Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[blahblahblah]

and i just voted

 

[Nate]

I will find it really hard to take anyone who votes for Tendulkar seriously.

 

[Spikey]

Why would you do this?

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't really care anymore. I've given my opinion.

We're selecting a world XI? I'll have both, no question.

Don't see why this thread has to be taken any more seriously than the other one. Or why we always have to have one.

Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman I've ever seen. Isn't that enough?

 

[blahblahblah]

edit

 

[Nate]

I find it frustrating that India need to have the best of everything in the world. Now, as it stands, they are the best cricketing nation, and have the only real International Cricket League. You can have our world title, and the premier cricketing competition, but I won't give you Don Bradman.

 

[Ikki]

The other thread wasn't really a poll and people may quirk over certain points. I want this thread to get down to the nitty gritty and personally I wanna see who and how many stand where. I don't really care for fence-sitting and niceties. Pick one or don't. If you rate players on who you think look better or what have you...vote that way. I don't care. I want to know exactly who in this forum actually thinks Tendulkar is better so I can know who to take seriously in the future and who not to. If people want to state arguments that they think will sway people they are welcome to. Either we'll uncover a lot of dross or someone who should get a nobel prize for literature. But we'll know who stands where.

 

[blahblahblah]

The other thread wasn't really a poll and people may quirk over certain points. I want this thread to get down to the nitty gritty and personally I wanna see who and how many stand where. I don't really care for fence-sitting and niceties. Pick one or don't. If you rate players on who you think look better or what have you...vote that way. I don't care I want to know exactly who in this forum actually thinks Tendulkar is better so I can know who to take seriously in the future and who not to.

pardon me but does this meana ccording to u , for a guy to be sensible he must go on and vot a certain bradman he has never seen play or of whom rare footage and only th 99.94 number is available rather than someone he has seen play cricket through out his life so far for the past 21 years and win many a matches for his team

if yes, then kudos mate

 

[Spark]

More seriously I'm in lockstep with Ikki, Nnanden etc. on this.

Find it near impossible to take seriously anyone who votes seriously for Tendulkar over Bradman as the poll has been stated here.

 

[Ikki]

For me, to believe otherwise, the poster must put forward an incredibly well reasoned and novel argument to dispute Bradman's superiority. It's either going to be that, or more dross like the bowlers in Bradman's era weren't any good or that Tendulkar succeeded against those great bowlers - i.e. your post.

 

[hang on]

would that mean, ikki, that u wouldn't countenance hussein's - or hughes's or hadlee's, for that matter - opinion or analyses on cricket?

i must admit that i am not too sure about it ie hussain and co. (and hence my previous thread about why they make the comments they do since it can undermine their own journalistic credibility) myself.

 

[blahblahblah]

well its dross if u say its dross

 

[Spark]

would that mean, ikki, that u wouldn't countenance hussein's - or hughes's or hadlee's, for that matter - opinion or analyses on cricket?

i must admit that i am not too sure about it ie hussain and co. (and hence my previous thread about why they make the comments they do since it can undermine their own journalistic credibility) myself.

Whilst it does not affect my opinion of their "on point" analysis ie. commentary of games and of the technical aspects of cricket, it makes me seriously question their historical analysis, because it tends to make me believe that they are seriously prone to hype and/or have issues placing things into context.

 

[Ikki]

would that mean, ikki, that u wouldn't countenance hussein's - or hughes's or hadlee's, for that matter - opinion or analyses on cricket?

i must admit that i am not too sure about it ie hussain and co. (and hence my previous thread about why they make the comments they do since it can undermine their own journalistic credibility) myself.

No. Whilst in general I like the opinions of pros and certainly regard their opinions in a different light; their opinions must have some rational validity. And when they hold opinions that Tendulkar is better than Bradman, then I question their intelligence as human beings let alone their knowledge of the game.

I am not interested, really, in the arguments people may want to put forward for Tendulkar because in 99.94% of the case they're rubbish. I am more interested in seeing for myself who and how many people believe that Tendulkar is better on this forum.

Having said that, I am open to the possibility that someone may put forward an argument that can persuade me otherwise. Being a person who regards logic, I am always open to that possibility.

 

[Ikki]

well its dross if u say its dross

It's dross because your points have been taken into account before and refuted to the extent that a logical person would consider it refuted. Meaning, these players aren't contemporaries and there will always be doubt because we can never directly compare them; but we should be able to determine from the overwhelming evidence who is superior to who. This is not Murali v Warne or Tendulkar v Lara or Lillee v Hadlee...we are talking about Bradman here.

People may talk abouts standards or what have you, but if anyone seriously thinks it makes up an average of almost double Tendulkar's then they're not particularly intelligent people. I just want to know who and how many of the members of CW these people may be.

 

[hang on]

see what u mean, spark, though the thought of a hardbitten, taciturn old pro (and a genius) like hadlee buying into the cheerleading hype does conjure up some funny images!

 

[smash84]

For me, to believe otherwise, the poster must put forward an incredibly well reasoned and novel argument to dispute Bradman's superiority. It's either going to be that, or more dross like the bowlers in Bradman's era weren't any good or that Tendulkar succeeded against those great bowlers - i.e. your post.

TBF to Mervyn Dhillon and Abmk, they did put forward some decent arguments.

No. Whilst in general I like the opinions of pros and certainly regard their opinions in a different light; their opinions must have some rational validity. And when they hold opinions that Tendulkar is better than Bradman, then I question their intelligence as human beings let alone their knowledge of the game.

I am not interested, really, in the arguments people may want to put forward for Tendulkar because in 99.94% of the case they're rubbish. I am more interested in seeing for myself who and how many people believe that Tendulkar is better on this forum.

Having said that, I am open to the possibility that someone may put forward an argument that can persuade me otherwise. Being a person who regards logic, I am always open to that possibility.

I can't believe this is you Ikki. The more I read your posts in this thread the more you are beginning to sound like a bigot. It seems that you have a very narrow definition of what is a well reasoned argument and it seems to be pointing in the direction of "right is what I think is right"

 

[kingpin]

Ahhh...This will not end well

 

[four_or_six]

The Tendulkar-Bradman thread has already been closed for a reason. If people are just going to carry on the way that one left off, ie. having a go at each other, or trolling to get a reaction, this one will be closed too.

 

[Spark]

TBF to Mervyn Dhillon and Abmk, they did put forward some decent arguments.



I can't believe this is you Ikki. The more I read your posts in this thread the more you are beginning to sound like a bigot. It seems that you have a very narrow definition of what is a well reasoned argument and it seems to be pointing in the direction of "right is what I think is right"

WADR not really. Some of the cherry picking going on there was truly appalling, to the point where the argument was endorsed that Tendulkar > Bradman because his average was greater if you only took Tendulkar's best grounds.