WHY do they say this?

[GotSpin]

The problem with most of the cricket fans is their inability to come out of the shell and think outside the box. What is even more apalling is that most of them have not seen Bradman bat. I have never seen a football or a tennis fan deny the fact that Maradaona or Federer is the greatest ever even though we have seen the likes of Pele, Laver, Newcombe etc. I'm sure they will surely embrace the likes of Messi or any other Tennis star in the future.

Anyone who says that the pressure of billion people is nothing ought to get a life. Seriosly, The constant media scrutiny, the constant pressure will get to you. If there is no pressure in playing the game ask SA why they choke so consistently. We can be rest assure that

Another thing is comparing eras just does not work. You just cannot do that. People should agree that Bradman was the greatest before the 50's Sobers before modern cricket took over and Tendulkar is the greatest that we have seen of the modern era. However a comment like that would evoke either a stupid response or could be termed blasphemy. I rest my case

Why don't you go read the thread from beginning to end. Might lift some of your ignorance.

 

[Spark]

Don't be so mean, I needed a decent exemplar of how not to use reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Spark]

The problem with most of the cricket fans is their inability to come out of the shell and think outside the box. What is even more apalling is that most of them have not seen Bradman bat. I have never seen a football or a tennis fan deny the fact that Maradaona or Federer is the greatest ever even though we have seen the likes of Pele, Laver, Newcombe etc. I'm sure they will surely embrace the likes of Messi or any other Tennis star in the future. What always grinds my gears is this inability of the cricket fans to come to term with the future and the living in the past.

Anyone who says that the pressure of billion people is nothing ought to get a life. Seriosly, The constant media scrutiny, the constant pressure will get to you. If there is no pressure in playing the game ask SA why they choke so consistently.

Another thing is comparing eras just does not work. You just cannot do that. People should agree that Bradman was the greatest before the 50's Sobers before modern cricket took over and Tendulkar is the greatest that we have seen of the modern era. However a comment like that would evoke either a stupid response or could be termed blasphemy. rest my case

P.S : One thing that Bradman has no other cricketer can dream of is his average is twice as good as his peers which neither Sobers nor Tendulkar have done.

That is more or less what the problem is.

Anyone who says that the pressure of billion people is nothing ought to get a life. Seriosly, The constant media scrutiny, the constant pressure will get to you. If there is no pressure in playing the game ask SA why they choke so consistently.

And what does this have to do with a billion people? Worst argument, seriously. Implies that being Indian automatically makes your achievements more special. If you want to argue that the fanaticism of the media is more demanding in India then fine but that has nothing to do with the population (notwithstanding the fact that Australian and English media from what I've seen can be just as brutal). If you're playing for your country on the highest stage and your country is focussed on your performance, then the size of your population doesn't matter - all you care about is your country.

---

Let's put it this way. Suppose you had to choose an arbitrary eleven. You are allowed to choose one of Bradman or Tendulkar (or whoever you regard as his equal or superior). Who, all else being equal, would you choose?

 

[honestbharani]

Dhillon, moving away from the insulting and aggressive tone of your posts, do you seriously think it is the same thing to average 99.94 across 52 ****ing test matches over a 20 year period is the same as NOT bowling at all for 13 test matches??????????????????????? Seriously?

 

[gvenkat]

Why don't you go read the thread from beginning to end. Might lift some of your ignorance.

The problem with most of the cricket fans is their inability to come out of the shell and think outside the box. What is even more apalling is that most of them have not seen Bradman bat. I have never seen a football or a tennis fan deny the fact that Maradaona or Federer is the greatest ever even though we have seen the likes of Pele, Laver, Newcombe etc. I'm sure they will surely embrace the likes of Messi or any other Tennis star in the future. What always grinds my gears is this inability of the cricket fans to come to term with the future and the living in the past.

You are an example of the cricket fan I was referring to.

 

[Spark]

I mean if you want to say that you cannot compare across eras, then fine, but then you have to be consistent with that.

 

[GotSpin]

You are an example of the cricket fan I was referring to.

Go read biased cricinfo.com articles while convincing yourself that Tendulkar is the greatest batsmen of all time when he's just above his peers.

Like I said. Go through and read the thread before revealing your outstanding ignorance again

 

[gvenkat]

Go read biased cricinfo.com articles while convincing yourself that Tendulkar is the greatest batsmen of all time when he's just above his peers.

Like I said. Go through and read the thread before revealing your outstanding ignorance again

Such a useful comment

 

[smash84]

Why don't you go read the thread from beginning to end. Might lift some of your ignorance.

 

[smash84]

that is more or less what the problem is.

And what does this have to do with a billion people? Worst argument, seriously. Implies that being indian automatically makes your achievements more special. If you want to argue that the fanaticism of the media is more demanding in india then fine but that has nothing to do with the population (notwithstanding the fact that australian and english media from what i've seen can be just as brutal). If you're playing for your country on the highest stage and your country is focussed on your performance, then the size of your population doesn't matter - all you care about is your country.

---

let's put it this way. Suppose you had to choose an arbitrary eleven. You are allowed to choose one of bradman or tendulkar (or whoever you regard as his equal or superior). Who, all else being equal, would you choose?

this

 

[dhillon28]

Dhillon, moving away from the insulting and aggressive tone of your posts, do you seriously think it is the same thing to average 99.94 across 52 ****ing test matches over a 20 year period is the same as NOT bowling at all for 13 test matches??????????????????????? Seriously?

moving towards the peaceful and tranquil tone of your post.... if u read the post carefully, it serves to demonstrate weaknesses of the arguments that support bradman being better than tendulkar. And to answer ur question, NO, I dont think Bruce Murray of New Zealand was a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall etc- and for exactly the same reasons I dont think Bradman was better than Sachin.

