Sachin Tendulkar - The Ultimate Discussion

[Snatch]

As for the 'great' Imran Khan, only a biased individual or an complete idiot would not want him in their team. Why would a rational fan not want a player who is -

1) A great bowler
2) A fantastic captain
3) An acceptable batsman


One would have to be a biased clown to not want him in their team.

Yeah, he and Keith Miller were very similar. Find them hard to split as bowling all-rounders. Probably give it to Imran for his longevity, but Miller is another who is tragically underrated by those who haven't read a lot of cricket history.

Miller's First class record is also worth checking for anyone who is unfamiliar with it.

 

[Tusker]

30-40kms? Haha, Well we both know that's a load of nonsense, because that would suggest Larwood bowled at about 100Km, the speed of a spinners quicker ball.

And even Voce (his opening partner in that series) was hitting batsmen on the head in the '33 bodyline series & he was considerably slower than Larwood. So that just doesn't add up sorry.

I said best bowler(Bedser) as in the guy bowling in the clip I posted earlier, here it is again : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFdfxXiwvBg&feature=youtu.be&t=1m22s

That kind of bowling is obsolote Today!. Thats how far cricket has progressed and it wont fetch you many wkts let alone 236 at under 25 !! See if you can keep a straight face and argue that the quality of such bowlers is higher than what BD and Zim had in SRT's time. Also Voce and Larwood arent the 90MPH bowlers like you try to paint them as.

 

[Haroon786]

Amla's shots are pretty good but his stance and trigger movements are a turn off for me (similar to Cook who plays very less shots than Amla too). Amla certainly isn't more entertaining than Sachin. Even after his tennis elbow injury when he became more of an Amla like run accumulator, he did play many breathtaking innings like the WC knock against Pakistan in 03, 175 at Hyderabad against Australia, centuries against SA and Eng in 2011 WC, etc. and used to play a lot more of big shots than Amla. I rate Amla as the best test batsman of the current generation (despite his rapid decline) because of his huge temperament and versatility. But I won't be saying he is an exciting/entertaining player to watch.

Fair enough. For myself, I find Amla the most elegant player in Tests when in form which he hasn't really been since 2014. I particularly enjoy his front and back foot play through the off side against both pace and spin but also his front foot flicks through midwicket against the pacers. Elegance isn't necessarily encapsulated in scoring big innings or hitting big sixes, it is more about the general playing style of a batsman and it is here where I find Amla is aesthetically pleasing as a major batsman in Cricket.

 

[Snatch]

I said best bowler(Bedser) as in the guy bowling in the clip I posted earlier, here it is again : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFdfxXiwvBg&feature=youtu.be&t=1m22s

That kind of bowling is obsolote Today!. Thats how far cricket has progressed and it wont fetch you many wkts let alone 236 at under 25 !! See if you can keep a straight face and argue that the quality of such bowlers is higher than what BD and Zim had in SRT's time. Also Voce and Larwood arent the 90MPH bowlers like you try to paint them as.

Who decided Bedser was the fastest? Bedser was a very fine bowler on certain wickets, but he was only ever medium pace. Look at Frank Tyson, Keith Miller or Harry Larwood.

Regardless, I agree on the point that players from the 1930-50 weren't as conditioned or as athletic as players today, but that's pretty obvious and applies across all sports, not just cricket.

Not sure if you know much about Baseball, but I'm sure you're aware that Babe Ruth is generally rated as the greatest ever. That doesn't mean if you designed a time machine and plonked him into a MLB game today, he'd necessarily have the conditioning, the power & the game to be the best today.

I've never heard such a weird argument to discount former sporting stars, simply because all sports were less developed 60-70 years ago.

There's a reason history generally rates sportsmen based on how they performed in the era in which they played, simply because it's the only way.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's just the way it is.

As I said previously, the same will apply in 70 years time, in that posters like you from that generation won't be able to write-off Sachin because they might look back at the footage and think players weren't as athletic or that bowlers don't look as quick as they might in the year 2080.

 

[Snatch]

Also Voce and Larwood arent the 90MPH bowlers like you try to paint them as.

I'm not claiming any particular speed, because I wouldn't know if Larwood was 90mph & you don't know either.

Larwood looked very rapid from footage I've seen of him, so I wouldn't discount 90mph at all. He had a great fast bowling physique too.

 

[Tusker]

Who decided Bedser was the fastest?

Not fastest but the best bowler as I mentioned earlier ... and it was done by Bradman. Per Bradman he was the most difficult bowler to face. Bedser even made it to Bradmans XI. Guess who never found a spot

Bedser was a very fine bowler on certain wickets, but he was only ever medium pace. Look at Frank Tyson, Keith Miller or Harry Larwood.

