Best After The Don

[harsh.ag]

Ok done..I have also created some fliers which i am going to distribute from a plane saying that SRT supporters are barred from taking his name in the comparison thread..oh we the fan boys..

btw before the ***** footing post i have made 2 posts in this thread and both were healthy for the discussion albeit favoring SRT

Dude, when I wrote "you", I meant to refer to anybody who reads that post Apologies if you felt targeted.

 

[doesitmatter]

Dude, when I wrote "you", I meant to refer to anybody who reads that post Apologies if you felt targeted.

No no no..I got it..what i meant is i will spread the word..

 

[Satyanash89]

Even bringing SRT's name forward (even if it comes naturally to your mind because you might consider him the foremost modern batsman) results in a barrage of SRT hate (and the thing is, it will only be SRT hate; it will not be Lara or Kallis hate even if their names are mentioned with SRT)

Pretty accurate now that I think about it...

 

[honestbharani]

Bradman averaged 99. The next best batsman of his era averaged 58 (Hammond).

Tendulkar averages 54. The other two great batsmen of his era average 52 and 56 (Lara and Kallis).


Seriously, enough with the crap trying to find ways to denigrate Bradman and boost Tendulkar. Tendulkar probably isn't even the best batsman of his generation. Tendulkar's "imposing" and "difficult" schedule is no different to any other modern batsman, and some of them have been arguably better than him. No one was even close to being arguably as good as Bradman in his era.

Lara averages 52.88.. I will round it to 53 tbh..

 

[honestbharani]

Took all that into account, I know what Bradman went through, and I still think modern cricketers' bodies must go through a lot more wear and tear than the Bradman-era cricketers. The amount of ODI cricket played during the 90s and 2000s was absolutely ridiculous. There were an insane amount of meaningless 7 match ODI tournaments and triangulars.

That being said, I do agree that this post


Makes absolutely no sense to me

Sure, Tendulkar's body has probably gone through more playing cricket in the modern world but his body has also had a zillion times better care and management available to it to undergo that workload. Seriously, these pros and cons just cancel each other out and ultimately, only one thing remains.. Don was MILES ahead of his peers in international cricket in his era and Sachin and others have not been. End of Discussion.

 

[honestbharani]

Bradman's unusual success came because of an intensely high level of concentration, and his incredible hunger and desire for runs, and not to get out. I think we haven't seen that level of intensity sustained for such a long amount of time before or after him. I am sure most of us would agree to this. Could he have sustained that intensity if during his time, the schedule had been as heavy as it is today in the modern world? I don't know. His FC exploits suggest he could have, but then the level of FC cricket is not as high as international cricket, especially when played on different countries and pitches.

How do you determine that though? I am pretty sure the FC cricket in 8 or even 9 of the 10 playing nations today basically SUCKS. And the amount of international cricketers who played FC in Bradman's era was a million times more. It is a really silly argument, tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

Also love the line "Bedser was a bit tricky" Really?! Dja think? Like I said just a turd argument. You reckon people can back themselves without trash talking champions just bcos they want to insist on a stupid point. Think I might drag out a youtube of Hayden smashing an ageing Donald in 2001 just to prove how bad he was. That Ntini looks a bit tricky though.

Or the beloved Sachin's record against the Ws. Honestly, Ramesh was smashing around the Ws better than Sachin at the same time period..

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar is the best batsman since Bradman - Richie Benaud - YouTube

Richie certainly thinks that Tendy is the best since Bradman and he has seen them all since Bradman

You can say almost the same for Ian Chappell and he doesn't think Sachin is the next best. It is individual preference talking here..

 

[honestbharani]

If an Indian supports SRT then it is "ah it is an Indian nvm"..if others then it is ***** footing to the large cricket audience or bcci..what a joke..Have Coward or Benaud got anything out of it by saying SRT is the best? I don't think so?....btw Coward was picking his no2 and that means Don is his No1...

Who is picking on them for supporting Sachin? There is very real merit to consider SRT the second best batsman of all time but it is when people start making as if he is better than Bradman that the point starts becoming ludicurous.

 

[Red]

If an Indian supports SRT then it is "ah it is an Indian nvm"..if others then it is ***** footing to the large cricket audience or bcci..what a joke..Have Coward or Benaud got anything out of it by saying SRT is the best? I don't think so?....btw Coward was picking his no2 and that means Don is his No1...

I've no problem with an Indian, Benaud, Coward or anyone saying "I believe Tendulkar is the second greatest batsman ever".

That's never the issue in these conversations.

The issue is always when someone tries to dismiss Bradman's legacy (easier times/bowlers weren't good/less cricket played) while boosting Sachin's (harder schedule/had to face better bowlers/played 10,000 games of cricket a month). Which is precisely what Coward is doing (read Big Bambino's insightful posts).

 

[smash84]

You can say almost the same for Ian Chappell and he doesn't think Sachin is the next best. It is individual preference talking here..

I don't think you can say quite the same about Chappell though. Benaud became a first class cricketer just about the time Bradman retired. I can't recall if he had seen Bradman play but I think he may have. And sure it is about individual preference but my reason for quoting Richie there was that there have been a fair few well respected observers over the years who consider SRT as the best after Bradman and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are playing to an audience.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ask Senile Sentry if he thinks I play up to the Indian audience.

 

[doesitmatter]

Who is picking on them for supporting Sachin? There is very real merit to consider SRT the second best batsman of all time but it is when people start making as if he is better than Bradman that the point starts becoming ludicurous.

