Things that will happen before Sachin's 100th 100

[Ikki]

I find it hilarious that statement has been treated as if I am talking about something that doesn't happen and is a figment of my imagination - i.e. Tendulkar having fans that use any excuse to compare him to Bradman. Just read articles, watch interviews, and you'll see that they tout it as something of an achievement so far out there that he must now be compared to Bradman. It will go into overdrive when it does happen.

No one is saying Sachin scored 100 Test centuries. It's simply a career milestone. What's the problem here?

If that's all it was touted to be, sure. It is a new statistic relied upon to compare him to others. In that sense, it really is meaningless as the author states.

 

[Spikey]

but you're the one doing the comparing to bradman

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah it's weird. I haven't seen a person use the hundred 100's thing as a reason to compare Tendulkar to Bradman yet.

If someone pulls out "Bradman never made a hundred 100's, did he?!?" then they're obviously ********. Haven't seen a person do that yet though, so chill brah.

 

[benchmark00]

btw, does anyone else think it will be better for the game if Tendulkar ends on 99? Would be a bit romantic if nothing else.

It's cooler that Bradman ended on 99 than it would've been if he ended on 100.03 imo.

 

[Ikki]

The author himself is addressing the very phenomena I am complaining about. as if I am the first to bring it up. I remember not too long ago Ganguly being interviewed and saying the time is now right to compare him - I'll try to see if it is still on Youtube. There was a thread discussing before whether his 100 100s is an achievement akin to Bradman's average. Either I am paying too much attention or you guys not enough.

 

[Daemon]

I find it hilarious that statement has been treated as if I am talking about something that doesn't happen and is a figment of my imagination - i.e. Tendulkar having fans that use any excuse to compare him to Bradman. Just read articles, watch interviews, and you'll see that they tout it as something of an achievement so far out there that he must now be compared to Bradman. It will go into overdrive when it does happen.



If that's all it was touted to be, sure. It is a new statistic relied upon to compare him to others. In that sense, it really is meaningless as the author states.

Literally everyone here knows those fanboys exist and in general we choose not to associate ourselves with them. You bringing it up as if any one gives two ****s about the opinions of those people is annoying and to me at least, smells of you trying to elicit a response from posters here.

No one here is using the hundred 100s to compare him with Bradman and I haven't seen any respectable source outside CW say that either, despite mentioning the achievement numerous times. It's definitely not made up by fanboys who want to compare Sachin with Bradman - you've been listening to the wrong interviews and reading the wrong articles if you think that.

If you're saying it's been made more popular by the fanboys then I agree with that, but that doesn't necessarily make it a ridiculous milestone. Of course it has no meaning when comparing it with other players but sane people won't use it for that purpose. It's merely an achievement, and a huge one at that.

 

[Contra]

No one is using it to compare him with Bradman. People are saying that it's a Bradmanesque achievement, he's so far ahead of everyone when it comes to this particular statistic that it's hard to see someone else get close to him, much like Bradman's average. That's all there is too it really.

 

[Ikki]

Literally everyone here knows those fanboys exist and in general we choose not to associate ourselves with them. You bringing it up as if any one gives two ****s about the opinions of those people is annoying and to me at least, smells of you trying to elicit a response from posters here.

No one here is using the hundred 100s to compare him with Bradman and I haven't seen any respectable source outside CW say that either, despite mentioning the achievement numerous times. It's definitely not made up by fanboys who want to compare Sachin with Bradman - you've been listening to the wrong interviews and reading the wrong articles if you think that.

If you're saying it's been made more popular by the fanboys then I agree with that, but that doesn't necessarily make it a ridiculous milestone. Of course it has no meaning when comparing it with other players but sane people won't use it for that purpose. It's merely an achievement, and a huge one at that.

TBF, I am surprised it has gotten this response. The forum here is a concentration of pretty knowledgable fans, although some slip through the cracks. I am referring to the general fanfare and hysteria surrounding this record - this generally doesn't occur here, I'm fairly sure you agree. So I don't see a reason why it should illicit that kind of response.

Your last para is pretty much what I am saying. It has been made into some circus that it simply would not have been had it been any other player and this mainly by fans who would like nothing better than to use it over other players. I agree that sane people shouldn't use it, but you'll see it pervade every article or news feature where comparison is an implication. If all people did was to talk of the record as a milestone, as Manan suggests, then it wouldn't be a problem. But there is a problem as soon as you start tallying up the totals of other batsmen; therein is the comparison.

