Sachin Tendulkar - The Ultimate Discussion

[Sachin136]

Majority here believes the same about Imran..

There is nothing wrong that. Once you get to the top level (like Sachin, Lara, Bradman, Ponting or Sobers, Imran, Kallis, Miller etc), there is very little differentiating them and people can have whatever opinion they want about who is the best.

 

[Chrish]

There is nothing wrong that. Once you get to the top level (like Sachin, Lara, Bradman, Ponting or Sobers, Imran, Kallis, Miller etc), there is very little differentiating them and people can have whatever opinion they want about who is the best.

I find it quite wrong tbh

 

[Snatch]

There is nothing wrong that. Once you get to the top level (like Sachin, Lara, Bradman, Ponting or Sobers, Imran, Kallis, Miller etc), there is very little differentiating them and people can have whatever opinion they want about who is the best.

Haha, there certainly is something wrong with it when one batsman in history pretty much averaged double what the next best did.

If you can't understand that Bradman is so far and away the greatest batsman to ever live, you can't know much about the history of cricket...that's all I'll say.

Outside of Bradman, your point is very valid, since picking the 2nd best batsman after him to your point does very much come down to personal preference as their averages are all very similar in that next tier.

But let's not pretend Bradman isn't daylight ahead of the next best..please.

 

[Chrish]

SRT, Viv, Sobers etc are fighting for the spot of 2nd best batsman..

Miller, Kallis, Imran etc are fighting for the spot of 2nd best all-rounder..

That much is written on the Cricket stone!

 

[Sachin136]

Haha, there certainly is something wrong with it when one batsman in history pretty much averaged double what the next best did.

If you can't understand that Bradman is so far and away the greatest batsman to ever live, you can't know much about the history of cricket...that's all I'll say.

Outside of Bradman, your point is very valid, since picking the 2nd best batsman after him to your point does very much come down to personal preference as their averages are all very similar in that next tier.

But let's not pretend Bradman isn't daylight ahead of the next best..please.

Having seen some of the clips posted here by [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION], I'm not comfortable rating players before the 1950s baed on averages alone. I think he should still be up there at the top, but I wouldn't necessarily put him above the others.

 

[Snatch]

Having seen some of the clips posted here by [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION], I'm not comfortable rating players before the 1950s baed on averages alone. I think he should still be up there at the top, but I wouldn't necessarily put him above the others.

Sorry, but that is just ignorance on your part. You need to read some history books, look at what his contemporaries did in comparison, read what his opponents said about him.

If every other player in Bradman's era averaged even close to him (even in the 70s or 80s) you may have a ghost of a point, but the other best at that time averaged what the best do today...in the 50s..

If you can't appreciate that across nearly 20 years (some of his best years missed due to WWII) he averaged close to twice what any other player in history has managed, it's simply ignorance at it's very finest.

A player can only be play against the opposition that is put in front of them & for him to dominate his era but such an enormous margin and extent, doesn't only make him the greatest cricketer ever, but put him in the running for as one of the greatest sportsmen ever, if we're looking at those sportsmen who were so far and away better than their contemporaries.

So with respect you need to get out of your little Sachin bubble and learn some cricket history.

 

[Tusker]

Sorry, but that is just ignorance on your part. You need to read some history books, look at what his contemporaries did in comparison, read what his opponents said about him.

If every other player in Bradman's era averaged even close to him (even in the 70s or 80s) you may have a ghost of a point, but the other best at that time averaged what the best do today...in the 50s..

If you can't appreciate that across nearly 20 years (some of his best years missed due to WWII) he averaged close to twice what any other player in history has managed, it's simply ignorance at it's very finest.

A player can only be play against the opposition that is put in front of them & for him to dominate his era but such an enormous margin and extent, doesn't only make him the greatest cricketer ever, but put him in the running for as one of the greatest sportsmen ever, if we're looking at those sportsmen who were so far and away better than their contemporaries.

So with respect you need to get out of your little Sachin bubble and learn some cricket history.

I have gotten tired of explaining this BS argument .... if nobody from Bradmans ERA was able to avg anywhere close to him how does it prove that everyone else decades later was also crap ? Let me guess because 99.94 almost twice as 5x.00 ? Well have you looked at the bowling and fielding quality ?

Here take a look at the bowler that got Bradman out the most bowling : https://youtu.be/hFdfxXiwvBg?t=1m22s

If you call that top quality cricket with the same standard comparable to say Tendulkar vs Shoaib then I got nothing to say except to laugh and move on. The thing is not everything written in cricket history book is valid truth that can hold for all times to come. Reason ? Well people who write history books do not have a crystal ball that will tell them what the cricketing challenges will look like few decades later. So for people to claim that Bradman was the best there was 25 yrs before Tendulkar was even born is just laughable (unless of-course you think the challenge in facing Bedser is the same as facing Shoaib ).

 

[Snatch]

I have gotten tired of explaining this BS argument .... if nobody from Bradmans ERA was able to avg anywhere close to him how does it prove that everyone else decades later was also crap ? Let me guess because 99.94 almost twice as 5x.00 ? Well have you looked at the bowling and fielding quality ?

Here take a look at the bowler that got Bradman out the most bowling : https://youtu.be/hFdfxXiwvBg?t=1m22s

If you call that top quality cricket with the same standard comparable to say Tendulkar vs Shoaib then I got nothing to say except to laugh and move on. The thing is not everything written in cricket history book is valid truth that can hold for all times to come. Reason ? Well people who write history books do not have a crystal ball that will tell them what the cricketing challenges will look like few decades later. So for people to claim that Bradman was the best there was 25 yrs before Tendulkar was even born is just laughable (unless of-course you think the challenge in facing Bedser is the same as facing Shoaib ).

You don't seem to understand how the greatness of a sportsman is actually judged. It's about how they compared to their contemporaries. And when one player in history was essentially twice as good as the next best... that is truly remarkable.

I'm not denying that was a different era of Test cricket. The bats were like tiny sticks compared to bats of today, they played on uncovered wickets, the didn't have helmets.

But once again, you can only play against the opposition you encounter and whilst only 3-4 teams played Test cricket in Bradman's era, it was a proper well engaged in sport in which there were professional fulltime cricketers playing in England, so it's not like only 10 people ever played it.

Your argument is very naive because by that logic, if in 50 years when bats will likely be even better, new diet supplements, nutrition & biotechnology could mean bowlers could be faster that everyone who played in this current era or Sachin era should be written off as well, because that was 50 years ago.

As I've said a couple of times now, had Bradman averaged say 65, then perhaps it would be more of a debate, but even still people could argue he was 5-10 better than his contemporaries, but when one guy averages 100 in 80 innings, that just out of this world.

Now I happen to be a huge boxing fan and historian & rate Muhammad Ali as the greatest ever boxing, however does that mean I think that if Ali fought against heavyweights today in 2016 with the nutrition and training that he had in the 60s and 70s and his physique back then without the weight training and technology? Of course not, but given the time he fought and how he performed vs. his contemporaries, he's the greatest of all-time for me.

The same argument could be made for the great sprinter from the 1930s, Jesse Owens. His times wouldn't even see him make an Olympic 100 meters semi-final now, but he ran at a different time when the equipment, diets, supplements, training & other gear wasn't as good, and for me he's still one of the top 3 sprinters ever.

I can't believe I'm having to explain in so much detail that we judge the greatest sportsmen by how they performed in their era, not today's. Is it really that complicated to understand?

