag v Sangakkara I agree that there's a lot of bias against Sehwag. I think they're about equal as batsmen but I admit I will tend to give Sanga a lot more slack because he's massively more likeable. A much better batsman to watch to me and a much better attitude.

Also, CW tends to be very reactionary towards players that get overrated elsewhere. And yes, regardless of how good Sehwag is, he can't possibly match some the level of praise he gets from some of his fans.

 

[vcs]

How could anyone not like..

or..

or

Pure ***.

 

[Howe_zat]

Mate. Come on.

Razzle dazzle.

 

[vcs]

Not a patch on Sehwag's massive eyebrows and bald patch.

 

[Daemon]

Sanga gets a point deducted for wearing that ******y ass helmet of his

 

[Migara]

We don't know for sure. It's stupid to compare players from different eras, unless we know what was the quality of cricket they played there.

 

[Ikki]

no. he is indubitably the best batsman of his generation. tests or odis.

No, he isn't. There is plenty of doubt against him when compared to Lara and Ponting in Tests. It is like comparing McGrath and Ambrose or Warne and Murali. Statistically it's too close to say "indubitably" - such a distinction does not exist. Only Bradman could qualify for being indubitably better than every other batsman.

Agree with GIMH that that particular analogy is stretching it though, if not a tad disrespectful to Tendulkar.

But the reality is that is how far apart they probably are - and that says it all. It's just that in football we do not have the equivalent to Bradman. There is no set of all-time greats and one other guy who is far ahead of even those all-time greats.

 

[vcs]

Darren Bent probably isn't one of the best 100 players of his generation. That's why the analogy doesn't work.

 

[keeper]

Regarding Sangakkara the complicating factor is of course his wicket-keeping. His record as a specialist batsman is quite remarkable but from a far smaller set of stats of course (including just 19 or so away Tests). Wonder if he harbours any regrets about his keeping.

By the way, surprised he will be 34 this year. Thought he was younger than that...

 

[hang on]

when the combination of the sheer volume of runs, average, century conversion, respect of peers (the warnes and co....not the husseins and their comparisons with bradman), longevity, performances against the best, performances in different conditions, performances in the 90s (the bowling era), adaptability in different forms of the game, pressure of carrying the ridiculous expectations of a billion indians (perhaps this one is not a good one), ability to play all the shots, ability to attack and defend are considered, he is clearly ahead of the rest. and hence 'indubitably' is not such a preposterous or even egregiously hyperbolic term.

it's not just one factor ie average. or the biggest scores. or the one incredible innings. it's the combination of all the factors that go into making a batsman great. and, on that score, he is some ways ahead of the rest. if he had, indeed, retired in 06, it might have been questionable. but not any more.

the very fact that the comparison with bradman is being made, ridiculous though it might be to me and many others, is indication of the fact that he is now really on a different plane to the others (when comparing their respective corpora of work), no matter how unpalatable it might be to aficionados of other batting luminaries.

 

[salman85]

I know.Some players look remarkably young for their age.

Mahela doesn't look like he's over 30.That cute baby face should be 17-18 max.Brett Lee doesn't look like 34 also.

 

[hang on]

I know.Some players look remarkably young for their age.

Mahela doesn't look like he's over 30.That cute baby face should be 17-18 max.Brett Lee doesn't look like 34 also.

regarding lee: that receding hairline and the creases around the eyes don't give it away? i just hope that when he loses it all, he doesn't go the ponting, sehwag, bollinger route.

 

[Maximus0723]

Yea I know couple of people who go by that not just with Tendulkar but with Lara as well.

Those ppl just don't know enough about cricket.
Similar happens, with Wasim Akram. Lot of them think he is the best bowler ever. Most of them don't much know Malcolm Marshall.

I think, Tendulkar is the most influential cricketer ever.
In terms of being the best batsman, I have Bradman(by alot) and Viv(by little) ahead of him.

 

[Bun]

It is without question that Bradman stands head and shoulders and tummy and buttocks above any player of his generation. His average is unrivalled to date and the next best batting avg to his 100 is 65 odd iirc.