If you want someone who has a decent average across so many test matches then I give you:

Desmond Haynes 116 matches @8 runs per wicket- happy now?

all my examples do is serve to illustrate the weaknesses of average as a totalitarian indicator of ability as a player- esp when referring to Donald Bradman- the guy who only played 20 test matches (equivalent 4-5 test series) more than Yuvraj Singh (the guy who has considered to have hardly played in tests for India)

 

[Borges]

Go read biased cricinfo.com articles while convincing yourself that Tendulkar is the greatest batsmen of all time when he's just above his peers.

Like I said. Go through and read the thread before revealing your outstanding ignorance again

Disagree completely with this. The only peer who is close to Tendulkar is Brian Lara. Kallis may have a case. The rest, Ponting included, are way behind.

Make a list of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game, and if you are even half sensible, Tendulkar will be on that list; no matter how short that list would be. That is not something that can be said about his peers - the aforementioned Brian Charles Lara excepted.

 

[smash84]

Disagree completely with this. The only peer who is close to Tendulkar is Brian Lara. Kallis may have a case. The rest, Ponting included, are way behind.

.

Precisely. But there is no one even close to Bradman in any generation let alone his own (with some statistical qualifications of course e.g. minimum number of innings)

 

[four_or_six]

Insulting other members, and that includes comments such as this, or calling them 'idiots' or 'fools' is unacceptable. Just keep to the cricket debate.

People this stupid shouldn't be allowed to post.

I quite clearly asked for no insults a few posts earlier. Leave it out guys.

 

[dhillon28]

I quite clearly asked for no insults a few posts earlier. Leave it out guys.

thanks for being fair and consistent.

 

[honestbharani]

moving towards the peaceful and tranquil tone of your post.... if u read the post carefully, it serves to demonstrate weaknesses of the arguments that support bradman being better than tendulkar. And to answer ur question, NO, I dont think Bruce Murray of New Zealand was a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall etc- and for exactly the same reasons I dont think Bradman was better than Sachin.

If you want someone who has a decent average across so many test matches then I give you:

Desmond Haynes 116 matches @8 runs per wicket- happy now?

all my examples do is serve to illustrate the weaknesses of average as a totalitarian indicator of ability as a player- esp when referring to Donald Bradman- the guy who only played 20 test matches (equivalent 4-5 test series) more than Yuvraj Singh (the guy who has considered to have hardly played in tests for India)

Again.. scoring 6996 runs is not the same as whatever wickes Haynes took..


And what you are using is not logic at all, coz the test matches played back then were less frequent and people had to travel in ships to even reach destinations.. And for the rest of your post, you would do well to read up on what all this meant in Bradman's time before you start comparing him with Yuvraj...

 

[GotSpin]

Disagree completely with this. The only peer who is close to Tendulkar is Brian Lara. Kallis may have a case. The rest, Ponting included, are way behind.

Make a list of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game, and if you are even half sensible, Tendulkar will be on that list; no matter how short that list would be. That is not something that can be said about his peers - the aforementioned Brian Charles Lara excepted.

Ok I meant to say that Tendulkar is above his pears, but not light years ahead which is what's being suggested. Like I first argued against 20 pages ago, Tendulkar, while ahead, is not head and shoulders above the rest

Tendulkar is definitely on my list btw

 

[GotSpin]

moving towards the peaceful and tranquil tone of your post.... if u read the post carefully, it serves to demonstrate weaknesses of the arguments that support bradman being better than tendulkar. And to answer ur question, NO, I dont think Bruce Murray of New Zealand was a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall etc- and for exactly the same reasons I dont think Bradman was better than Sachin.

If you want someone who has a decent average across so many test matches then I give you:

Desmond Haynes 116 matches @8 runs per wicket- happy now?

all my examples do is serve to illustrate the weaknesses of average as a totalitarian indicator of ability as a player- esp when referring to Donald Bradman- the guy who only played 20 test matches (equivalent 4-5 test series) more than Yuvraj Singh (the guy who has considered to have hardly played in tests for India)

Ignoring the rest of your illogical rambling, how do you account for Bradman's first class average then?

 

[vic_orthdox]

The greater part of Sachin's longevity is the number of years he's spent being so great, not necessarily the number of games. The games factor refers more to wear and tear on the body, and maybe mentally. But to keep up a level of excellence over so many years is a super effort.

The same applies to Bradman, who did it over 20 years himself. He may have played far fewer Tests over that time, but he maintained a level of excellence over that time which negates claims of Tendulkar's longevity being a plus for him over Bradman to a pretty large extent (not entirely, because no doubt Tendulkar has played more matches in that time).

 

[Borges]

The greater part of Sachin's longevity is the number of years he's spent being so great, not necessarily the number of games. The games factor refers more to wear and tear on the body, and maybe mentally. But to keep up a level of excellence over so many years is a super effort.

The same applies to Bradman, who did it over 20 years himself. He may have played far fewer Tests over that time, but he maintained a level of excellence over that time which negates claims of Tendulkar's longevity being a plus for him over Bradman to a pretty large extent (not entirely, because no doubt Tendulkar has played more matches in that time).

Agree with this completely. I do strongly believe that longevity is a very important aspect while assessing the greatness of a player. Bradman's greatness, just as Tendulkar's greatness is partly because of the fact that they did so well over such long periods. To me, Bradman passes the test of longevity just as Tendulkar does; as any one who excelled for close to two decades would.