Erroneous revisionism that needs to be corrected

[91Jmay]

So you mean everyone who knows how to rate cricketers on something other than national bias?

Tendulkar wasn't the best ODI batsman around - Viv was.

Most people who saw him play rate Sobers as the second best behind Bradman.

I happen to think Smith is a better test batsman than Tendulkar.

You may have a point if you combine tests and ODIs but who the hell does that? And Kohli might just be better than Tendulkar. The jury is still out.

Tendulkar had one thing going for him that separates him from everyone else and that's his longevity. And even then Lara and Kallis both have claims to being as good as Tendulkar for almost as long.

Longevity is dramatically underappreciated on this forum though, can't perscribe it a numeric value so people sort of punish players for it in an odd way.

 

[Daemon]

***** wasn't talking about having a "good genuine case" for it though. ***** made the claim that anyone who doesn't agree with it is performing "revisionism"

Yeah that's rubbish.

But Tendulkar's batting often gets downplayed on CW as a sort of counter to the excessive love he gets elsewhere. I mean we have people saying Kallis was equal.

 

[srbhkshk]

***** wasn't talking about having a "good genuine case" for it though. ***** made the claim that anyone who doesn't agree with it is performing "revisionism"

And stephen's saying that there's no reason to rate him on the top apart from nationalistic bias. There are plenty of reasons other than that.

 

[Teja.]

‘Holding was usually magnificent – as was Wes Hall before him – and Garner and Ambrose were fortunate to be endowed with such long limbs.’

*Rage intensifies*

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah that's rubbish.

But Tendulkar's batting often gets downplayed on CW as a sort of counter to the excessive love he gets elsewhere. I mean we have people saying Kallis was equal.

Made 2 half centuries in Pakistan against a quality bowling line up when he was 16 ffs. Score a ton at 17 when India where collapsing to save a test. He was literally a child.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And stephen's saying that there's no reason to rate him on the top apart from nationalistic bias.

not really. stephen was responding directly to *****. He just said that others have just as much of a claim.

 

[Maximas]

Made 2 half centuries in Pakistan against a quality bowling line up when he was 16 ffs. Score a ton at 17 when India where collapsing to save a test. He was literally a child.

Could say that about Mozart but he ain't the greatest

 

[srbhkshk]

not really. stephen was responding directly to *****. He just said that others have just as much of a claim.

In which part of his post?

 

[TheJediBrah]

In which part of his post?

He never said otherwise, which is what you claimed. His statement about "national bias" was in direct response to *****'s outrageous claim. He never said, or even implied, that you have to be biased to rate Tendulkar no. 2

 

[91Jmay]

Could say that about Mozart but he ain't the greatest

Wrong again, Mozart was a great player of spin and played some important knocks during the War of the Austrian Succession.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think we can all agree that:

- rating Tendulkar no. 2 is perfectly reasonable, and not revisionism
- rating someone else (who actually has a decent claim) no. 2 is perfectly reasonable, and not revisionism
- ***** is wrong

 

[Daemon]

not really. stephen was responding directly to *****. He just said that others have just as much of a claim.

***** said that it's revisionism to say Tendulkar isn't the No.1 ODI batsman. That's rubbish obviously because of Viv and maybe even Kohli.

But for tests ***** didn't say he was the undisputed no.2, just whether he was "worthy" of it. And he certainly is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

***** said that it's revisionism to say Tendulkar isn't the No.1 ODI batsman. That's rubbish obviously because of Viv and maybe even Kohli.

But for tests ***** didn't say he was the undisputed no.2, just whether he was "worthy" of it. And he certainly is.

ok

 

[Daemon]

ok

Once again an emphatic win for Daemon

 

[TheJediBrah]

you realize no one actually disagreed with anyone else but we still managed to argue for the best part of a page?

cricketweb at it's best

 

[Burgey]

I think we can all agree that:

- rating Tendulkar no. 2 is perfectly reasonable, and not revisionism
- rating someone else (who actually has a decent claim) no. 2 is perfectly reasonable, and not revisionism
- ***** is wrong

1. yes.
2. yes, but rating someone who's a complete spud no. 2 is not revisionism either.
3. always a given.

 

[Burgey]

***** said that it's revisionism to say Tendulkar isn't the No.1 ODI batsman. That's rubbish obviously because of Viv and maybe even Kohli.

But for tests ***** didn't say he was the undisputed no.2, just whether he was "worthy" of it. And he certainly is.

It's obviously rubbish because that's not what revisionism is ffs.

Shares in Daemon Inc are on the slide here. Sell ffs.

 

[trundler]

***** was obviously baiting. I was happy people overlooked that transparently cringe statement until of course Stephen thought it fit to have another ODI batsman debate.

 

[trundler]

In any case, not what revisionism is. Revisionism would be saying Tendulkar wasn't that bad a captain or something.

 

[stephen]

***** was obviously baiting. I was happy people overlooked that transparently cringe statement until of course Stephen thought it fit to have another ODI batsman debate.

Not a debate. I just told ***** he was wrong. Which he patently is.