• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sir Garry v Sachin

Athlai

Not Terrible
Tendulkar transcends the sport of cricket, Kiwis who know nothing about the game know who he is. One of those rare figures like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods or Jonah Lomu who just entirely become part of pop culture.

Was Sobers treated the same way at the time? What it means to be 'celebrity' has changed a great deal since his time. I struggle to think of a lot of names that come to mind from the pre-90s era, Pele, Babe Ruth, Ali, Bradman.
 

Contra

Cricketer Of The Year
I don't think Lara vs Afridi is a good example. Lara clearly far more loved in India. I also don't think reception of cricketers in India has much to do with cricketers' nationality or culture. Until recently before the India-Australia rivalry emerged (at least in minds of Indian fans), Indians would have received all non-Indian cricketers based purely on merit (Indian cricketers of course received extra adulation). Warne for example is much much loved in India.
Nah, as far as crowds in the ground go, they would always recognize players that did well against them (In India mostly, but in general as well), Afridi use to destroy India so they would definitely have cheered him on (or booed him perhaps? Which is again an indication of acknowledgment). Brian Lara barely toured India, and so even though he enjoyed popularity around the world and was an ATG batsmen, he wouldn't quite get any significant recognition if he came out to bat in India. Even Shane Warne only become popular in India after winning the 2008 IPL with RR. Things might be slightly different now with the world becoming a global village and so much more information available to the average fan, but back in the 90's and early 2000's It simply came down to how much the Indian fan was scared of you.

I can safely say that a guy like Sanath Jayasuria was 10x more known (not necessary in a good way) in India because he was another player who use to destroy India. There is also a greater emphasis on ODI's when it comes to India, so if you get a few good ODI performances against India they will start talking about you.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUFbCY8HN1U - one of my fav moments from that 09 NZ tour haha..
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can't agree with Contra at all. Regardless of the fact that Lara didn't tour India much, and wasn't as good against India, he was immensely popular in India. Sanath may have destroyed us plenty but he was hardly as adored as Lara and Waugh were. For a long time in the 90s, Sachin Lara and Waugh were seen as the 3 best in the world and their popularity here reflected that pretty accurately.
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
Indian fans are ****s first and foremost. Even the Indian posters on this forum, be as it may that belong to the upper percentile of Indian fans in terms of cricketing know how, act out like idiots far too often. Ever notice all the non-India threads where they barge in with some unnecessary reference to our **** team? Total dicks if you ask me, their opinions aren't worth taking seriously.
 
Last edited:

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you open this question out to the entire history of the game then it's worth looking at this week's book review - will the first book published in 2080 be about Sachin? I rather doubt it
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
If you open this question out to the entire history of the game then it's worth looking at this week's book review - will the first book published in 2080 be about Sachin? I rather doubt it
I think you are taking a pretty abstract idea of relevance to how celebrated and applying it in a pretty unfair way. I also think you underestimate the cultural significance of Tendulkar.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think you are taking a pretty abstract idea of relevance to how celebrated and applying it in a pretty unfair way. I also think you underestimate the cultural significance of Tendulkar.
I understand your point, but I think we can say with some confidence that over the next half century or so there will be a number of players who will match Tendulkar's feats on the field and succeeding generations will replace him with their own heroes - but we can be equally confident that there will never be another Don
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I understand your point, but I think we can say with some confidence that over the next half century or so there will be a number of players who will match Tendulkar's feats on the field and succeeding generations will replace him with their own heroes - but we can be equally confident that there will never be another Don
Nah. You have to have lived in India in the '90s to get it. There will not be another Sachin simply because our team fighting spirit will never be as **** as it was in the '90s, and even if it is, it will not coincide with a rising Indian middle class desperately searching for greatness in its heroes.

I can't speak for other countries, and I suspect they may move on very quickly (and indeed may have already), but that's not going to happen in India. Although it must be said that someone needs to write a (much) better book on him than the recent one.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Nah. You have to have lived in India in the '90s to get it. There will not be another Sachin simply because our team fighting spirit will never be as **** as it was in the '90s, and even if it is, it will not coincide with a rising Indian middle class desperately searching for greatness in its heroes.
Indeed that's the point. Sachin's rise coincides with incredible development of India, economically and socially.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
If you open this question out to the entire history of the game then it's worth looking at this week's book review - will the first book published in 2080 be about Sachin? I rather doubt it
I understand your point, but I think we can say with some confidence that over the next half century or so there will be a number of players who will match Tendulkar's feats on the field and succeeding generations will replace him with their own heroes - but we can be equally confident that there will never be another Don
Why compare Tendulkar with Bradman? Even Sobers does not match up to Bradman. If we look at cricket historically, people who stand out would be WG, Spofforth, Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers among other players till the late 60s. From the 70s on, there have been far more players in vivid memory because of the video and the memory being more fresh. There were a host of great fast bowlers in the 70s and 80s. However, now we look at Lillee and Marshall from subsequent decades more. They have stood the test of a few decades, so to say. In that parlance, there have been a host of players from the 90s and 2000s and it is difficult to say who would stand the test of time. Warne, Lara and Tendulkar seem like the 3 players most likely but you never know. Every subsequent year, I find Gilchrist more of an anomaly, as there just doesn't come a player like him.

