Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[vcs]

Yeah, from this thread I presume Ikki's signature is intended to ridicule the opinion (and intellect) of Gideon Haigh, Botham and Lara.

 

[hang on]

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.

no, spark. was referring to ikki's sig...the one by haigh on warne.

 

[Teja.]

It is a ridiculous statement to suggest that anyone who rates Tendulkar higher is not very intelligent. You judge lack of ability to place cricket in a historical context by this, not level of general intelligence.

 

[Teja.]

Clearly, the future of mankind hinges on the outcome of this poll.

Yeah, from this thread I presume Ikki's signature is intended to ridicule the opinion (and intellect) of Gideon Haigh, Botham and Lara.

Under-appreciated stuff. WAG

 

[Ikki]

no, spark. was referring to ikki's sig...the one by haigh on warne.

Yeah, from this thread I presume Ikki's signature is intended to ridicule the opinion (and intellect) of Gideon Haigh, Botham and Lara.

Haigh never said that Warne was better than Bradman. It was in an interview talking about his career and he was trying to emphasise how special Warne was. He was referring to Warne more as not only a great cricketer but a very unique character. Hyperbole but was trying to make a point.

Lara's comments came, IIRC, at the match where Warne took his 700 wickets and he was referring more to players he had seen. I wouldn't assume he actually meant he was a better player than Bradman - at least that's how I understood it at the time. If I truly thought he reckoned Warne was better than Bradman I'd lose a lot of respect for Lara.

Anyway, we're talking about Warne here...he's only a shade under Bradman

 

[Ikki]

It is a ridiculous statement to suggest that anyone who rates Tendulkar higher is not very intelligent. You judge lack of ability to place cricket in a historical context by this, not level of general intelligence.

This is not like judging Trumper against Tendulkar. 99.94. You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

 

[vcs]

So hyperbole doesn't bother you that much when it is about your own favourite cricketers, but drives you crazy when it is about Tendulkar? Curious that..

 

[Teja.]

Very interesting tstl that Ikki takes spur of the moment Tendulkar hyperbole to heart and considers it a world-ending conspiracy but doesn't do the same with Warne.

EDIT:-Beaten by vcs.

 

[Blaze 18]

Why would you lose respect for someone who has a different opinion to yours, Ikki? I mean, it's not like he's promoting child labour or terrorism. He's only voicing a cricket-related opinion. Even if Brian Lara rates Warne > Bradman, what is the big deal? Sure, I would never agree (and I suspect most others wouldn't, as well), but don't you think it's a bit too much to lose respect for him because of that?

 

[Ikki]

So hyperbole doesn't bother you that much when it is about your own favourite cricketers, but drives you crazy when it is about Tendulkar? Curious that..

It's hyperbole because Haigh was intending it to be hyperbole. He wasn't intending on it being taken literally. More importantly, he wasn't saying Warne was better than Bradman.

 

[Ikki]

Even if Brian Lara rates Warne > Bradman, what is the big deal? Sure, I would never agree (and I suspect most others wouldn't, as well), but don't you think it's a bit too much to lose respect for him because of that?

Because anyone who puts more than 5 minutes time looking at what Bradman did should know how stupid that statement is. It's not the kind of thing you can pass off as "just a difference of opinion". And you are talking about a cricketer who should know better.

If Lara came out and said Mohammad Sami is/was a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, would you not lose respect for him?

 

[Howe_zat]

This is not like judging Trumper against Tendulkar. 99.94. You don't have to have much appreciation for cricket in a historical sense to rate Bradman higher. Just a grasp of simple maths. 100 > 57.

You keep going back to this point over and over again. Surely, for some people, it's not pure maths, it's cricket, with all the unique perspective and context that contains.

I don't see why you won't show an ounce of respect to people who see it differently.

 

[Shri]

Because anyone who puts more than 5 minutes time looking at what Bradman did should know how stupid that statement is. It's not the kind of thing you can pass off as "just a difference of opinion". And you are talking about a cricketer who should know better.

If Lara came out and said Mohammad Sami is/was a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, would you not lose respect for him?

Most people would say that he isn't right but would also say he is entitled to his opinion but would look forward to what he says next. Only if he keeps coming up with loads of such opinions would people think he is bonkers.