Slow medium or to be precise around 100-105KPH.

Regardless, I agree on the point that players from the 1930-50 weren't as conditioned or as athletic as players today, but that's pretty obvious and applies across all sports, not just cricket.

Thanks for the small mercies !! Finally something we can agree on.

Not sure if you know much about Baseball, but I'm sure you're aware that Babe Ruth is generally rated as the greatest ever. That doesn't mean if you designed a time machine and plonked him into a MLB game today, he'd necessarily have the conditioning, the power & the game to be the best today.

Well thats why I set a higher bar for ATG qualifications. As the title suggests the player must be capable of playing in a future team (and also obviously from the past). So unless the standards progress so drastically ( as they have since Bradman retired to now ) Tendulkar will still easily excel .

I've never heard such a weird argument to discount former sporting stars, simply because all sports were less developed 60-70 years ago.

There's a reason history generally rates sportsmen based on how they performed in the era in which they played, simply because it's the only way.

well then dont call them ALL Time Greats. I have no problem with people claiming Bradman being the best of his ERA. At best you can go one Generation forward i.e say untill 60s. But the game began changing quite dramatically from the 70s onwards.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's just the way it is.

As I said previously, the same will apply in 70 years time, in that posters like you from that generation won't be able to write-off Sachin because they might look back at the footage and think players weren't as athletic or that bowlers don't look as quick as they might in the year 2080.

I have no problem in accepting reality and adjusting my rankings. I am not like the many Bradman fanatics who like to rehash 99.94 without ever bothering to go deeper into the subject.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Not fastest but the best bowler as I mentioned earlier ... and it was done by Bradman. Per Bradman he was the most difficult bowler to face. Bedser even made it to Bradmans XI. Guess who never found a spot



Slow medium or to be precise around 100-105KPH.



Thanks for the small mercies !! Finally something we can agree on.




Well thats why I set a higher bar for ATG qualifications. As the title suggests the player must be capable of playing in a future team (and also obviously from the past). So unless the standards progress so drastically ( as they have since Bradman retired to now ) Tendulkar will still easily excel .




well then dont call them ALL Time Greats. I have no problem with people claiming Bradman being the best of his ERA. At best you can go one Generation forward i.e say untill 60s. But the game began changing quite dramatically from the 70s onwards.



I have no problem in accepting reality and adjusting my rankings. I am not like the many Bradman fanatics who like to rehash 99.94 without ever bothering to go deeper into the subject.

Tusker I understand your argument, but you are doing a disservice by discounting all the sporting heroes from the past.

They are considered ATG's not just in cricket, but in track and field, soccer or anywhere in the world.

Just because a certain [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] doesn't seem to think so, won't change the opinion of the world.

 

[Snatch]

I have no problem in accepting reality and adjusting my rankings. I am not like the many Bradman fanatics who like to rehash 99.94 without ever bothering to go deeper into the subject.

I'm all for relativism & context, but as I've said few times, the problem with your argument is Bradman wasn't just slightly better than everyone else in his era, but he was almost twice as good. it's strange you can't seem to grasp the significance of what it means to be almost twice as good as anyone else at your chosen sport, whether it was 70 years ago and the sport wasn't as developed or not.

I'm not sure if you're aware that many non-cricketing sporting commentators & writers consider him in the running for Greatest sportsman ever, if they're looking at people who dominated their sport to a significant level.

Let me ask you this, who would you consider to be the greatest squash player ever?

 

[Tusker]

I'm all for relativism & context, but as I've said few times, the problem with your argument is Bradman wasn't just slightly better than everyone else in his era, but he was almost twice as good. it's strange you can't seem to grasp the significance of what it means to be almost twice as good as anyone else at your chosen sport, whether it was 70 years ago and the sport wasn't as developed or not.

re-hashing the same thing again ? Didn't I answer this earlier ? There is soo many glaring problems with this point that its not even funny. Here I will give you another problem with it : Cricket was a by and large amateur sport back then ( they even looked down on the few Pros but lets not digress lol) which meant that it could never attract those who did not have spare time to pursue it. Had it not been for Bradmans employers being very accommodating he would have been lost to cricket. Just think over it. So the 2x avg that you talk about is pretty meaningless as it simply does not mean that he outgunned the same no.of opponents as todays player who has to deal with easily 100x more competition while rising thru the ranks. So when you introduce these contextual nuances the 99.94 = 2x equation begins to quickly become meaningless.