It makes about as much sense for me to say Ponting has almost twice as many International 100s than Viv Richards has as it does to tout how much more Tendulkar has over others.

 

[G.I.Joe]

People who feel the need to address arguments that belong to youtube comments sections should have the common sense to restrict their counter-arguments to said youtube comments sections instead of bringing them to a forum where they aren't recognised as a valid argument. You just come across as a wannabe otherwise.

 

[Ikki]

I am agreeing with an article, posted here, which comments directly on the hysteria which we're criticising. Whether they are from Youtube, The Indian Times, Facebook or Cricketweb is irrelevant. As if all comments on CW have to do with CW or have done in the past. I'm a wannabe what? If they aren't recognised as valid then you should be agreeing with me; yet you are more interested in snide replies.

 

[Daemon]

I am agreeing with an article, posted here, which comments directly on the hysteria which we're criticising. Whether they are from Youtube, The Indian Times, Facebook or Cricketweb is irrelevant. As if all comments on CW have to do with CW or have done in the past. I'm a wannabe what? If they aren't recognised as valid then you should be agreeing with me; yet you are more interested in snide replies.

Yeah I actually agree with Ikki here, Joe.

Anyways, do you have links to articles/videos that are doing the Bradman - Sachin comparison? Haven't really come across any and I want to see the sources I should avoid reading/listening to.

 

[GotSpin]

It's a stupid milestone

 

[Teja.]

Ikki, thing is, There are some of us who consider it a special milestone.

Your post implies that to consider it special means you have to be part of a great plan of the sachin fanboys to rate him over Bradman which is a complete joke. Sure those people exist but it's entirely possible to be fascinated by the 100 centuries milestone without being involved in an elaborate conspiracy against Bradman.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I am agreeing with an article, posted here, which comments directly on the hysteria which we're criticising. Whether they are from Youtube, The Indian Times, Facebook or Cricketweb is irrelevant. As if all comments on CW have to do with CW or have done in the past. I'm a wannabe what? If they aren't recognised as valid then you should be agreeing with me; yet you are more interested in snide replies.

Why should I agree with you? You're basically taking one view point (Tendulkar = Bradman) and extending that as an indictment of the entire celebration of a singular achievement (the 100 International hundreds).

 

[Daemon]

I like to think of it as a feat or achievement rather than a milestone, if that makes any sense.

 

[Jono]

Why should I agree with you? You're basically taking one view point (Tendulkar = Bradman) and extending that as an indictment of the entire celebration of a singular achievement (the 100 International hundreds).

Yeah exactly.

Do some people see the achievement as something they can use to compare him to Bradman? Probably.

But if I am excited to hopefully be there in Melbourne or Sydney and be there live when he gets his 100th international century, that is stupid because the achievement is meaningless?

It's not meaningless to me, and many others who were dying for him to score it in the third test vs. WI.

For those that think its meaningless, in theory a century in test cricket is just a number. What is the difference between that and 98? Yet we stand up and applaud when they get to 100, even if the 98 was still an awesome knock.

Such an overreaction here its hilarious. People will find any excuse honestly.

 

[Burgey]

It's a great achievement, assuming he makes it. It's no less an achievement than wicket taking or run scoring records, and they are perfectly acceptable milestones to have, I'd have thought.

 

[Shri]

The reason I feel its so anticipated by a lot of people is because we know Tendulkar has one of the worst 'nervous 90s' records in cricket. Its hilarious/entertaining to see him get into the 90s these days or cross 50 and its fun seeing his whole game plan change in anticipation and I guess the journey to the 100th hundred is far more exciting than the destination.

 

[Ikki]

I am not annoyed at all for people thinking it is a special achievement for the man or Indian cricket in general. Those views are perfectly reasonable and I would add my own kudos in that regard. My first statement re the article is a poor one in the sense that it suggests that I have a problem for any kind of praise about it - that is my fault. As an aside, I think the runs making him the leader in total runs scored and total 100s made were more special.

What I, and I think the article refers to, is a certain group of fandom that are taking it to mean far more than it is. Please do not mix up my extreme dislike (and I admit this freely) of this segment of fans. I have always stated when talking about Indian fans at large that while I think they have some of the worst fans (when it comes to things like these), I also think that their best fans are incredibly knowledgeable and I cherish the ones on the forum that I get to talk to like bagapath, HB, SJS, vcs, Manan, and many others - even if I disagree with them a lot in certain discussions.

 

[DingDong]

imo the 100 centuries makes him better than bradman and that's not just an opinion its a mathematical fact

100 > 99,94