Poll : Is Sachin the Greatest batsmen to have played the sport?

[putrevus]

No he is not, he is not even second best batsman. To be best in something you need to do something so much better than anyone in history. I don't see anything which Sachin did better than anyone.

 

He was great batsmen whose  major accomplishment was is his longevity and other than that I don't see how he is superior.

[maniac]

15 minutes ago, putrevus said:

No he is not, he is not even second best batsman. To be best in something you need to do something so much better than anyone in history. I don't see anything which Sachin did better than anyone.

 

He was great batsmen whose  major accomplishment was is his longevity and other than that I don't see how he is superior.

Who is the top batsmen according to you then?

[maniac]

Can someone name top5 breath taking innings by AB Dev in Odis or T20s?

 

 

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Who is the top batsmen according to you then?

It has to be Bradman, when you avg 99.96 and are head and shoulders above every peer of yours.

 

Some people rate Viv as second best but I don't, he had major weakness against spin and once his hand eye coordination decreased his down was swift.

[maniac]

Wrong thread 

Edited February 8, 2018 by maniac

[maniac]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

It has to be Bradman, when you avg 99.96 and are head and shoulders above every peer of yours.

 

Some people rate Viv as second best but I don't, he had major weakness against spin and once his hand eye coordination decreased his down was swift.

By playing against 1 team all his career? Look you can only bash what it in front of you...obviously Bradman was ahead of his peers which made him a legend....if tommorow Kohli becomes the king of all 3 formats like he is already on par to be come he will be the G O A T....for now it is Sachin

 

Sachin

Lara

Viv

Bradman

Gavaskar

 

next tier with Dravid,Steve Waugh etc etc

 

in that order

[MechEng]

10 hours ago, kira said:

Kohli is a great run getter and might ( and it's a very BIG might) surpass tendulkar's achievements but his strokeplay is no where near sachin's.  People call kohli arrogant but he's not arrogant at all, in fact sachin was the arrogant one, sachin's arrogance led to his downfall many times, sachin tried to dominate the best bowlers in the opposition, the way he took the attack to mcgrath in nairobi, the way he took out akhtar in 2003 wc is stuff of legends. Sachin wanted to dominate the best in the opposition, go watch his knock vs australia in 1996 wc where he singlehandedly destroyed mcgrath's bowling figures.

 

Kohli on the other hand is very smart and calculative and has a great temperament, he never  tries to go for the big shots or tries to dominate the best bowler in the opposition, this is one of the biggest reason of kohli's success, kohli reads the game very well and plays out the best bowlers in the opposition without taking too many risks. Kohli's biggest asset is his brain and his attitude. 

 

Both sachin and kohli are legends but when it comes to pure batting brilliance no one comes close to sachin.

Akhtar told in an interview that he was not fully fit during that 2003 WC game which affected his bowling and if I remember clearly his fastest ball in that match was 159 kph. Did he actually believe he could bowl 170 kph? 

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

By playing against 1 team all his career? Look you can only bash what it in front of you...obviously Bradman was ahead of his peers which made him a legend....if tommorow Kohli becomes the king of all 3 formats like he is already on par to be come he will be the G O A T....for now it is Sachin

 

Sachin

Lara

Viv

Bradman

Gavaskar

 

next tier with Dravid,Steve Waugh etc etc

 

in that order

Sachin was not even best of his era , how can you say he is all time best. Does he have highest score in his era, no, does he have most runs in series in his era no, does he have highest average of his era, no. 

 

All he has is 100 hundreds because he played for 24 years and played more matches than all of them. How does that make him greatest .

[Tattieboy]

19 minutes ago, maniac said:

By playing against 1 team all his career? Look you can only bash what it in front of you...obviously Bradman was ahead of his peers which made him a legend....if tommorow Kohli becomes the king of all 3 formats like he is already on par to be come he will be the G O A T....for now it is Sachin

 

Sachin

Lara

Viv

Bradman

Gavaskar

 

next tier with Dravid,Steve Waugh etc etc

 

in that order

Was Gavaskar really better than Dravid or is he placed on lofty heights because he was head and shoulders better than any Indian batsmen of that time or before? 

[maniac]

26 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Sachin was not even best of his era , how can you say he is all time best. Does he have highest score in his era, no, does he have most runs in series in his era no, does he have highest average of his era, no. 

 

All he has is 100 hundreds because he played for 24 years and played more matches than all of them. How does that make him greatest .

Not just you but I have seen a lot of people use longevity as a negative when it comes to Sachin but you realize that adapting to the changing landscape of over 24 years and still always being in the top 2 or top 3 or even the best over such a period of time in itself should put someone at no.1 right?

 

How many competitors  reached that top echelon in Sachin’s time frame to challenge his claim as no.1? First there was Lara,Andy Flower ....then came Lara,Ponting....then Ponting,Sangakkara or maybe Cook but who was the constant variable across 2.5 decades?

 

its not like Sachin cashed in a small time frame,why is that difficult to understand?

[maniac]

23 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Was Gavaskar really better than Dravid or is he placed on lofty heights because he was head and shoulders better than any Indian batsmen of that time or before? 

Dravid was in the top in an era where the pool of top batsmen was large and he was a great supporting act to Sachin.