Anyway, with all that said about Bradman clearly being the best in his day, you can't even say that about Tendulkar in his era, because given the modern greats Test records are all pretty similar, it really does come down to personal preference only.

I personally think Lara was the best in the modern era, but I don't have a huge problem with someone saying it's Sachin.

I do however have a problem when ignorance Sachin fan-boys deny the fact that there's only 1 unanimous greatest batsmen in history, because they've read no books and only listen to one another.

 

[petercat]

Sorry, but that is just ignorance on your part. You need to read some history books, look at what his contemporaries did in comparison, read what his opponents said about him.

If every other player in Bradman's era averaged even close to him (even in the 70s or 80s) you may have a ghost of a point, but the other best at that time averaged what the best do today...in the 50s..

If you can't appreciate that across nearly 20 years (some of his best years missed due to WWII) he averaged close to twice what any other player in history has managed, it's simply ignorance at it's very finest.

A player can only be play against the opposition that is put in front of them & for him to dominate his era but such an enormous margin and extent, doesn't only make him the greatest cricketer ever, but put him in the running for as one of the greatest sportsmen ever, if we're looking at those sportsmen who were so far and away better than their contemporaries.

So with respect you need to get out of your little Sachin bubble and learn some cricket history.

So none of Bradman's contemporaries were as good as him.But how that translates to Bradman being better than Tendulkar,was Tendulkar his contemporary? Or is there any proof that Bradman's contemporaries were as good as Tendulkars.

avg of that era were highly inflated an the pool of players limited.

tell me where do you have more chances of finding competition,10 test playing nations playing the game professionally or 2-3 nations playing the game in an amateur setting,in which except eng and aus the rest were colonies mostly.

Crikceting narrative has been dominated by the Aussies and the Brits and Cricket was largely a white dominated elite sports.So all this previous era narratives have to be taken with a sea full of salt.

 

[Snatch]

So none of Bradman's contemporaries were as good as him.But how that translates to Bradman being better than Tendulkar,was Tendulkar his contemporary? Or is there any proof that Bradman's contemporaries were as good as Tendulkars.

avg of that era were highly inflated an the pool of players limited.

tell me where do you have more chances of finding competition,10 test playing nations playing the game professionally or 2-3 nations playing the game in an amateur setting,in which except eng and aus the rest were colonies mostly.

Crikceting narrative has been dominated by the Aussies and the Brits and Cricket was largely a white dominated elite sports.So all this previous era narratives have to be taken with a sea full of salt.

Let's establish what we do know then shall we?

In Bradman's era, there was only one batsmen in the discussion as the best, it's a not even a contest, it was Bradman by the length of the wall of China, no cricket fan worth their stripes would dispute that.
It's completely unanimous. He's was twice as good.

Now to Sachin's era. There are a number of batsmen who averaged similarly in Tests in his time. Some like Sangakkara & Kallis actually averaged a little bit higher (and Kallis just happened to take a lazy 292 wickets), but essentially they were all in the 50s, so Sachin isn't even clearly and unanimously the best batsmen in his era. There isn't a unanimous best in his era, simply because it really comes down to personal preference between the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis to name a few.

Now if it went to a public vote of all cricket fans in the world, I have no doubt Sachin would win, simply because India has a population of 1.3 billion people, so by far the biggest fan base in the world, which is why a popular vote would be a hopeless method. Then add to that the fan-boy hysteria in which most don't actually even know about cricket history and probably couldn't tell you who a player like Graeme Pollock is. (just as in exmaple).

I personally rate Lara as the best of that era, but I don't think Ponting, Sachin, Kallis & Sanga are far behind.

I suppose I preferred Lara because he could change a Test match in a session when he was at his best, but the bigger point is I'd have no complaint if someone else thought it was Ponting, Kallis or Sachin.

So in conclusion Bradman was miles and miles ahead of anyone else when he played, whereas Tendulkar is one of the 4-5 great batsmen of his era, & it's a very close thing.

 

[Buffet]

Let's establish what we do know then shall we?

...

So in conclusion Bradman was miles and miles ahead of anyone else when he played, whereas Tendulkar is one of the 4-5 great batsmen of his era, & it's a very close thing.

I don't think that standing out argument seals the conclusion that Bradman was better than SRT, Kallis, Ponting etc. If you have only 1000 people playing cricket then a sole genius can stand out by a huge margin. If you have 1M playing cricket then you can have 10 geniuses and making it very hard for one to stand out by a huge margin. Don't take the numbers literally, but you get the gist.

I personally rate Bradman as the best batsman. Just presenting counter argument for standing out by a huge margin point. Going forward, I think it's just impossible for anyone to stand out like Bradman. That doesn't take anything away from Bradman, but standing out becomes 1000 times harder if you have 1000 times more cricketers playing at the top level.

 

[Chrish]

I don't agree with the assessment SRT scored all the runs just because he "happened to play long enough"

He had an opportunity to debut at 16 because he was THAT good! His performance must have warranted the team selection. Using his longevity against him is being disingenuous.

Another thing is game has changed since Bradmna's time.. So I firmly believe he wouldn't average anywhere near 99 in the current era.

But based on the way he dominated the game is good enough to crown him as no. 1

 

[petercat]

Let's establish what we do know then shall we?

In Bradman's era, there was only one batsmen in the discussion as the best, it's a not even a contest, it was Bradman by the length of the wall of China, no cricket fan worth their stripes would dispute that.
It's completely unanimous. He's was twice as good.

Now to Sachin's era. There are a number of batsmen who averaged similarly in Tests in his time. Some like Sangakkara & Kallis actually averaged a little bit higher (and Kallis just happened to take a lazy 292 wickets), but essentially they were all in the 50s, so Sachin isn't even clearly and unanimously the best batsmen in his era. There isn't a unanimous best in his era, simply because it really comes down to personal preference between the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis to name a few.

Now if it went to a public vote of all cricket fans in the world, I have no doubt Sachin would win, simply because India has a population of 1.3 billion people, so by far the biggest fan base in the world, which is why a popular vote would be a hopeless method. Then add to that the fan-boy hysteria in which most don't actually even know about cricket history and probably couldn't tell you who a player like Graeme Pollock is. (just as in exmaple).

I personally rate Lara as the best of that era, but I don't think Ponting, Sachin, Kallis & Sanga are far behind.

I suppose I preferred Lara because he could change a Test match in a session when he was at his best, but the bigger point is I'd have no complaint if someone else thought it was Ponting, Kallis or Sachin.

So in conclusion Bradman was miles and miles ahead of anyone else when he played, whereas Tendulkar is one of the 4-5 great batsmen of his era, & it's a very close thing.

Because most likely in Bradman's era he was the only one with ATG quality(Tendulkar Viv like quality) and hence in the era of amateurs and inflated avgs Bradman avgd 99.The rest were mediocre/avg players who again due to the fact that it was amateur cricket inflated their avg to 50 or more.


Tendulkar's era had 10 test nations with 2 billion population with millions of dollars being invested and cricket bein played professionally.Ofocurse his era will throw up more talented players than Bradman's era.

Why Tendulkar is better than Ponting ot Lara has been done to death here.Sanga doesnt even comes close to these 3.

Your preference of Lara is your personal choice.

Conclusion is Bradman was only better than his contemporaries.

 

[Buffet]

I don't agree with the assessment SRT scored all the runs just because he "happened to play long enough"

He had an opportunity to debut at 16 because he was THAT good! His performance must have warranted the team selection. Using his longevity against him is being disingenuous.

In his teens, he had 4-5 tons outside of Asia. Most Asian batsmen don't have that in their entire career. He was surely that good to debut early.

