WHY do they say this?

[Spark]

Australians in general don't tend towards fanaticism. The expectations placed on the team are staggering, though.

 

[smash84]

But anyway regarding the comparison by Simon Hughes, he is just trying to secure a contract in the IPL. I'm sure he is laughing at his own analysis that Tendulkar was a better batsmen.

. Basically, there seems to be a legion of people waiting for him to fail so they can justify some of their theories on how he's fluked his runs all along.

awta regarding sehwag

Anyone who says that loses their credibility for mine. There are some less major but more widespread notions that completely baffle me too though such as Lara/Tendulkar>Kallis, Ambrose>Pollock et al.

Ambrose vs Pollock isn't that close tbh. Amby was a level above the likes of Wasim and Pollock. Heck I will probably rate Wasim ahead of Pollock as a bowler.

On Sehwag v Sangakkara I agree that there's a lot of bias against Sehwag. I think they're about equal as batsmen but I admit I will tend to give Sanga a lot more slack because he's massively more likeable. A much better batsman to watch to me and a much better attitude.

Also, CW tends to be very reactionary towards players that get overrated elsewhere. And yes, regardless of how good Sehwag is, he can't possibly match some the level of praise he gets from some of his fans.

This. So this.

Yea I know couple of people who go by that not just with Tendulkar but with Lara as well.

Those ppl just don't know enough about cricket.
Similar happens, with Wasim Akram. Lot of them think he is the best bowler ever. Most of them don't much know Malcolm Marshall.

I think, Tendulkar is the most influential cricketer ever.
In terms of being the best batsman, I have Bradman(by alot) and Viv(by little) ahead of him.

Yeah and rating Wasim as the best bowler happens a lot in the SC. Apparently even in India. Quite naive i should say.

But I am not talking about their stature in the game as I clearly stated in football we have no Bradman equivalent. I am merely referring to the distance between the players. You want to mention someone a bit better than Bent; be my guest. My point is it is not close.



That stat is just absolutely irrelevant. You may praise Tendulkar's longevity, but it has little to do with real batting ability that the 2nd is 67 - it is a question of opportunity in that instance. Tendulkar doesn't score 100s or runs in general, for that matter, much more than any other all-time great with the bat. Bradman is untouchable with that consideration.



The comparison should not exist. It really is that ridiculous. You may as well compare Sami with Marshall.

sami and Marshall

No.

haha.....WAG

I will be brutally honest and say that I think we'll see about five Tendulkars before we see another Murali or Warne.

agreed but that is also because spin bowling is a rarer art compared to batting.

Seem to remember him being the one who first got all uppity about you calling someone else a buffoon too. Lol.

Hey hang on, why don't you use the report button instead of supposing to act like you run this joint?

 

[vcs]

Well, I guess it didn't turn out too bad for you Aussie fans after that series. I must say, as an outsider I thought the reaction to losing that Ashes series was ridiculously overblown from Australia's side.

EDIT : Replying to Burgey's post.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well, I guess it didn't turn out too bad for you Aussie fans after that series. I must say, as an outsider I thought the reaction to losing that Ashes series was ridiculously overblown from Australia's side.

EDIT : Replying to Burgey's post.

The reaction to winning was ridiculously overblown too, in all honesty. Both sides kind of struggled to measure what had happened because it was such an upset and such a fantastic series.

Not to mention the immense weight behind having finally ended the 18-year rule of a seemingly unbeatable team.

 

[Spark]

Well, I guess it didn't turn out too bad for you Aussie fans after that series. I must say, as an outsider I thought the reaction to losing that Ashes series was ridiculously overblown from Australia's side.

EDIT : Replying to Burgey's post.

That's what exactly I meant about the expectations. Three tests by an innings... just no. Granted, the quality of the teams themselves has lead to nothing but absolutely colossal thrashings over the last two series (there hasn't actually been a close Ashes test since 2005...), and the "innings" bit is more a function, unfortunately, of the fact that we kept ****ing batting first.

 

[GIMH]

no worries.

what say the olive branch and all that jazz, eh?!

and that goes for u, too, geraint.

then life would be a little smoother and less 'irksome' for all concerned, wot?

You know where you can stick your olive branch

 

[GIMH]

no worries.

what say the olive branch and all that jazz, eh?!

and that goes for u, too, geraint.

then life would be a little smoother and less 'irksome' for all concerned, wot?