I've no problem with an Indian, Benaud, Coward or anyone saying "I believe Tendulkar is the second greatest batsman ever".

That's never the issue in these conversations.

The issue is always when someone tries to dismiss Bradman's legacy (easier times/bowlers weren't good/less cricket played) while boosting Sachin's (harder schedule/had to face better bowlers/played 10,000 games of cricket a month). Which is precisely what Coward is doing (read Big Bambino's insightful posts).

I have no problem in questioning Coward's reasoning on why he felt Sachin is better (by dismissing Don) if it remains cricketing in nature but saying things like, that somebody would select Sachin because he is a BCCI-stooge , he is pandering to the larger market is utterly ludicrous as well..Benaud and Coward are seasoned observers fgs..

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think you can say quite the same about Chappell though. Benaud became a first class cricketer just about the time Bradman retired. I can't recall if he had seen Bradman play but I think he may have. And sure it is about individual preference but my reason for quoting Richie there was that there have been a fair few well respected observers over the years who consider SRT as the best after Bradman and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are playing to an audience.

You don't have to be a FC cricketer to watch cricket though ?

 

[honestbharani]

I have no problem in questioning Coward's reasoning on why he felt Sachin is better (by dismissing Don) if it remains cricketing in nature but saying things like, that somebody would select Sachin because he is a BCCI-stooge , he is pandering to the larger market is utterly ludicrous as well..Benaud and Coward are seasoned observers fgs..

lol.. there is enough reason to believe it either way though.. I just don't see why someone shouldn't consider Coward was doing that to pander to the Indian readership if they think his points were ludicurous.. They may hold a wrong opinion but they are entitled to do that just like the rest of us.

 

[honestbharani]

And I find it funny harsh and doesitmatter think what they do.. The whole argument is stemming from an article where the author is belittling Bradman's achievements and exaggerating Sachin's to make the point that Sachin is the next best to Bradman. The latter is not what is being argued here, the former is and obviously Sachin is the one who will be brought up. When Tony Cozier writes an article stating why Lara is next best to Bradman by belittling Bradman's records and exaggerating Lara's, we will bring up Lara. Is it so hard to understand that the discussion will be topical?

 

[watson]

Also love the line "Bedser was a bit tricky" Really?! Dja think? Like I said just a turd argument. You reckon people can back themselves without trash talking champions just bcos they want to insist on a stupid point. Think I might drag out a youtube of Hayden smashing an ageing Donald in 2001 just to prove how bad he was. That Ntini looks a bit tricky though.

You've missed the point. If Tendulkar (or Lara, Sobers) were to 'walk in Bradman's shoes' and replicate his Test matches in order to try and achieve an average in the 70s, or even 80s, then they would face that exact same attack on the video I showed - an ageng England attack out of form. And presumerably they would score a bucket-load of runs.

It appears that most people are making the assumption that Tendulkar (or Lara, Sobers) could not possibly achieve an extremely high average if they re-played Bradman's 52 Tests from 1929-1948. I think that this is a pessimistic piece of dogma, and no more believable than an optimistic position that says, "yes they could"'.

(But I've crapped on enough.....)

 

[harsh.ag]

And I find it funny harsh and doesitmatter think what they do.. The whole argument is stemming from an article where the author is belittling Bradman's achievements and exaggerating Sachin's to make the point that Sachin is the next best to Bradman. The latter is not what is being argued here, the former is and obviously Sachin is the one who will be brought up. When Tony Cozier writes an article stating why Lara is next best to Bradman by belittling Bradman's records and exaggerating Lara's, we will bring up Lara. Is it so hard to understand that the discussion will be topical?

I only have a gripe against the following kinds of exchanges:

A: Bradman would not have done so well when walking in the shoes of modern masters like Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Kallis.

B: I really wish the Tendulkar fans would stop trying to boost his arguments and lower down Bradman. Tendulkar is not even in the top 5 ATG, imo.

No mention that the whole generation of modern masters was being talked about. Only Tendulkar hate. No Lara or Kallis hate.

This happens in the aftermath of things like that article.

 

[honestbharani]

I only have a gripe against the following kinds of exchanges:

A: Bradman would not have done so well when walking in the shoes of modern masters like Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Kallis.

B: I really wish the Tendulkar fans would stop trying to boost his arguments and lower down Bradman. Tendulkar is not even in the top 5 ATG, imo.

No mention that the whole generation of modern masters was being talked about. Only Tendulkar hate. No Lara or Kallis hate.

This happens in the aftermath of things like that article.

Yes.. and I think that the point 2 is being discussed here because the author of the article in question thought it fit to cook up ways in which Sachin's achievements were better than Bradman's. I mean, you can easily point out reasons why you think Sachin is #2 to the Don without having to embellish Sachin's achievements and belittle the Don''s if that was your intention.

 

[Red]

I only have a gripe against the following kinds of exchanges:

A: Bradman would not have done so well when walking in the shoes of modern masters like Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Kallis.

B: I really wish the Tendulkar fans would stop trying to boost his arguments and lower down Bradman. Tendulkar is not even in the top 5 ATG, imo.

No mention that the whole generation of modern masters was being talked about. Only Tendulkar hate. No Lara or Kallis hate.

This happens in the aftermath of things like that article.

The extreme reactions against Tendulkar are a result of his idiotic fans clogging up forums and comments sections on cricinfo with complete and utter bull****.