Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[Fusion]

AWTJono. I agree and I'm sure most people do that Bradman is the logical answer, but it's more than a little disingenuous to say 'answer honestly...but if you vote for Tendulkar I'll disregard your cricketing opinions and consider you unintelligent/a troll/a multi' etc. Some of those epithets may well apply to some people, but that sort of aggressive posting is hardly going to encourage people to answer honestly.

I don't care if you take them down a peg or two. I do care however when you're trying to smoke them out. I find that very odd.

You know you didn't need to start this thread considering there was a thread with hundreds of posts about this. Your only motive is to mock individual people.

AWTA. I think the tone of this thread is certainly condescending and insulting, and I think the only real purpose is to mock. I think most people would not dispute the merits of Bradman being the greatest batsman ever. If some do, does it get under your skin so much that you have to start a mocking thread about them? I find this specially surprising from you Ikki. You are always one who passionately debates his views, but I don’t usually find your tone to be so arrogant and dismissive. Not that you probably care about my opinion, but I’m really disappointed.

 

[Turbinator]

What's the BOTM?

Get with the program, woman

 

[hang on]

but does it really matter a jot to people what someone on a webchat forum thinks of their opinion on cricketing matters? and to be put on someone's ignore list!

 

[cnerd123]

AWTA. I think the tone of this thread is certainly condescending and insulting, and I think the only real purpose is to mock. I think most people would not dispute the merits of Bradman being the greatest batsman ever. If some do, does it get under your skin so much that you have to start a mocking thread about them? I find this specially surprising from you Ikki. You are always one who passionately debates his views, but I don’t usually find your tone to be so arrogant and dismissive. Not that you probably care about my opinion, but I’m really disappointed.

I don't understand what's so wrong about mocking a person's opinion on this particular issue.

If you genuinely believe Sachin is better and have valid reasons, then you won't be mocked.

If you genuinely believe Sachin is better but are unaware of all the facts/don't have valid reasons, then you learn.

If you genuinely believe Sachin is better, don't have valid reasons and refuse to change your opinion, you deserve to be mocked.

 

[Fusion]

I don't understand what's so wrong about mocking a person's opinion on this particular issue.

If you genuinely believe Sachin is better and have valid reasons, then you won't be mocked.

If you genuinely believe Sachin is better but are unaware of all the facts/don't have valid reasons, then you learn.

If you genuinely believe Sachin is better, don't have valid reasons and refuse to change your opinion, you deserve to be mocked.

Valid reasons according to whom? Ikki? Me? When judging two players, any criteria you use to put one above the other is subjective. I think Bradman is the greatest. Not only that, I don’t even think Tendulkar is the second or third greatest batsman. However, I’m not about to start a thread to mock people who disagree with my opinion. Why is it so necessary to “out” them and mock them?

 

[hang on]

this thread is supposed to be a forum version of the town stocks, i suppose.

btw, fusion, why can't my thread be opened up again....was aiming to get a tendulkaresque number of views!

 

[GotSpin]

Tendulkar is overrated. There, I said it

 

[Ikki]

AWTA. I think the tone of this thread is certainly condescending and insulting, and I think the only real purpose is to mock. I think most people would not dispute the merits of Bradman being the greatest batsman ever. If some do, does it get under your skin so much that you have to start a mocking thread about them? I find this specially surprising from you Ikki. You are always one who passionately debates his views, but I don’t usually find your tone to be so arrogant and dismissive. Not that you probably care about my opinion, but I’m really disappointed.

The reason my tone is generally neutral is because I generally don't care about the tone of the person directing their posts at me. I care for their substance. Someone can state an absolute crap argument in the nicest way possible and it would bother me much more than someone who states something that is clearly evident, even if it is a ****ty manner. That's just how I am wired in this sense - when I argue a point.

This is one such discussion (and probably the only such discussion) that it simply isn't an argument for me - the choice is as obvious as it gets - and if someone genuinely believes Tendulkar is better, after going through the facts, then I do wonder about them. I have no qualms with making that known. It's a fact of life: you are going to meet people who aren't bright or incredibly biased to the point of denying the obvious or logical.