You know where you can stick your olive branch

JK, let's hug it out

 

[vcs]

The reaction to winning was ridiculously overblown too, in all honesty. Both sides kind of struggled to measure what had happened because it was such an upset and such a fantastic series.

Not to mention the immense weight behind having finally ended the 18-year rule of a seemingly unbeatable team.

True. England also didn't really kick on from that series, they had been playing fantastic cricket for 2 years in the build-up, but after that, they took a few steps back.

That's what exactly I meant about the expectations. Three tests by an innings... just no. Granted, the quality of the teams themselves has lead to nothing but absolutely colossal thrashings over the last two series (there hasn't actually been a close Ashes test since 2005...), and the "innings" bit is more a function, unfortunately, of the fact that we kept ****ing batting first.

Do you think Australia would have done better if they had batted first? TBF, their win in Perth also came after batting first and putting up a middling total...

 

[hang on]

done, geraint!

what's jk, though?

 

[GIMH]

just kidding

 

[hang on]

ah! not good with acronyms, apart from the very basic ones. or emoticons, to be honest.

 

[Teja.]

Ambrose vs Pollock isn't that close tbh. Amby was a level above the likes of Wasim and Pollock. Heck I will probably rate Wasim ahead of Pollock as a bowler.

I agree that Ambrose was a better test bowler than Pollock. Doubt even Pollock's wife will disagree about that. It's like a Tendulkar>Dravid as batsman relationship. My point was regarding Pollock and Ambrose as cricketers, not as bowlers.

 

[smash84]

I agree that Ambrose was a better test bowler than Pollock. Doubt even Pollock's wife will disagree about that. It's like a Tendulkar>Dravid as batsman relationship. My point was regarding Pollock and Ambrose as cricketers, not as bowlers.

hmm......fair enough............interesting comparison

this gives me the idea for a wasim-pollock as cricketers thread

 

[Burgey]

Well, I guess it didn't turn out too bad for you Aussie fans after that series. I must say, as an outsider I thought the reaction to losing that Ashes series was ridiculously overblown from Australia's side.

EDIT : Replying to Burgey's post.

MurrayMint.jpeg

 

[centurymaker]

I read somewhere a couple of days ago that some people died in india because of extreme joy after their team's win over pak.

 

[smash84]

I doubt..........although with more than a billion people in the country I am sure quite a few number of people are dying every hour so maybe somebody thought to try and link it up a few deaths with the match

 

[marc71178]

Not really.

The whole point was either Jardine ,Compton ,hEADLEY AND others are averaging high 80's to high 70's here or Sutcliffe is averaging 40 odd removing away in other stats.

Though i would give more credibility to these stats ,Sutcliffe was picked up so i was responding.
Would not really want to explain it too you,though.Would end up going in circles and then end up arguing about Murali vs Warne or something.

Who cares if such and such was averaging 80 when you manipulate the numbers and remove bad performances at the beginning and end of his career or whatever other rubbish you've attempted.

Without removing anything Bradman averaged 99.94 FFS!

 

[centurymaker]

Or Alternatively Pakistan ,Australia and Srilanka.

He averages 85.36 in 27 tests in Srilanka as a non wicketkeeper over 9 years.
And that is against 8 different oppositions.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Statistics are like Bikinis what they reveal is suggestive ,but what they conceal is vital.

I moslty agree with you arguments.
Bradman is not 2 times better. Gap is much smaller.

 

[sledger]

Who cares if such and such was averaging 80 when you manipulate the numbers and remove bad performances at the beginning and end of his career or whatever other rubbish you've attempted.

Without removing anything Bradman averaged 99.94 FFS!

Don't you know? If statistics and from certain events are not convenient for purposes of proving Sachin to be the better player, it's a widely accepted fact (amongst some people) that they never happened.

 

[Daemon]

I think this is my first post ever on Bradman. Anyways here goes,

Why compare these two, honestly? None of us have ever lived through Bradmans career and the conditions and people he batted against. He was in all probability a whole lot better than Sachin but I can't understand why people who have never seen Bradman laugh and scorn at people who think he was not as good as he seems to be.

Sachin started when he was 16, is still playing and is still one of the best batsmen in the world on current form. Think he deserves a few points for that too isn't it? Stop dissecting Sachin so much ffs, he's ****ing brilliant and so was Bradman.

I am a total Sach fanboy as you can tell, but I don't make him what he is not.