 

Gavaskar just like Bradman was the best among his peers in terms of stats...Sunny checks that box.

 

in addition to that likes of Sangakkara and Flower are rated highly often because people say while other teams cashed in against their weak attacks they had to play everyone else minus their bowling...Gavaskar checks that box as well.

 

Sachin is rated highly because he carried his entire team’s batting...Same with Lara in the late 90s and early 2000s....Gavaskar checks that box as well.

 

That is why I would rate Gavaskar real high.

Edited February 9, 2018 by maniac

[putrevus]

13 minutes ago, maniac said:

Not just you but I have seen a lot of people use longevity as a negative when it comes to Sachin but you realize that adapting to the changing landscape of over 24 years and still always being in the top 2 or top 3 or even the best over such a period of time in itself should put someone at no.1 right?

 

How many competitors  reached that top echelon in Sachin’s time frame to challenge his claim as no.1? First there was Lara,Andy Flower ....then came Lara,Ponting....then Ponting,Sangakkara or maybe Cook but who was the constant variable across 2.5 decades?

 

its not like Sachin cashed in a small time frame,why is that difficult to understand?

I am not using as negative but longevity should not be measure of greatness. You don't need to play 200 tests to show you are great, Tendulkar for his first hundred was greater player than his second hundred.

 

When you are making someone greatest sorry just longevity is not enough.He is a great batsmen but not the greatest.

Edited February 9, 2018 by putrevus

[SK_IH]

No

[maniac]

Just now, putrevus said:

I am not using as negative but longevity should not be measure of greatness. You need to play 200 tests to show you are great, Tendulkar for his first hundred was greater player than his second hundred.

 

When you are making someone greatest sorry just longevity is not enough.He is a great batsmen but not the greatest.

Dude the term you are using is longetivity...,I am saying the word is adaptability....this is the era of odi 200s...Sachin was coming close at the dawn of this era in that dept at 37 and was the path breaker in that regards as well.

 

He was scoring runs and was in the top bracket with Ponting,Sangakkara even till 2011.

 

He just had 2 years past his prime pretty much and just 2 years in the start trying to make a mark...so he was in the top bracket for 20+ years...it just wasn’t a phase.

 

Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player because he is in the top bracket for almost 2 decades....if someone has a purple patch and break all his records in a small time frame he will be an ATG but still Federer would be the benchmark like Sachin was.

 

 

[maniac]

4 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

No

Any names? Please don’t say Dhoni

 

[Tattieboy]

7 minutes ago, maniac said:

Dravid was in the top in an era where the pool of top batsmen was large and he was a great supporting act to Sachin.

 

Gavaskar just like Bradman was the best among his peers in terms of stats...Sunny checks that box.

 

in addition to that likes of Sangakkara and Flower are rated highly often because people say while other teams cashed in against their weak attacks they had to play everyone else minus their bowling...Gavaskar checks that box as well.

 

Sachin is rated highly because he carried his entire team’s batting...Same with Lara in the late 90s and early 2000s....Gavaskar checks that box as well.

 

That is why I would rate Gavaskar real high.

Not disagreeing . Dravid was just a particular favourite out of a long list of mine. Just playing a bit of  devils advocate to see Indian opinion 

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Dude the term you are using is longetivity...,I am saying the word is adaptability....this is the era of odi 200s...Sachin was coming close at the dawn of this era in that dept at 37 and was the path breaker in that regards as well.

 

He was scoring runs and was in the top bracket with Ponting,Sangakkara even till 2011.

 

He just had 2 years past his prime pretty much and just 2 years in the start trying to make a mark...so he was in the top bracket for 20+ years...it just wasn’t a phase.

 

Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player because he is in the top bracket for almost 2 decades....if someone has a purple patch and break all his records in a small time frame he will be an ATG but still Federer would be the benchmark like Sachin was.

 

 

Roger is greatest because he has won more than anyone else, how does being in top bracket for 20 years make him greatest. Tomorrow a batsman can play only 10 years but he is so far superior to other then he would be greatest.

 

Sachin was mr Steady Eddy who got his stats without ever being dominant period. 

[maniac]

Here is my top 20 ranking

Sachin

Lara

Viv

Bradman

Gavaskar

Ponting

Kallis

Sangakkara

Dravid

Andy Flower

Steve Waugh

Sir Sobers

Chanderpaul

Younis Khan

Alistair Cook

Greg Chappell

Virat Kohli

Steve Smith

Border

Boycott

 

 

 

[maniac]

Just now, putrevus said:

Roger is greatest because he has won more than anyone else, how does being in top bracket for 20 years make him greatest. Tomorrow a batsman can play only 10 years but he is so far superior to other then he would be greatest.

 

Sachin was mr Steady Eddy who got his stats without ever being dominant period. 

So Roger is the greatest for winning most grand slams playing over a period 16+ years unheard of in men’s tennis and being in the top bracket but Sachin being the highest run scorer and most 100s in tests and Odis 2 absolutely different formats over 24 years, being the highest run getter in wcs and being in the top bracket is business as usual  

[maniac]

9 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Not disagreeing . Dravid was just a particular favourite out of a long list of mine. Just playing a bit of  devils advocate to see Indian opinion 

Great cricketer...4th greatest Indian batsman behind Sachin,Sunny,Kohli in that order as of now.