I guess when we look at these greats, the fact that no one came like them played a large part in them standing the test of time. There was no one like WG, there was no one like Bradman. Wilfred Rhodes was a legendary figure but he was forgotten a fair deal as Sobers came along. Jonty Rhodes was some one who we all thought was a freak. People think of him as just another great fielder after fielding standards improved (though I still regard Jonty very highly, even by modern standards, but that's besides the point).

There are the numbers of Tendulkar - the ODI and Test runs. The ODI runs will never be eclipsed and I can't see any one going a lot ahead in terms of test runs, even if some one does manage to cross it. There are the 100 international hundreds. Tendulkar will be more of a WG Grace like figure I think, in 70 years time. People will be split as far as his greatness in the very elite pantheon of greats like a Bradman and a Marshall, just like they are about WG in ways. A lot of numbers can have that jarring effect.
 

TNT

Banned
If there were two matches being played at the same time and you could only go to one, Viv is playing in one and Tendulkar is playing in the other which would you choose.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Why compare Tendulkar with Bradman? Even Sobers does not match up to Bradman. If we look at cricket historically, people who stand out would be WG, Spofforth, Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers among other players till the late 60s. From the 70s on, there have been far more players in vivid memory because of the video and the memory being more fresh. There were a host of great fast bowlers in the 70s and 80s. However, now we look at Lillee and Marshall from subsequent decades more. They have stood the test of a few decades, so to say. In that parlance, there have been a host of players from the 90s and 2000s and it is difficult to say who would stand the test of time. Warne, Lara and Tendulkar seem like the 3 players most likely but you never know. Every subsequent year, I find Gilchrist more of an anomaly, as there just doesn't come a player like him.

I guess when we look at these greats, the fact that no one came like them played a large part in them standing the test of time. There was no one like WG, there was no one like Bradman. Wilfred Rhodes was a legendary figure but he was forgotten a fair deal as Sobers came along. Jonty Rhodes was some one who we all thought was a freak. People think of him as just another great fielder after fielding standards improved (though I still regard Jonty very highly, even by modern standards, but that's besides the point).

There are the numbers of Tendulkar - the ODI and Test runs. The ODI runs will never be eclipsed and I can't see any one going a lot ahead in terms of test runs, even if some one does manage to cross it. There are the 100 international hundreds. Tendulkar will be more of a WG Grace like figure I think, in 70 years time. People will be split as far as his greatness in the very elite pantheon of greats like a Bradman and a Marshall, just like they are about WG in ways. A lot of numbers can have that jarring effect.
Very good post.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
The fact that his name will be talked about and talked about fanatically, even 50 years from now should show how popular Sachin is...
 

Contra

Cricketer Of The Year
Can't agree with Contra at all. Regardless of the fact that Lara didn't tour India much, and wasn't as good against India, he was immensely popular in India. Sanath may have destroyed us plenty but he was hardly as adored as Lara and Waugh were. For a long time in the 90s, Sachin Lara and Waugh were seen as the 3 best in the world and their popularity here reflected that pretty accurately.
Being the "best in the world" doesn't necessarily mean you are popular or the most loved. There are several ways to judge popularity, the most common would be how known you are by the public, since we are strictly talking about Indian fans living in India, it mostly came down to how well a particular player did well against them, both in India and otherwise. The average Indian fan wouldn't watch a neutral game, so for most of them it simply came down to what they watched on TV while India played and what newspapers wrote about matches India were involved in. Taking that into consideration it is easy to determine which players were more known (not necessarily "loved") by the public, and these players would invariably be Pakistani/Sri Lankan players due to geographical and cultural similarities, as well as the number of games played against each other (particularly ODI's). Shoaib Akthar, Afridi, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Inzamam, Jayasuria, Murli etc are all more known players in India (or at least were during 90's - mid 00's) than Waugh, Lara and Warne, even though the latter 3 are better cricketers than those (barring the 2W's and Murali) named before them.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Nah, Contra. You're totally on wrong track here. Indian fans know better than to cheer for Afridi than Lara. Come on. I also disagree that it comes down to who performed best against us. Even if it does, it wouldn't exactly be the culture argument you were making earlier. It would be no different from how Gavaskar is celebrated in Caribbeans.
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
May I suggest that there is far too much convenient stereotyping of Indian fans that happens over here? You wouldn't fully appreciate and understand their psyche unless you have spent lot of time with them or you are one. Indian fans know cricket. Period. They assess players on their merit and they are pretty much spot on in that with two exceptions (1) when it comes to Tendulkar, they can't accept anyone being better and (2) they are not often concerned about history of cricket.
 

Top