Tendulkar goes ahead of all of them, not on output, but on peer rating. Presumably because his longevity means he was seen and remembered by more of said peers. (But I suspect being the golden boy of the biggest money generating Indian cricket market at precisely the right time as it was economically blossoming, doesn't hurt in generating positive soundbites either).
okay this is now getting embarrassing to the levels of subs opinions on Ashwin and Jadeja levels embarrassing
Awfully ridiculous post.
no greater insult in CW..
subs at least has a little merit in what he claims, its the extent to which he goes after being shown the full story that makes him look silly
Well, I would call it flair, in the sense that watching ATGs you want to get a sense that you are witnessing the greatest application of skill at this level.
Lol thanks I guess.
I didn't mention Tendulkar because he has a solid case of being statswise the best ever since Bradman. Once you add his peer rating, his case becomes very solid.
Would you rate Sanga ahead of Lara for the same reason you put Kallis ahead of Ponting?
What same reason?
Record, presumably.
Which record? Sanga and Kallis don't have the same record.
I am asking if you consider Sanga a better bat than Lara based on a superior seeming record?
Why are you asking that?
To see how much peer rating factors in your equation. It didn't matter in the Kallis case.
What does Kallis has to do with it? Are you implying that I rate Kallis based on superior record and that Sanga has superior record that Lara?
I am saying that Ponting maybe having a better peer rating didn't stop you from rating Kallis better. I presume it's because you think Kallis has a notably better record.
I believe that you are a complete blockhead
Lol why the antagonism? It was just an inquiry. Unless you think you are showing double standards.