Ikki, what? I've disagreed with you in the past over loads of points, doesn't mean I can't take you seriously as a poster.
People often disagree to things where it comes down to a certain amount of subjectivity and either opinion may be valid. It's different in things like art which are, for the most part, subjective, but when we are discussing sports you can be objective to a far greater extent IMO.
When you compare certain bowlers, for example, you know certain things can be valued more than other facets and what have you. You can legitimately argue for Lillee or Marshall either way and a difference in opinion may exist but the logical reasons suffice in one arguing either way. It is very easy to set up certain criteria which you hold dear and based on said criteria you can logically progress to rate one bowler better than another...even though the output of one is higher than the output of another. Because in your own mind you were being logical.
People who usually discuss things and have a semblance of sense usually have a healthy amount of respect for other people's opinions because they can fathom that people will have different value systems and rate things differently. You may even totally disagree with them but because you understand the aforementioned point you can move on from that discussion. You wouldn't even call them biased (in a pejorative sense) - merely that they hold different things to different values.
But if someone were trying to argue that Mohammad Sami is better than Malcolm Marshall because he swung it better (however they wish to define that) then they are taking the piss.
This is one discussion, IMO, where the question is so absurdly easy to answer that it takes incredible blindness to not see that most of the people voting for Tendulkar are doing so through sheer bias and/or willful ignorance. Now I am no Gandhi, I don't have endless patience to sift through crap. This is one discussion, IMO, where I can safely put aside anyone who votes for Tendulkar without regretting my decision an iota. The only answer that even gets near acceptable (and probably is acceptable actually) is something like yours where you may refuse to judge players you haven't seen. Even then, I think it's a very lazy answer (this is not Trueman vs Lindwall...this is
Bradman) but I can move on from it.
Now again, I am not as interested in the reasons because I know that I am not going to hear a truly worthy argument to Tendulkar's superiority. I am interested in who and how many. There's no grand plan.
I don't agree with these points. Anyone who is twice as good as the best of the rest has to be the best ever. That is why I voted for Bradman. But again, some guys will be going by these points above and you cant bunch them with the blind followers of Sachin; because there is no way you can nullify those arguments with Bradman's average alone. Let them believe in what they think is right. You should try and source some vintage articles on bradman and post them here. Desperate to read something classy on cricket; enough of trading personal insults in the name of cricket.
I am pretty sure the people who state the above still have the wherewithal to make the distinction and come to your conclusion in the end.
Certainly, there are good points. But are there enough good points to dispute Bradman's superiority? That is what it comes down to and I am far less tolerant of the opinion that there are enough of these points than I am of the points themselves - which are debatable and go either way depending on your view point.