 

[Sachin136]

Let's establish what we do know then shall we?

In Bradman's era, there was only one batsmen in the discussion as the best, it's a not even a contest, it was Bradman by the length of the wall of China, no cricket fan worth their stripes would dispute that.
It's completely unanimous. He's was twice as good.

Now to Sachin's era. There are a number of batsmen who averaged similarly in Tests in his time. Some like Sangakkara & Kallis actually averaged a little bit higher (and Kallis just happened to take a lazy 292 wickets), but essentially they were all in the 50s, so Sachin isn't even clearly and unanimously the best batsmen in his era. There isn't a unanimous best in his era, simply because it really comes down to personal preference between the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis to name a few.

Now if it went to a public vote of all cricket fans in the world, I have no doubt Sachin would win, simply because India has a population of 1.3 billion people, so by far the biggest fan base in the world, which is why a popular vote would be a hopeless method. Then add to that the fan-boy hysteria in which most don't actually even know about cricket history and probably couldn't tell you who a player like Graeme Pollock is. (just as in exmaple).

I personally rate Lara as the best of that era, but I don't think Ponting, Sachin, Kallis & Sanga are far behind.

I suppose I preferred Lara because he could change a Test match in a session when he was at his best, but the bigger point is I'd have no complaint if someone else thought it was Ponting, Kallis or Sachin.

So in conclusion Bradman was miles and miles ahead of anyone else when he played, whereas Tendulkar is one of the 4-5 great batsmen of his era, & it's a very close thing.

So your argument is that a player's greatness only depends on how he did relative to his contempraries? If Lara, Sangakkara, Ponting, Kallis etc debuted 20 years after Sachin, would that make Sachin a better batsmen because he didn't have a lot of competition? If so, your reasoning is flawed.

For most of his career, Sachin was also significantly ahead of others (although I understand why someone might rate Lara or Ponting higher). I don't want to pull out the stats again, so I will just link a post from [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION] http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ll-time-in-Test-matches&p=7718503#post7718503

Please chill out with the elitist attitude. Just because someone doesn’t know about a player who played 20 matches doesn’t mean they aren’t knowledgeable about cricket.

 

[Chrish]

Forget Bradman for a second. There is no CLEAR argument that SRT is better than the guys like Viv, Sobers etc.

I consider Bradman to be no 1 then Viv, SRT, Sobers fighting for a 2nd spot (consider SRT to be better than Lara)

 

[Thivagar]

I became a more serious cricket fan from the 2015 World Cup onwards, before I was more of a casual fan, so i really missed the chance to watch Sachin in his prime. What was it like watching him play?

He was "very good" playing for a very average team for a while. Then he remained consistently "good" for a very long time. He was also very likable as he was a quiet and a humble introvert. He was never entertaining to the neutrals. Players like Sanath, Anwar, Klusener, Gilchrist and even Ganguly was much more entertaining than Sachin.

 

[Statsman]

Why can't someone find some other batsman more pleasing to watch than SRT? I don't get it. It is a personal opinion.

I found Mohammad Yousuf's batting very ugly. Some even say he was very pleasing to watch. It might surprise me but at the end of the day it's their opinion.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

People chose Lara or Ponting to irk Indian posters.

Personally, my only questions are :

Is it Bradman's fault that he averaged 99 and was born in an era where people used to play differently?

Would Bradman have been able to average 60 if he was offered the same facilities and same techniques as batsmen of Tendulkar's era are offered?

If the answer to first question is no, and the 2nd question is unsure...

then Bradman is rightfully at the top.

If of course, you chose to answer No, and No, then you are biased for Tendulkar.

I love Tendulkar as the little master is such an amazing personality, but it's his fans who are over exuberant , rude and obnoxious and insist on elevating him above all other cricketers, that makes me cringe.

Honestly my top 3

1. Bradman
2. Tendulkar
3. Lara (flawed genius)

I'd take Ponting next and perhaps Sangers.

 

[Snatch]

Because most likely in Bradman's era he was the only one with ATG quality(Tendulkar Viv like quality) and hence in the era of amateurs and inflated avgs Bradman avgd 99.The rest were mediocre/avg players who again due to the fact that it was amateur cricket inflated their avg to 50 or more.

.

OMG, you're really showing your ignorance aren't you...

Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Headley to name a few weren't world class because they played in a different era?

That's laughable... by that logic Tendulkar, Lara, Richards and co won't be world class in 50 years time, because some next generation poster like you will only deem his modern era to contain world class players.

Tendulkar's era had 10 test nations with 2 billion population with millions of dollars being invested and cricket bein played professionally.Ofocurse his era will throw up more talented players than Bradman's era.

That's an awful argument, because the fact it's 10 test teams today says nothing about the standard, in fact what we do know is it means batsmen can boost the averages against minnow sides just as Tendulkar did averages over 136 against Bangladesh & 76 against Zimbabwe. So you've really shot yourself in the foot bringing that up.

Conclusion is Bradman was only better than his contemporaries. -

Nope, the conclusion is what I made earlier.... Bradman was miles and miles ahead of anyone else when he played, whereas Tendulkar is just one of the 4-5 great batsmen of his era.

By the way, I'm sure quite that in an Asian cricket forum the argument Sachin is better than Ponting has been done to death, but there's nothing conclusive from those arguments, they come down to personal preference & I understand that Indian fans like to think he's the greatest cricketer ever, when in reality he's not even Asia's best cricketer in my opinion, that title goes to Imran.

Tendulkar would be fighting it out with Wasim Akram for 2nd best Asian cricketer in my opinion, now that would be a close battle.

 

[Snatch]

People chose Lara or Ponting to irk Indian posters.

Or because they think they were better batsmen.

It's like when Sangakkara was said to be trolling when he bravely gave his honest opinion and said he thought Lara was the better batsman. He said that because that is what he thought.

Why can't people understand that since their records of those top 3-4 batsmen are so similar, that it comes down to personal preference.

It's not like someone's trying to argue that Stuart Broad is a better bowler than Wasim Akram.

Holding the view Lara is better than Sachin or vice versa is one of the greatest debates in cricket history.

Please don't try to pretend it's a not a very debatable point, because that is just disingenuous.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Or because they think they were better batsmen.

It's like when Sangakkara was said to be trolling when he bravely gave his honest opinion and said he thought Lara was the better batsman. He said that because that is what he thought.

Why can't people understand that since their records of those top 3-4 batsmen are so similar, that it comes down to personal preference.

It's not like someone's trying to argue that Stuart Broad is a better bowler than Wasim Akram.

Holding the view Lara is better than Sachin or vice versa is one of the greatest debates in cricket history.

Please don't try to pretend it's a not a very debatable point, because that is just disingenuous.

It's not a debatable point, because statistically Lara does not match Sachin in ODI's.

You could argue their careers over tests, but we are not talking about best Test batsmen here.

We are talking about their careers in overall effect. And the fact that Sachin chipped in with 150 odd wickets, which Lara never did, also seals the deal in their career.

If you say screw statistics, and you are only interested in what you prefer, I would be inclined to agree. But then I am sure you wouldn't fault me for saying Tendulkar is greatest ever, and Bradman is second?

At some point, you have to look at the bigger picture.

Sachin averaged above 40 at every single place he toured. Lara averaged 34 when he toured India in 17 matches, so you can naturally see, how Indian posters would not rate him that highly.

You might rate him, because you don't care about his Indian touring credentials, but that's how it stands. I would assume that's the same with Ponting.