I'm not sure if you're aware that many non-cricketing sporting commentators & writers consider him in the running for Greatest sportsman ever, if they're looking at people who dominated their sport to a significant level.

Iam aware but rarely do they ever go into specifics, details and facts beyond 99.94. Cricket is a very complicated sport that requires dedicated following for decades to understand the nuances and the quirks and minute detail.

Let me ask you this, who would you consider to be the greatest squash player ever?

I don't follow that sport.

 

[Tusker]

Tusker I understand your argument, but you are doing a disservice by discounting all the sporting heroes from the past.

They are considered ATG's not just in cricket, but in track and field, soccer or anywhere in the world.

Just because a certain [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] doesn't seem to think so, won't change the opinion of the world.

Iam aware of that and above all I do not have the time and inclination to change anybody's opinion ... But it doesnt mean that I should blindly follow Cricketing dogma. I know my cricket very well and Iam perfectly capable of holding my own in a cricketing debate.

 

[Snatch]

Tusker I understand your argument, but you are doing a disservice by discounting all the sporting heroes from the past.

They are considered ATG's not just in cricket, but in track and field, soccer or anywhere in the world.

Just because a certain [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] doesn't seem to think so, won't change the opinion of the world.

Indeed. Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but when it's something so unanimous as this particular opinion, one can run the risk of looking a little foolish along the way.

 

[Tusker]

Indeed. Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but when it's something so unanimous as this particular opinion, one can run the risk of looking a little foolish along the way.

So you are saying that you are looking very intelligent arguing Bradman = Greatest when even some top Professional Clubs will not have bowlers like Bedser in their XI today ?

 

[giri26]

Sachin Tendulkar’s No. 10 jersey unofficially retired by BCCI

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has decided to “unofficially” retire the No.10 jersey for international matches. The No.10, worn by Sachin Tendulkar throughout his career in ODIs and for a solitary international T20, will, henceforth, be associated only with the man himself.

Tendulkar retired in November 2013 bringing a 24-year-long career to an end. He had last worn No. 10 in March 2012 when he played his last ODI against Pakistan.

Since then, No.10 was unused for nearly five years before Mumbai fast bowler Shardul Thakur decided to don it for his ODI debut at Colombo last August. This prompted trolling of Thakur and BCCI in social media with a flood of comments ridiculing the player for “trying to be a Sachin.”

“It unnecessarily creates controversy and players get criticised,” said a BCCI official. “So it’s better to retire the number unofficially. Players, though, can wear it when they play for India A or for say a non-international list A match but not during an international.”

The Mumbai Indians, incidentally, had retired No.10 in 2013 after Tendulkar retired from all forms of the game.

The Indian Express has learnt that BCCI sounded out top players from the Indian team and they agreed that it made sense for No. 10 to be retired.

It wasn’t just Tendulkar’s fans who trolled Thakur, even Rohit Sharma took a swipe, posting a photo of Thakur with a smiley and a caption: “Hey bro what’s your jersey number?”

In an interview, Thakur claimed numerology as the reason. He said the digits of his date of birth (16.10.1991) add up to 28 and 2+8 equals 10.

Thakur refrained from using No. 10 when he returned to India squad in October for the series against New Zealand. In warm-up games, he was seen wearing No. 54.

This isn’t the first time a team has retired a number. Various football clubs have done it. Inter Milan retired No 4 jersey in 2014 once Argentinian defender Javier Zanetti called it quits. Just like West Ham United did with No. 6 which was worn by legendary Bobby Moore. AC Milan, interestingly, retired No.3 made famous by Paolo Maldini but it can still be worn by one of his sons — if they make it professionally.

It’s the same in the NBA with LA Lakers stopping No. 24 after Kobe Bryant and No. 33 for Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Chicago Bulls retired No 23 after Michael Jordan called it quits.

Incidentally, it’s not a practice in international football. The Argentinian federation decided to retire No. 10 in honour of Diego Maradona and even left it out while listing numbers for their 23-member squad for the 2002 FIFA World Cup. They had reserve goalkeeper Roberto Bonano listed as No 24. FIFA, however, didn’t agree and eventually striker Ariel Ortega who was originally No. 23 wore No. 10 during the tournament. It’s Lionel Messi, understandably, who gets to wear it these days.

http://indianexpress.com/article/sp...or-sachin-tendulkar-and-sachin-alone-4959585/

 

[Oligochaetes]

They should start giving decimals in Jerseys...

Thakur should get 10.1

 

[austerlitz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54SJfMaczSU

Memories.My first big tournament on colour tv.
Just a savage player in the 90s.

 

[austerlitz]