This poll, however, wasn't to mock people. I was interested in seeing how many and, even more importantly, which kinds of posters are agreeing with those that think Tendulkar is better. If someone I genuinely thought was intelligent thought so, I'd be disappointed. If many or a sizable amount of them thought so, that'd make me revisit the argument again.

If people don't like my tone then I apologise, but I think it's missing the point to care more about my tone then what people are actually arguing about here...or trying to anyway.

 

[Shri]

My question is why is Bradman even relevant to the game that we are seeing at the moment? I wouldn't say anything if someone says Lara > Sachin or Ponting > Sachin - I have seen all 3 play and acknowledge the fact that they are all equals and anyone from those 3 can be called the best batsman of this era. Heck I would say there is a case for players like Sehwag/Gilly/Jaya etc to considered better players than Sachin but I simply can't stand it when people follow anecdotes of the past without some sort of visual proof. And thats exactly what Bradman is to me, a set of numbers and a glorified bunch of stories.

 

[GotSpin]

My question is why is Bradman even relevant to the game that we are seeing at the moment? I wouldn't say anything if someone says Lara > Sachin or Ponting > Sachin - I have seen all 3 play and acknowledge the fact that they are all equals and anyone from those 3 can be called the best batsman of this era. Heck I would say there is a case for players like Sehwag/Gilly/Jaya etc to considered better players than Sachin but I simply can't stand it when people follow anecdotes of the past without some sort of visual proof. And thats exactly what Bradman is to me, a set of numbers and a glorified bunch of stories.

Probably because Bradman averaged 99.4 and some are obsessed with trying to put Tendulkar up there as the best of all time. Bradman is a lot more than set of numbers

lol @ Glorified stories.

 

[Shri]

lol @ Glorified stories.

Haha, hook, line and sinker. Was trying to get a response out of Ikki with that line but anyone will do.

 

[GotSpin]

Haha, hook, line and sinker. Was trying to get a response out of Ikki with that line but anyone will do.

Yes, yes brilliant work. Really out done yourself by drawing me into a huge response.

I'd say more but I've already received enough infraction points this week

 

[Adamc]

Bradman averaged 99.4

Woah. Just reported this post to ASIO, clearly a terrorist.

 

[ankitj]

No one thought it necessary to uncover the guy who thinks Warne > Bradman. Or the guys who would put Warne above likes of Sobers and Imran

 

[GotSpin]

Woah. Just reported this post to ASIO, clearly a terrorist.

Haha oops. This new Mac keyboard is so different and I keep leaving out letters and numbers when I type

 

[Ikki]

No one thought it necessary to uncover the guy who thinks Warne > Bradman. Or the guys who would put Warne above likes of Sobers and Imran

The person in that exercise didn't nominate Bradman at all...meaning anyone who did make their list they thought were better than Bradman. I doubt that was the case. They were either taking the piss or making a tactical vote.

 

[Jono]

Probably because Bradman averaged 99.4 and some are obsessed with trying to put Tendulkar up there as the best of all time. Bradman is a lot more than set of numbers

lol @ Glorified stories.

Reckon the word obsessed can also be used with some others tbh. Because you can throw a dart at any random Tendulkar thread and see the same suspects every time.

 

[Spark]

My question is why is Bradman even relevant to the game that we are seeing at the moment? I wouldn't say anything if someone says Lara > Sachin or Ponting > Sachin - I have seen all 3 play and acknowledge the fact that they are all equals and anyone from those 3 can be called the best batsman of this era. Heck I would say there is a case for players like Sehwag/Gilly/Jaya etc to considered better players than Sachin but I simply can't stand it when people follow anecdotes of the past without some sort of visual proof. And thats exactly what Bradman is to me, a set of numbers and a glorified bunch of stories.

It's more than just bits and pieces tbf. There's a huge amount of documentary evidence, writings etc. etc. on Bradman. Not to mention that there are people here who have seen him play.

I'm perfectly fine with the didn't see/different era, so cannot make a comparison argument but you have to be consistent.

 

[hang on]

what about haigh and warne?

it could become a groucho marx and club admittance situation, u know!

 

[Spark]

Warne I couldn't care about (said that Yusuf Pathan's IPL knock last year was "the best innings he's ever seen", remember) but if Haigh said that then I would stand up and seriously listen.