Plus none of the other 5 greats that you mention, that are equivalent to Tendulkar , were striking centuries as a teenager in test Cricket against the quartet of Wasim, Donald etc.

There is a reason, almost every former cricketer, accepts him at least as the 2nd best batsmen of all time, if not the best.

You might like another player for his flair, his charisma , his attitude, but then don't talk about stats, when seeing Bradman.

If you follow stats, then Tendulkar is superior in both formats of the game combined.

If you follow your heart, that's fine, but don't assume that it's necessarily true.

And opinions of one past cricketer can be taken with a grain of salt, but every past cricketer can't be wrong.

A common quote.

You can fool some of the people all the time, most of the people, some of the times, but not all of the people all of the time.

150 former cricketers saying Sachin is at least 2nd best, are not being fooled.

 

[Bilal7]

If your life was on the line who would you have bat for it? Sachin, Viv or Inzi?

When you really think about it in that situation all these stats and bar graphs mean little when you realize who had the real hunger for glory.

Certainly not Sachin who failed in the two most important games of his career, the ODI WC finals.

More neutrals enjoyed watching SRT and Lara in 90s than any other batsman. Many young PPers have not seen SRT in 90s.

Absolutely false. Sachin wasn't even in the top five most entertaining batsmen to watch from the 90s, according to the vast majority of neutrals I've discussed cricket with.

I will give you an example of Non-Indians obsessing over Tendulkar ... when he last played a Test at Lords in 2011 and he was on 99 Intl 100s most English Cricket fans and English media was eagerly awaiting and hoping that he get his 100 at Lords even if it came against their team. Never seen anything like it before. Such was the adoration.

Here is one of media articles of that time : https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2011/jul/16/sachin-tendulkar-india-england-lords-test

See if you can find any other player that came even remotely close to evoke such fond admiration amongst his opponents.

Dude, the whole point was that they were there to see the 100 hundreds milestone take place. They didn't show up to watch Sachin bat from 0 to 99, they were there to see him get that one run so they could tell their grandkids that they saw history.

We are discussing things like stroke-making, elegance, explosiveness here not milestones.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

In his teens, he had 4-5 tons outside of Asia. Most Asian batsmen don't have that in their entire career. He was surely that good to debut early.

Brother Bufett's inner Indian is coming out

He scored his 1st ton in the 14th innings, he played so many matches so everywhere he played it's home for him. Not fair.

I rate Kohli as a captain, batsman and aggression ahead of Sachin.

Sachin was a better slip fielder though

 

[Bilal7]

Why can't someone find some other batsman more pleasing to watch than SRT? I don't get it. It is a personal opinion.

I found Mohammad Yousuf's batting very ugly. Some even say he was very pleasing to watch. It might surprise me but at the end of the day it's their opinion.

There have even been some here that found Lara's batting ugly due to his high back-lift. Don't see why so many Sachin-fans are frothing in the mouth over this.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Certainly not Sachin who failed in the two most important games of his career, the ODI WC finals.



Absolutely false. Sachin wasn't even in the top five most entertaining batsmen to watch from the 90s, according to the vast majority of neutrals I've discussed cricket with.



Dude, the whole point was that they were there to see the 100 hundreds milestone take place. They didn't show up to watch Sachin bat from 0 to 99, they were there to see him get that one run so they could tell their grandkids that they saw history.

We are discussing things like stroke-making, elegance, explosiveness here not milestones.

I agree, I didn't watch him bat that often.

I enjoyed watching Mark Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Kallis and Damien Martyn more. I was an Aussie supporter.

Nowadays I watch Kohli bat and Kock in Test.

 

[Snatch]

It's not a debatable point, because statistically Lara does not match Sachin in ODI's.

You could argue their careers over tests, but we are not talking about best Test batsmen here.

.

I'm very much talking Test cricket, I should have made that clear.

Why on earth would I be making a case for Bradman if you're suddenly bringing ODIs into it?

If people want to debate the 3 very different forms of the game we can do that too. I don't see the point of mixing them up personally.

But for the record, I think;

Bradman is the best Test batsman by a country miles and it's not even close

In terms of ODI's, I'm split between Viv Richards & AB de Villiers, with Kohli 3rd..

Tendulkar would probably be 4th after them.

I really don't care for ODI records as much a Test records, they're completely different games & I pay even less attention to T20 records.

But for what it's worth, I think Gayle is the greatest T20 batsman ever.

 

[Bilal7]

I agree, I didn't watch him bat that often.

I enjoyed watching Mark Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Kallis and Damien Martyn more. I was an Aussie supporter.

Nowadays I watch Kohli bat and Kock in Test.

There you go. How about Anwar? Did you find him more classy than Sachin?

 

[Snatch]

There is a reason, almost every former cricketer, accepts him at least as the 2nd best batsmen of all time, if not the best.

Sorry but this just isn't true.

There's several past players who preferred Lara. Sangakkara was one of a number who said that.

And if you want to know the truth, I believe a lot of past players end up just saying Tendulkar to stay on the good side of Indian cricket, administrators and media, because they know the sort of pathetic childish outrage that happened when Sangakkara gave his honest opinion & they probably don't want the same. Because it's made out to be almost sacrilege to say that to Indians

So when a paper like the India times interviews an ex player and asks the question, "who was the best batsmen in your time?", what do you think they're going to say?

The best example of this is Shane Warne, who in the last 5-6 years has said Sachin & Lara were equally the best and he couldn't split them... but in actual fact Warne in 2010 gave an interview in New Zealand when he said he really felt Lara was the best of the two, & then he actually joked with the interviewer & said "this interview better not being going to India" & laughed... and this is what I mean when I say ex players feel forced to say Sachin. In Warne's case back in 2010 he was still playing IPL etc so felt he needed to keep on Indian cricket's good side.

 

[Bilal7]

1) Bradman
2) Viv
3) Sobers
4) Lara/Sachin
5) Sachin/Lara

^ This was the hierarchy as far as test cricket goes.

 

[Buffet]

There you go.

Given your age, you didn't see a single match live in any neutral stadium in 90s. So let's keep it real when it comes to how many folks turned up to watch specific batsmen in 90s.

 

[Bilal7]

Sorry but this just isn't true.

There's several past players who preferred Lara. Sangakkara was one of a number who said that.

And if you want to know the truth, I believe a lot of past players end up just saying Tendulkar to stay on the good side of Indian cricket, administrators and media, because they know the sort of pathetic childish outrage that happened when Sangakkara gave his honest opinion & they probably don't want the same. Because it's made out to be almost sacrilege to say that to Indians

So when a paper like the India times interviews an ex player and asks the question, "who was the best batsmen in your time?", what do you think they're going to say?

The best example of this is Shane Warne, who in the last 5-6 years has said Sachin & Lara were equally the best and he couldn't split them... but in actual fact Warne in 2010 gave an interview in New Zealand when he said he really felt Lara was the best of the two, & then he actually joked with the interviewer & said "this interview better not being going to India" & laughed... and this is what I mean when I say ex players feel forced to say Sachin. In Warne's case back in 2010 he was still playing IPL etc so felt he needed to keep on Indian cricket's good side.

The same is true of Kohli nowadays. These ex-cricketers have made a fortune pandering to gullible Indians who feel the need to have their players validated by others. Others are much more cultured and know that Tendulker's record speaks for himself and he's one of the best players of all time.

 

[Bilal7]

Given your age, you didn't see a single match live in any neutral stadium in 90s. So let's keep it real when it comes to how many folks turned up to watch specific batsmen in 90s.

