Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[Spark]

Thought you weren't posting in this thread?

 

[Shri]

Thought you weren't posting in this thread?

Yeah, I thought so too.

 

[robelinda]

1998? What about 1976....

 

[Migara]

Averages in bilateral series

 

[vcs]

Trott is a useful family name to have, it would seem.

 

[Furball]

Apparently regardless of the flawlessness of a players technique, how great the bowlers a player has to contend to unless a player averages greater than 99 that player is not a better player than Bradman.

Technique is merely a means to an end; the most important job a batsman has is to score as many runs as possible - which no batsman in the history of the game has done anywhere near as effectively as Bradman.

 

[Furball]

Surely we could put CricketWeb's bandwidth to better use and compare batsmen of more similar quality, like Chris Martin v Viv Richards for example.

You're praphrasing a point I made a while ago - Tendulkar is closer to Bradman in terms of average than Martin and Viv are.

Warne and Harbhajan are closer to Tendulkar than Tendulkar is to Bradman

 

[Jono]

This is a **** thread Ikki.

 

[Furball]

I am not interested, really, in the arguments people may want to put forward for Tendulkar because in 99.94% of the case they're rubbish.

Probably the best post in this sad debate

 

[Furball]

This is a **** thread Ikki.

On the contrary, the results of the poll will be extremely useful.

 

[Jono]

Nah. Move the **** on.

Some people think Tendulkar is better than Bradman. I don't. I don't think he's close. Leave those that do be, instead of making a whole thread and then "threatening" people to not make multis, as if this poll is the be all and end all of life.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, while Bradman is obviously better, I get the feeling that a lot of good posters severely dislike Tendulkar due to some dire fanboys rating him above Bradman.

It actually means they're not good posters, since a few people on a message board completely determine how they watch cricket, and who they want to win or lose, rather than just appreciating a great of the game in his final few years.

 

[Edged&Taken]

 

[GIMH]

It actually means they're not good posters, since a few people on a message board completely determine how they watch cricket, and who they want to win or lose, rather than just appreciating a great of the game in his final few years.

Fans of other teams will always influence how other people feel about that team. It doesn't make them bad posters. Anyone who has ever encountered you must surely root for India to lose every match because you're such a massive ****. C'est la vie.

 

[vcs]

at the expression on that cat's face.

Jono, I thought of posting something similar to what you'd written, but thought better of it. Meh, let them be, like you said. Who are we to sit on our high horses and dictate who they should cheer for and who they should will to fail?

 

[benchmark00]

Nah. Move the **** on.

Some people think Tendulkar is better than Bradman. I don't. I don't think he's close. Leave those that do be, instead of making a whole thread and then "threatening" people to not make multis, as if this poll is the be all and end all of life.

Interesting to note that you haven't voted.

vitstl.

 

[Jono]

Anyone who has ever encountered you must surely root for India to lose every match because you're such a massive ****. C'est la vie.

Slow Love and Jono are both great posters tbh

 

[Furball]

It actually means they're not good posters, since a few people on a message board completely determine how they watch cricket, and who they want to win or lose, rather than just appreciating a great of the game in his final few years.

Tbh the only thing that annoys me about Tendulkar is that his renaissance over the last 3 years has completely overshadowed how ****ing awewome Rahul Dravid was for 10 years.

 

[Furball]

Get it sigged.

 

[Jono]

Tbh the only thing that annoys me about Tendulkar is that his renaissance over the last 3 years has completely overshadowed how ****ing awewome Rahul Dravid was for 10 years.

Haha I've seen you post about this a few times, particularly when people make teams of the decade between 2000-2009 and have Sachin instead of Dravid.

Completely agree with you. I reckon it's partly why I don't want Dravid to retire. I want him to have one last swansong so he isn't forgotten.