Then again, it's a statistic. A mindnumbing statistical domination to be honest.

But so is this, Sachin has nearly 100 hundreds in international cricket. The next? 67. Wierdly similarl to Bradman's average and that of the next best. I feel both stats are equally good indicators of one's dominance over the others.

However, I feel there is no real point in comparing players across generations, or even centuries like Bradman and Tendulkar. Each occupy their spaces in cricketing history. Undeniable, indelible placeholders are assigned to them.

BTW nicely trolled GeraintIsMyHero, if to say Sachin is better than Bradman is the hallmark of low intelligence (a not so subtle swipe at subcontinental fans), equally is the counterargument as well. They are just opinions.

 

[Cevno]

To say that the comparison cannot exist is ridiculous and smacks of arrogance mostly purporated by the Media of 2 countries hyping up cricket and certain legends for so long.

And now when others have gotten stronger and are presenting different point of views they are "whores of flattery " and what not.
And why was the media which did not question someone who played all cricket in 2 countries being the greatest by a wide distance(that it cannot even be argued for some) for so long ,not be engaging in flattery of whores and prostitutes when in fact they were paid by the same?

 

[GIMH]

It is without question that Bradman stands head and shoulders and tummy and buttocks above any player of his generation. His average is unrivalled to date and the next best batting avg to his 100 is 65 odd iirc.

Then again, it's a statistic. A mindnumbing statistical domination to be honest.

But so is this, Sachin has nearly 100 hundreds in international cricket. The next? 67. Wierdly similarl to Bradman's average and that of the next best. I feel both stats are equally good indicators of one's dominance over the others.

However, I feel there is no real point in comparing players across generations, or even centuries like Bradman and Tendulkar. Each occupy their spaces in cricketing history. Undeniable, indelible placeholders are assigned to them.

BTW nicely trolled GeraintIsMyHero, if to say Sachin is better than Bradman is the hallmark of low intelligence (a not so subtle swipe at subcontinental fans), equally is the counterargument as well. They are just opinions.

Firstly, are you seriously comparing number of centuries to average as a benchmark? Surely I don't have to point out how completely flawed your reasoning is?

And it was definitely not a swipe at subcontinental fans as most India fans I have encountered are embarassed by people trying to make flimsy arguments to put Sachin up there with Bradman (like you did). Do not tar all of your own people with a brush they do not wish to be tarred with.

 

[Bun]

Firstly, are you seriously comparing number of centuries to average as a benchmark? Surely I don't have to point out how completely flawed your reasoning is?

And it was definitely not a swipe at subcontinental fans as most India fans I have encountered are embarassed by people trying to make flimsy arguments to put Sachin up there with Bradman (like you did). Do not tar all of your own people with a brush they do not wish to be tarred with.

I suggest you read my post again as you seem to have missed my point. Nowhere was I "comparing" averages and hundreds, but merely stating the extent of domination of the two in the respective indicators is staggering and yet similar, statistically.

As regards to the second point, your post is there for everyone to see, so I wish not elaborate on that further.

Scoring 100 hundreds is no certainly mean thing, and having a gap of 33 hundreds with the second best, certainly is right up there with being called Bradmanly. What is there so flimsy about that? Do not please endeavour to speak on behalf of subcontinental fans. To call Sachin as the best batsman to have played the game, carries exactly the same merit as to call Bradman the best batsman. Both are opinions, statements and have their own justifications. That they may or may not to be your liking is your issue, but no need to rubbish them in such manner as you did.

 

[centurymaker]

We don't know for sure. It's stupid to compare players from different eras, unless we know what was the quality of cricket they played there.

Obviously the quality of cricket back then was pretty low. The game has advanced a long long way. Players back then were only part-time cricketers...

 

[salman85]

Sanga gets a point deducted for wearing that ******y ass helmet of his

Yeah.What is up with that?Some sponsorship thing?Or just poor taste in helmets?