No need to comment on my age. The poster I quoted did watch all these players bat and unlike you, he's actually a real neutral and not simply posing as one.

 

[Buffet]

No need to comment on my age. The poster I quoted did watch all these players bat and unlike you, he's actually a real neutral and not simply posing as one.

One poster , two poster , talked to 3 neutrals who watched in 90s... are you getting the point here ...

Generic statements should be made with some larger sample sets. Your age comment was not about your age at all.

 

[Snatch]

The same is true of Kohli nowadays. These ex-cricketers have made a fortune pandering to gullible Indians who feel the need to have their players validated by others. Others are much more cultured and know that Tendulker's record speaks for himself and he's one of the best players of all time.

See this is the key point, I also think he's one of the best of all-time in a group of about 7-8 batsmen after Bradman. I don't think anyone would deny this of that.

It's when fans with little knowledge of cricket history make stupid ignorance statements like 'Sachin is the greatest cricketer ever' than Cricket historians & people who actually know the game well get their noses out of joint, and rightly so.

 

[Bilal7]

One poster , two poster , talked to 3 neutrals who watched in 90s... are you getting the point here ...

Generic statements should be made with some larger sample sets. Your age comment was not about your age at all.

What was your sample set when you claimed that most neutrals preferred watching Lara and Sachin?

 

[Buffet]

Sorry but this just isn't true.

There's several past players who preferred Lara. Sangakkara was one of a number who said that.

And if you want to know the truth, I believe a lot of past players end up just saying Tendulkar to stay on the good side of Indian cricket, administrators and media, because they know the sort of pathetic childish outrage that happened when Sangakkara gave his honest opinion & they probably don't want the same. Because it's made out to be almost sacrilege to say that to Indians

So when a paper like the India times interviews an ex player and asks the question, "who was the best batsmen in your time?", what do you think they're going to say?

The best example of this is Shane Warne, who in the last 5-6 years has said Sachin & Lara were equally the best and he couldn't split them... but in actual fact Warne in 2010 gave an interview in New Zealand when he said he really felt Lara was the best of the two, & then he actually joked with the interviewer & said "this interview better not being going to India" & laughed... and this is what I mean when I say ex players feel forced to say Sachin. In Warne's case back in 2010 he was still playing IPL etc so felt he needed to keep on Indian cricket's good side.

I won't take anything Warne says seriously about ranking players. He has habit to putting his friends higher in such lists, but if you are talking about simply his opinion and IPL then he had wrote a column in time in 2007 before IPL days. He had put SRT first and Lara second. His lists are useless though.

 

[street cricketer]

Amla you could argue to be fair, but Root not in a million years should he be discussed in this regard.

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.

 

[Buffet]

What was your sample set when you claimed that most neutrals preferred watching Lara and Sachin?

Watching more than 10 international games in neutral grounds where SRT and Lara played and interacting with 100s of fans watching with me.

 

[Buffet]

I don't get this objection about Amla or Root when it comes to personal choice of an individual to watch these players. One individual can like watching any player and it's subjective.

 

[Snatch]

I won't take anything Warne says seriously about ranking players. He has habit to putting his friends higher in such lists, but if you are talking about simply his opinion and IPL then he had wrote a column in time in 2007 before IPL days. He had put SRT first and Lara second. His lists are useless though.

No, his was just one example in which I feel past players feel they must pander to Indian media on the question.

The fact it was a New Zealand interview, he had no reason to say Lara unless he deep down meant it, it would be different had it been a West Indian interview. The fact he jokingly checked if it was going to be seen in India said it all, it was just a little interview for a NZ cricket show.

I agree that Warne's lists are generally terrible & that he tends to pick mates, but I thought that particular answer was quite telling, because he really didn't have any special motivation to mention one or the other & went out of his way to say Lara was better.

 

[Buffet]

No, his was just one example in which I feel past players feel they must pander to Indian media on the question.

I agree here. If media ask you to comment about XYZ players all the time then you are likely to say good things often.

 

[Snatch]

Anyway, that is just one player. The person who said earlier ALL past cricketers who played with or against him say he was 2nd to Bradman just is not true.

However those doing an Indian cricket show, speaking to an Indian newspaper or coaching an IPL team or the like will feel obliged to say Sachin, especially after the petty pathetic outrage after Sangakkara gave his true opinion. I don't blame them to be honest.

 

[Bilal7]

Watching more than 10 international games in neutral grounds where SRT and Lara played and interacting with 100s of fans watching with me.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[samplepiece]

Most people here identify elegance in batting with the flourish in the strokeplay. Tendulkar was elegant in a different way owing to his minimalist approach. If a German engineer were to make a batting machine, he would probably model it on SRT. No trigger movements, very little fuss, precise and decisive footwork and a controlled bat drive.

Call me hyperbolic, but his was the most refined/unadulterated form of batting I have had the pleasure to witness.

 

[Tusker]

You don't seem to understand how the greatness of a sportsman is actually judged. It's about how they compared to their contemporaries. And when one player in history was essentially twice as good as the next best... that is truly remarkable.

Well I like to have a higher standard for judging someone as an ATG. Because this is not a trivial title. It is very simple and has to do with Bowling quality and overall standards ... Iam pretty sure that in yrs to come the standard of bowling that SRT faced will still be the Gold standard. Whereas absolutely nobody from Bradmans time is considered a Gold standard for Bowling. Infact they look extremely ordinary. I want my ATG player to be able to succeed in higher standards. This isnt the case with Bradman. This is where the matter ends.

I'm not denying that was a different era of Test cricket. The bats were like tiny sticks compared to bats of today, they played on uncovered wickets, the didn't have helmets.

You forget the most important ingredient : shockingly poor bowlers. Evidence is in the clip I posted earlier. Even a 45 year old Tendulkar will score bucket load of runs against bowling of that quality ... you can uncover the pitch to your hearts content. And yeah when he started he did not play with Helmets and had the same types of bat as Bradman. And yet he still did well against Imran,Wasim,Waqar,Qadir as a 16yr old where as Bradman threatened to not play England unless they stopped bowling short. Try to realize the significance of that. There is just simply no comparison here at all. BTW Bradman has a very poor record batting on uncovered pitches when it rained.

The rest of your post has been addressed by other posters like [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION]t, [MENTION=139108]Sachin136[/MENTION] , [MENTION=139134]petercat[/MENTION]

 

[Tusker]

In his teens, he had 4-5 tons outside of Asia. Most Asian batsmen don't have that in their entire career. He was surely that good to debut early.

I think he is the only batsman ever to have made 100s on first tours to Eng,SA,AUS and that too before he turned 20 ... pretty sure nobody from those countries has done that.

 

[Snatch]

Well I like to have a higher standard for judging someone as an ATG. Because this is not a trivial title. It is very simple and has to do with Bowling quality and overall standards ... Iam pretty sure that in yrs to come the standard of bowling that SRT faced will still be the Gold standard. Whereas absolutely nobody from Bradmans time is considered a Gold standard for Bowling. Infact they look extremely ordinary. I want my ATG player to be able to succeed in higher standards. This isnt the case with Bradman. This is where the matter ends.

Again by that logic, posters in 50 years can dismiss all cricketers from Sachin's era as not on the same level as players in their time, because possibly fast bowlers might be 10 kms faster on average then. Would that mean any decent bowler in the year 2070 would be greater than Akram? I don't think so...

And for the record, you're really showing your ignorance if you think bowlers like Larwood weren't quick. One of the reasons you see a lot of slow bowlers in the old footgae is because they were uncovered pitches so were really condusive to slow & spin bowling. But of course you'd know that if you knew your cricket history.