 

[Blaze 18]

Because anyone who puts more than 5 minutes time looking at what Bradman did should know how stupid that statement is. It's not the kind of thing you can pass off as "just a difference of opinion". And you are talking about a cricketer who should know better.

If Lara came out and said Mohammad Sami is/was a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, would you not lose respect for him?

No, I wouldn't lose respect for him. I wouldn't agree with him, but that's where it'd end. Nasser Hussain rated Tendulkar higher than Bradman, if I remember correctly. I haven't lost respect for him at all, despite the fact that I don't agree with that one little bit. I just think you're talking all this a little too seriously, no offense.

 

[Ikki]

You keep going back to this point over and over again. Surely, for some people, it's not pure maths, it's cricket, with all the unique perspective and context that contains.

I don't see why you won't show an ounce of respect to people who see it differently.

The presumption was someone not knowing enough about cricket history could rate Tendulkar better than Bradman. You don't have to know anything bar their averages and it would give you the answer.

The irony is those that do try to argue otherwise use revisionism and exploit points where you'd have to know a decent amount about cricket.

And my respect hinges on the arguments that are brought forth. The arguments brought forth are poor; very poor. Often, insultingly poor.

No, I wouldn't lose respect for him. I wouldn't agree with him, but that's where it'd end. Nasser Hussain rated Tendulkar higher than Bradman, if I remember correctly. I haven't lost respect for him at all, despite the fact that I don't agree with that one little bit. I just think you're talking all this a little too seriously, no offense.

Not really. I just lose respect for that person. That's pretty much it; it's not very serious. I don't know Hussain personally, but any one who follows the game even half-assedly should know better.

 

[Ikki]

Most people would say that he isn't right but would also say he is entitled to his opinion but would look forward to what he says next. Only if he keeps coming up with loads of such opinions would people think he is bonkers.

Being entitled to your opinion has nothing to do with it. I judge a person's intelligence by the reasoning or the opinions they hold. If you're going to say something like "the moon is fluorescent pink and is a cube" I am going to call you an idiot. In cricket, the difference of Bradman and other batsmen is so large that his superiority is as close as you can get to being a fact - it's 99.94% of the way there.

You actually underestimate me. I am very easy at saying "that's their opinion and they're entitled to it". I've heard things like "George Bush Jr is the best President in US history" or "the world was created in 7 days" and I have no problem with letting things like that go.

 

[hang on]

so would this mean that the significant proportion of people who vote for tendulkar in the polls tendulkar v bradman polls, whether in the guardian or the the age or suchlike publications are stupid and ignorant. and most probably indian and also stupid and ignorant. because that would be the logical conclusion, wouldn't it? given that a significant percentage of indians, were they indians, with connections to the internet, and can be arsed to vote, believe tendulkar to be on par with bradman one must needs conclude that they are thus stupid and ignorant?

 

[Shri]

Being entitled to your opinion has nothing to do with it. I judge a person's intelligence by the reasoning or the opinions they hold. If you're going to say something like "the moon is fluorescent pink and is a cube" I am going to call you an idiot. In cricket, the difference of Bradman and other batsmen is so large that his superiority is as close as you can get to being a fact - it's 99.94% of the way there.

You actually underestimate me. I am very easy at saying "that's their opinion and they're entitled to it". I've heard things like "George Bush Jr is the best President in US history" or "the world was created in 7 days" and I have no problem with letting things like that go.

Understand what you are saying but I disagree.

Forget this poll, if I start a poll asking how many people agree with your point of view, the results would be hilarious.

Kidding.

 

[Ikki]

so would this mean that the significant proportion of people who vote for tendulkar in the polls tendulkar v bradman polls, whether in the guardian or the the age or suchlike publications are stupid and ignorant. and most probably indian and also stupid and ignorant. because that would be the logical conclusion, wouldn't it? given that a significant percentage of indians, were they indians, with connections to the internet, and can be arsed to vote, believe tendulkar to be on par with bradman one must needs that they are thus stupid and ignorant?

Guess what, on the Foxsports poll they asked the question; and the majority of the people actually voted for Tendulkar. Now, if that isn't a clearer case of sheer ignorance or bias, then I am not sure what is.

 

[Cevno]

Atleast we have seriously started comparing "Uncomparable" Bradman here in CW to someone.

That's a good start for CW and something which has changed over time and i guess will change further more down the road .