Nobody when comparing sports through history ever argues the levels are the same, that's obvious. Of cause levels improve, which is precisely why we need to look at how they compared to other players of their era, because otherwise it's apples and oranges.

There's a reason the great American sprinter from the 1930s Jesse Owens is considered one of the top 5 sprinters of all-time, and this is in spite of the fact his 100 meters times wouldn't even get him into an Olympic semi-final these days, surely you can understand the difference why it's not just judged purely on the fastest times, but how they competed relative to their competition.

I'd have thought this was really obvious.

Perhaps had Bradman averaged 70s, your argument about the increased competition might be a little more valid, but when he averaged twice other greats of his era like Hammond, Hutton to name a few, it's not even an argument.

In summary I'll leave you with cricinfo's short bio of Bradman "In a nutshell Unquestionably the greatest batsman in the game, arguably the greatest cricketer ever, and one of the finest sportsmen of all time, Don Bradman "

 

[Tusker]

Again by that logic, posters in 50 years can dismiss all cricketers from Sachin's era as not on the same level as players in their time, because possibly fast bowlers might be 10 kms faster on average then. Would that mean any decent bowler in the year 2070 would be greater than Akram? I don't think so...

Except that the figure would have to be more like 30-40 KPH higher .... because thats how slower the best bowler from Bradmans time is compared to the Best today. And if that ever happened people should and must acknowledge the top players of that ERA as the best ever. Otherwise that would be termed as living in denial.

And for the record, you're really showing your ignorance if you think bowlers like Larwood weren't quick. One of the reasons you see a lot of slow bowlers in the old footgae is because they were uncovered pitches so were really condusive to slow & spin bowling. But of course you'd know that if you knew your cricket history.

All talk and revisionism gone nuts. There is not one single credible evidence that will show Larwood as being express like todays bowlers. You can quote from history all you care but you will get stuck when trying to actually prove that.

Do you realize that uncovered wkt does not automatically equal to minefields ? What you are talking about is wet pitches after rain. Bradmans record is extremely ordinary in those conditions. And one more thing ... if these pitches were such minefields there is no way that Teams would score massive totals ( 600+ ) batting for days in Timeless tests. If you read history closely you will find that the 20s and 30s had some of the best batting beauties of all times. It shows in the stats too.

Nobody when comparing sports through history ever argues the levels are the same, that's obvious. Of cause levels improve, which is precisely why we need to look at how they compared to other players of their era, because otherwise it's apples and oranges.

Really ? I thought we were discussing absolute batting ability ... No ? And you are telling me that the batting ability should be judged by how badly one can beat trundlers ? That too While Tendulkar never had the luxury of facing such bowlers on a regular basis ... Sorry but there is no question of level playing field here and our cricketing wavelengths are vastly different. Its unlikely that there can be a reasonable fruitful discussion if you want to argue that SRT competing with the best of the best from 10 nations vs Bradman from 3 nations at best is an apples to apples comparison.

To get a level playing field you will have to reduce the standard of bowling in Tendulkars ERA to see what he could do then ... take a look at what he did to lesser Test teams.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I'm very much talking Test cricket, I should have made that clear.

Why on earth would I be making a case for Bradman if you're suddenly bringing ODIs into it?

If people want to debate the 3 very different forms of the game we can do that too. I don't see the point of mixing them up personally.

But for the record, I think;

Bradman is the best Test batsman by a country miles and it's not even close

In terms of ODI's, I'm split between Viv Richards & AB de Villiers, with Kohli 3rd..

Tendulkar would probably be 4th after them.

I really don't care for ODI records as much a Test records, they're completely different games & I pay even less attention to T20 records.

But for what it's worth, I think Gayle is the greatest T20 batsman ever.

Because Bradman never played ODI's

Lara and Tendulkar did, so you look at their records in both formats of the game.

Had Lara also not played ODI's you wouldn't really look at Lara's ODI record either.

You look at whatever you play which I think makes sense.

You wouldn't be off guard choosing Viv as best ODI player, but again that's just his facet where he excelled at. Would you chose Viv, as best Test and ODI player. No you wouldn't.

Let's look at it this way.

ODI + Tests included, who do you think is the best cricketer ever as a batsmen!

If you still can say Lara, with a straight face, I'll know where you stand.


b

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Sorry but this just isn't true.

There's several past players who preferred Lara. Sangakkara was one of a number who said that.

And if you want to know the truth, I believe a lot of past players end up just saying Tendulkar to stay on the good side of Indian cricket, administrators and media, because they know the sort of pathetic childish outrage that happened when Sangakkara gave his honest opinion & they probably don't want the same. Because it's made out to be almost sacrilege to say that to Indians

So when a paper like the India times interviews an ex player and asks the question, "who was the best batsmen in your time?", what do you think they're going to say?

The best example of this is Shane Warne, who in the last 5-6 years has said Sachin & Lara were equally the best and he couldn't split them... but in actual fact Warne in 2010 gave an interview in New Zealand when he said he really felt Lara was the best of the two, & then he actually joked with the interviewer & said "this interview better not being going to India" & laughed... and this is what I mean when I say ex players feel forced to say Sachin. In Warne's case back in 2010 he was still playing IPL etc so felt he needed to keep on Indian cricket's good side.

Well now you just laid the spoon straight into the pudding and said, everyone is scared of India.

We can't really have any discussion once you say all players are usually afraid of backlash so they say Tendulkar.

This might be true or might not be true, but once you put out a blanket assumption, that just can't be proven, there is no going here or there.

That's the best cop out actually.

You know and I know, no one can prove it.

And it suits your agenda well, that everyone is scared of backlash so they usually label Tendulkar.

Let me explain it this way.

You go to school and everyone says the Principal there is amazing with students and teachers and management skills. You personally don't like the Principal that much because you feel School B's principal is better than school A's principal.

But everyone keeps saying Principal A is better in common educational community.

You say that most people say Principal A is better because Principal A has relations to the Educational Commission which gives all the teachers and principals jobs.

Otherwise in reality Principal B is still better.

You stick to your opinion. You can't prove it, but yet you keep arguing Principal A is only said better because people are scared.

That's how this sounds.

Sorry.

Sour grapes.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

There you go. How about Anwar? Did you find him more classy than Sachin?

The reason why I didn't enjoy watching Sachin is because he wasn't pleasing to the eye, before every delivery he had to fix his box ten times, looked quite disgusting. When you look at Mark Waugh, I hardly ever saw him touch down there, I was a kid back then so I had a bad experience every time Sachin was on TV. Adjust his box then face a delivery, looked pretty bad As a kid it was a mental trauma.

I went to a multi cultural school, most students were from Oz and Nz in Singapore, we had one or two Pakistani 'Khwaja' type Aussies lol, most of my friends didn't watch Sachin bat or like watching him bat.

In Bangladesh, we have friends who even support Kenya, it's weird bro. We have Indian supporters, hardcore Pakistani supporters, even South African supporters, these people actually support those countries over Bangladesh, it's funny. I had one friend out of 100 who was a diehard Sachin fan, we all kinda bullied him rby

I was an Aussie supporter

Anwar was elegant but inconsistent was more pleasing than Sachin

Kohli is classy, over Sachin anyday.

 

[Snatch]

Except that the figure would have to be more like 30-40 KPH higher .... because thats how slower the best bowler from Bradmans time is compared to the Best today.

.

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.

 

[Snatch]

Well now you just laid the spoon straight into the pudding and said, everyone is scared of India.

We can't really have any discussion once you say all players are usually afraid of backlash so they say Tendulkar.

This might be true or might not be true, but once you put out a blanket assumption, that just can't be proven, there is no going here or there.

That's the best cop out actually.

You know and I know, no one can prove it.

And it suits your agenda well, that everyone is scared of backlash so they usually label Tendulkar.

Only in Tendulkar's case it's true. It's not to say Sangakkara got waterboarded & had his family threatened because of it, but there was a typically hysterical childish outrage to his comments.

So I could see others players thinking they can't be bothered with the angst so they'll just say Sachin to keep the Indians from getting hysterical even they really thought it was Lara or Ponting.

I provided a perfect example of Warne in that interview with a small time New Zealand TV show saying he really thought Lara was better, & jokingly suggested the footage better not be shown to Indians.

Since then I see he's reverted back to them being too difficult to separate. Pretty obvious what's going on there.

I don't think that puts an end to any argument, but if you can't see that ex-players would feel pressured or obliged to tell Indian media outlets the answer they want to hear since they're well aware of the hysteria Indian's have over Sachin, then I don't think you're being honest about it.

Even Indian friends of mine admit that it's very unpopular to not say Sachin's the best to Indians & I notice a few posters above agreed immediately about this obligation to pander to India's media, on;y because they seem to be so petty about such an insignificant thing as someone's opinion.

I mean to think Sangakkara was actually asked (after his Lara was better comments), if he regretted making those comments because so many indians were outraged... I mean you'd almost think that had to be made up it's so pathetic.

 

[Snatch]

Really ? I thought we were discussing absolute batting ability ... No ? And you are telling me that the batting ability should be judged by how badly one can beat trundlers ? That too While Tendulkar never had the luxury of facing such bowlers on a regular basis ... Sorry but there is no question of level playing field here and our cricketing wavelengths are vastly different. Its unlikely that there can be a reasonable fruitful discussion if you want to argue that SRT competing with the best of the best from 10 nations vs Bradman from 3 nations at best is an apples to apples comparison.

To get a level playing field you will have to reduce the standard of bowling in Tendulkars ERA to see what he could do then ... take a look at what he did to lesser Test teams.

Re: the 10 teams vs. 4, what would have been easier for Sachin, to play his 200 Tests against those 10 teams that included weak teams like Zim & Bang? , or if those 200 tests were only played against the 4 strongest teams in his era like Australia, England, West indies & South Africa? You know the answer already.... His record is better for the 9th & 10th test teams zim & bang entering Test cricket. As I pointed out earlier, he averaged 137 vs. Bang & 76 vs. Zim.

So it's a counter-intuitive argument.

 

[Hitman]

And cricket 'Bible' WISDEN too was under pressure recently to include Sachin in the 'All Time World XI' -

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...305/Wisdens-all-time-Test-XI-in-pictures.html

 

[Snatch]

Looks like Bradman too was under pressure to rate him as the best he ever saw -






P.S. I posted this previously, but Cricinfo links are not allowed here, so my post was deleted. Hence, I haven't posted any links.

No doubt Bradman had a soft spot for Sachin, & I'm sure a bit had to do with the fact they were of similar stature, around 5'5. But the key point to quote that piece is this bit ..."Perry adds that by mid-1998, after watching Tendulkar destroy Australia in Tests and one-day games in India, Bradman ranked him with Barry Richards, Arthur Morris and Gary Sobers."

He rated him up there with the likes of Richard, Morris & Sobers, nowhere does it say 'better than".

An important distinction.

Anyway, seems we've reached the usual outcome from a Sachin debate. That being.. Indian's rate him as the best cricketer ever, & the rest of the cricketing world as one of the ATG batsmen, along side several others.

So business as usual then...

 

[Hitman]

No doubt Bradman had a soft spot for Sachin, & I'm sure a bit had to do with the fact they were of similar stature, around 5'5. But the key point to quote that piece is this bit ..."Perry adds that by mid-1998, after watching Tendulkar destroy Australia in Tests and one-day games in India, Bradman ranked him with Barry Richards, Arthur Morris and Gary Sobers."

He rated him up there with the likes of Richard, Morris & Sobers, nowhere does it say 'better than".

An important distinction.

Anyway, seems we've reached the usual outcome from a Sachin debate. That being.. Indian's rate him as the best cricketer ever, & the rest of the cricketing world as one of the ATG batsmen, along side several others.

So business as usual then...

How about cricket 'Bible' WISDEN's 'World XI' where Tendulkar found a place -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...305/Wisdens-all-time-Test-XI-in-pictures.html

 

[Hitman]

No doubt Bradman had a soft spot for Sachin, & I'm sure a bit had to do with the fact they were of similar stature, around 5'5. But the key point to quote that piece is this bit ..."Perry adds that by mid-1998, after watching Tendulkar destroy Australia in Tests and one-day games in India, Bradman ranked him with Barry Richards, Arthur Morris and Gary Sobers."

He rated him up there with the likes of Richard, Morris & Sobers, nowhere does it say 'better than".

An important distinction.

Anyway, seems we've reached the usual outcome from a Sachin debate. That being.. Indian's rate him as the best cricketer ever, & the rest of the cricketing world as one of the ATG batsmen, along side several others.

So business as usual then...

And how about the same cricket 'Bible' rating Tendulkar as the best ever after Bradman in 2002, just half way through his career -

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/dec/13wisden.htm

 

[Snatch]

And how about the same cricket 'Bible' rating Tendulkar as the best ever after Bradman in 2002, just half way through his career -

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/dec/13wisden.htm

Huh? Hate to break it to you, but Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century were

Bradman
Hobbs
Sobers
Richards &
Warne

 

[Snatch]

And how about the same cricket 'Bible' rating Tendulkar as the best ever after Bradman in 2002, just half way through his career -

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/dec/13wisden.htm

Pleased you'd mentioned 'after' Bradman, because some Indian's actually try to claim Sachin was up there with Bradman, which of course is hilarious.

 

[Snatch]

Yeah I know right, nothing to do with the fact that both had similar stroke play, oh some of these Pakistani logic

What about Indian logic that want to claim he's the greatest ever cricketer, when he's not even the best Asian cricketer ever

disclosure, I'm not Pakistani but do think Imran is the greatest Subcontinent cricketer ever.

 

[Romali_rotti]

What about Indian logic that want to claim he's the greatest ever cricketer, when he's not even the best Asian cricketer ever

disclosure, I'm not Pakistani but do think Imran is the greatest Subcontinent cricketer ever.

The greatest ever cricketer is debatable, Indians are not wrong in considering SRT as their GCOAT and neither are people who think otherwise. Its a matter of choice...

 

[Hitman]

Huh? Hate to break it to you, but Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century were

Bradman
Hobbs
Sobers
Richards &
Warne

Fine, that was about cricketers. But when it came down to batsmen, WISDEN rated Tendulkar the 2nd best ever after Bradman

BTW, did Imran Khan make it to the top 5 cricketers of the century, by WISDEN?

 

[Snatch]

The greatest ever cricketer is debatable, Indians are not wrong in considering SRT as their GCOAT and neither are people who think otherwise. Its a matter of choice...

We agree then, that's what I've been saying the whole time.

Outside the obvious undisputed fact from cricketers the world over (outside India) that Bradman is the number no. 1 batsman ever, I agree the next best comes down to persoanl preference as well.

As I mentioned earlier, I happen to think in the last 30 years or so that it's Lara, but I think there's a perfectly good argument for it being Ponting or Sachin as well... so we agree about it being a matter of choice.

 

[Hitman]

Pleased you'd mentioned 'after' Bradman, because some Indian's actually try to claim Sachin was up there with Bradman, which of course is hilarious.

Bradman in the undisputed greatest ever batsman. Anyone debating against it is living in a fool's world.

 

[Hitman]

What about Indian logic that want to claim he's the greatest ever cricketer, when he's not even the best Asian cricketer ever

disclosure, I'm not Pakistani but do think Imran is the greatest Subcontinent cricketer ever.

Is it? How about this in 2001, just half way through Sachin's career where he was rated the 7th greatest cricketer ever, ahead of Imran Khan? Enjoy this -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ends-of-Cricket-Top-25-Cricketers-Of-All-Time

 

[Snatch]

Fine, that was about cricketers. But when it came down to batsmen, WISDEN rated Tendulkar the 2nd best ever after Bradman

BTW, did Imran Khan make it to the top 5 cricketers of the century, by WISDEN?

Wisden is one of many authorities in cricket, and as I've said a number of times now, I don't have a problem with Sachin being rated as number 2 batsman, even if I personally think Lara, I certianly don't think Sachin being ranked 2 is an outrageous suggestion.

I do however think anyone even trying to suggest Bradman isn't the greatest bat is being rather foolish.

I even read an article in an american sports article the other day questioning if this cricketer named Donald Bradman qualifies as the greatest sportsman ever based on the fact he was so far ahead of the others he played against. Obviously they were looking from a statistical POV, & rated him well above Babe Ruth for that reason.

I'm trying to find the article..I think it was sports illustrated If I remember exactly.

 

[Hitman]

Wisden is one of many authorities in cricket, and as I've said a number of times now, I don't have a problem with Sachin being rated as number 2 batsman, even if I personally think Lara, I certianly don't think Sachin being ranked 2 is an outrageous suggestion.

I do however think anyone even trying to suggest Bradman isn't the greatest bat is being rather foolish.

I even read an article in an american sports article the other day questioning if this cricketer named Donald Bradman qualifies as the greatest sportsman ever based on the fact he was so far ahead of the others he played against. Obviously they were looking from a statistical POV, & rated him well above Babe Ruth for that reason.

I'm trying to find the article..I think it was sports illustrated If I remember exactly.

Bradman is the greatest batsman and the greatest cricketer to have ever lived. The closest to come close to him the genius Garry Sobers.

 

[Snatch]

Is it? How about this in 2001, just half way through Sachin's career where he was rated the 7th greatest cricketer ever, ahead of Imran Khan? Enjoy this -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ends-of-Cricket-Top-25-Cricketers-Of-All-Time

Sorry why exactly are you laughing childishly? Is it because that particular panel of ex cricketers who voted for ESPN at the time as have to take as gospel as the final decider that Sachin was a better cricketer than Imran?

I mean many rate Malcolm Marshall as the greatest fast bowler ever, but if you want that list to be your bible h'es way down at no 16 & miles behind Lillee.

If you are taking that as your bible presumably that nails the Sachin vs Bradman argument then..

 

[Snatch]

Bradman is the greatest batsman and the greatest cricketer to have ever lived. The closest to come close to him the genius Garry Sobers.

I couldn't agree more, although I do think Imran is criminally underrated and while Sobers is the greatest ever batting allrounder (with Kallis 2nd), Imran along side Keith Miller are the greatest bowling allrounders ever.

 

[Hitman]

What about Indian logic that want to claim he's the greatest ever cricketer, when he's not even the best Asian cricketer ever

disclosure, I'm not Pakistani but do think Imran is the greatest Subcontinent cricketer ever.

Another opinion from a legendary batsman by the name of David Gower who played during Imran's time, who rates Tendulkar to be the 3rd greatest cricketer ever, miles ahead of Imran Khan -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...id-Gower-s-50-Greatest-Cricketers-of-All-Time

 

[Hitman]

I couldn't agree more, although I do think Imran is criminally underrated and while Sobers is the greatest ever batting allrounder (with Kallis 2nd), Imran along side Keith Miller are the greatest bowling allrounders ever.

Sobers is the best all rounder ever, followed by the 'great' Imran Khan and Keith Miller. I'd personally rate Imran to be the second best all rounder ever after Sobers, with Miller at the 3rd spot.

 

[Hitman]

Sorry why exactly are you laughing childishly? Is it because that particular panel of ex cricketers who voted for ESPN at the time as have to take as gospel as the final decider that Sachin was a better cricketer than Imran?

I mean many rate Malcolm Marshall as the greatest fast bowler ever, but if you want that list to be your bible h'es way down at no 16 & miles behind Lillee.

If you are taking that as your bible presumably that nails the Sachin vs Bradman argument then..

I know whose opinion holds more value ....... the opinion of those highly qualified ex-players and cricket pundits or the opinion of some random no-named 'nobodies'.

 

[Snatch]

Another opinion from a legendary batsman by the name of David Gower who played during Imran's time, who rates Tendulkar to be the 3rd greatest cricketer ever, miles ahead of Imran Khan -

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...id-Gower-s-50-Greatest-Cricketers-of-All-Time

That's fine & I respect David Gower, and to be honest I'm not bothered if people want to suggest Sachin is Asia's greatest, even if Imran shades it for me. As long as we've moved away from this ridiculous notion that Sachin is greatest than Bradman, I'm happy..

And sorry I misquoted you above, I now know it wasn't you who was beating the 'Sachin is greater than Bradman" drum.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

That's like saying Martina Navratilova is the greatest tennis player because she has the most Wimbledon titles. Obviously false.

Huh. Martina Navratilova is one of the greatest female tennis player ever.

Even Serena Williams can't match that.

And not because she won the most Wimbledons, because she was the most complete player.

Navaratilova only played tennis.

Greatest cricketer, and greatest batsmen are almost synonymous in cricket.

An equivalent example in tennis would be, Rod Laver is the best tennis player ever because he won all 4 Slams in a calendar year. Obviously false.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I don't think there are many Indians who dispute Bradman's claims to greatest.

The only ones that say that, want Sachin at top.

 

[Hitman]

That's fine & I respect David Gower, and to be honest I'm not bothered if people want to suggest Sachin is Asia's greatest, even if Imran shades it for me. As long as we've moved away from this ridiculous notion that Sachin is greatest than Bradman, I'm happy..

And sorry I misquoted you above, I now know it wasn't you who was beating the 'Sachin is greater than Bradman" drum.

My opinion here. Bradman will always be the greatest ever. So who is the 2nd best ever? Let me name the contenders - Jack Hobbs, Garry Sobers, Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara.

If you pointed a gun to my head and ask me to pick one, I'd pick Jack Hobbs. But make no mistake, I'd pick Hobbs ahead of the rest by a hair. Next, I'd pick the 'genius' Garry Sobers. Sobers as a cricketer was an even greater 'genius' than Bradman. Next it would be Viv, Sachin and Lara. I'd pick Sachin ..... why? Because I'm biased and love Sachin to death. Although I'll never debate with anyone who would rate 'King' Viv ahead of Sachin.

 

[Snatch]

I don't think there are many Indians who dispute Bradman's claims to greatest.

The only ones that say that, want Sachin at top.

I've encountered 2-3 in this thread already in a very short space of time.

 

[Hitman]

I've encountered 2-3 in this thread already in a very short space of time.

You'll find blind fans everywhere. I have seen plenty of blind here on PP who believe Imran Khan to be the greatest cricketer ever.