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

[Tattieboy]

11 minutes ago, maniac said:

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

Won't agree or disagree with order. 

Mohinder Armanath was a favourite of mine too. I don't go infor who was great etc just if I enjoyed them batting 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Tattieboy said:

Won't agree or disagree with order. 

Mohinder Armanath was a favourite of mine too. I don't go infor who was great etc just if I enjoyed them batting 

Amaranth is a cult favorite like Laxman...taking on the best bowling of his generation has made him standout....Even though Laxman over Amarnath for me....surprised as an Englishman you don’t rate Vengsarker who used to pile up runs in England

[Tattieboy]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

Amaranth is a cult favorite like Laxman...taking on the best bowling of his generation has made him standout....Even though Laxman over Amarnath for me....surprised as an Englishman you don’t rate Vengsarker who used to pile up runs in England

Not English 

He was as was Azhar 

[Cricketics]

40 minutes ago, maniac said:

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  

Have followed cricket and Tennis closely over last 15 years. I doubt anyone has followed these teo games as closely as I have together. 

 

Roger is hands down ahead of Sachin as a sportsman.

 

In fact for me he is the greatest sportsman for winning grandslams in different eras against top players. He had could not win a slam for 5 years in the middle yet reached finals many time and then still came back to win 3 more slams and now has 20 slams.

 

The guy beat the best of the best from young to old, from best back hand players to people with best serve in the game.

 

Its s hard to compare sportsman to sportsman of different sport but Roger indeed is the greatest.

 

Jordan and others have a case but Jordan was the previous era so I would put Roger as the greatest sportsman of this era shortly ahead of hometown champion Michael Phelps.

 

[Trichromatic]

46 minutes ago, 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. 

Define dominant period. 

 

Do you mean an year with loads of runs? Pretty sure that happened. Year with high average and lot of 100s, that too has happened.

 

Crazy period of 4 years like other ATGs. That too has happened. There is a list of batsman with highest averages over 50 tests and most ATG are below him in the list. 

 

If that doesn't qualify as dominant period then you're probably watching some other cricket.

 

Or probably by not having dominant period you meant that he didn't become **** like many other ATG after a dominant period.

 

[vvvslaxman]

Velu . you should start a thread to counter this. Is Dhoni the greatest bestest mostest charismatic batsman ever? :)

[maniac]

10 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Have followed cricket and Tennis closely over last 15 years. I doubt anyone has followed these teo games as closely as I have together. 

 

Roger is hands down ahead of Sachin as a sportsman.

 

In fact for me he is the greatest sportsman for winning grandslams in different eras against top players. He had could not win a slam for 5 years in the middle yet reached finals many time and then still came back to win 3 more slams and now has 20 slams.

 

The guy beat the best of the best from young to old, from best back hand players to people with best serve in the game.

 

Its s hard to compare sportsman to sportsman of different sport but Roger indeed is the greatest.

 

Jordan and others have a case but Jordan was the previous era so I would put Roger as the greatest sportsman of this era shortly ahead of hometown champion Michael Phelps.

 

Is this thread about Federer vs Sachin?

 

Way to miss the context 

[Cricketics]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Is this thread about Federer vs Sachin?

 

Way to miss the context 

You mentioned or were talking about Federer so I jumped in. May be you need to not talk or should stop taking interest when other person talks about Federer.

 

 

 

 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Cricketics said:

You mentioned or were talking about Federer so I jumped in. May be you need to not talk or should stop taking interest when other person talks about Federer.

 

 

 

 

Ok it’s being a trend now. Let me explain again and read very carefully.

 

I am not an expert on tennis so won’t get into minute details and detailed stats.

 

but I have enough general knowledge  to know that Federer has been around for atleast 17 years(you probably know his exact tenure  better) .

 

I know that  atleast 17 years for a fact because I remember watching the 2001 Wimbledon  qf between him and Sampras from start to finish ...anyway that is just refreshing that wonderful memory that is stuck with me and nothing to do with what I am about to say.

 

Federer correct me if I am wrong is not no.1 anymore? Is he? But I believe he is still in the top rankings.

 

I believe  Agassi and Sampras where still playing right around Federer’s rise, then came Roddick,Nadal and then came Murray,Del Porto, Djokovic etc etc....excuse me for this but  I am just throwing around names as a casual fan but you probably know the actual top players or more names but you get the idea.

 

Anyway the context was Federer is an ATG in tennis and the best ever for lasting 17+ years...being the highest grand slam winner,winning on every turf etc etc....

 

.do you agree with the argument that the only reason he accomplished all that was just because he played 17+ years?

 

I personally don’t agree with that because lasting 17+ years and competing and being in the top bracket across various phases and winning record titles is what makes him a cut above the rest. This despite not being no 1 ranked player during some of those years. 

 

Now let us transalate that to cricket.

 

There was Lara,Waugh,Ponting,Kallis,Flower,Sangakkara,Dravid etc etc spread across 24+ years of Sachin’s career...Sachin may have not  always been no.1,sometimes 2 or 3 even(not lower than that obviously ) but he adapted and lasted all those years,made the highest number of runs and 100s across 2 formats, highest run getter in World Cup,man of the series in a World Cup etc etc....so are we saying in this case Sachin only accomplished that due to longetivity or because he adapted and was cut above the rest in his sport.

 

Now hopefully I was able to get the point across to you and many others who argue that Sachin is not the best ever.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

[Tattieboy]

12 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ok it’s being a trend now. Let me explain again and read very carefully.

 

I am not an expert on tennis so won’t get into minute details and detailed stats.

 

but I have enough general knowledge  to know that Federer has been around for atleast 17 years(you probably know his exact tenure  better) .

 

I know that  atleast 17 years for a fact because I remember watching the 2001 Wimbledon  qf between him and Sampras from start to finish ...anyway that is just refreshing that wonderful memory that is stuck with me and nothing to do with what I am about to say.

 

Federer correct me if I am wrong is not no.1 anymore? Is he? But I believe he is still in the top rankings.

 

I believe  Agassi and Sampras where still playing right around Federer’s rise, then came Roddick,Nadal and then came Murray,Del Porto, Djokovic etc etc....excuse me for this but  I am just throwing around names as a casual fan but you probably know the actual top players or more names but you get the idea.

 

Anyway the context was Federer is an ATG in tennis and the best ever for lasting 17+ years...being the highest grand slam winner,winning on every turf etc etc....

 

.do you agree with the argument that the only reason he accomplished all that was just because he played 17+ years?

 

I personally don’t agree with that because lasting 17+ years and competing and being in the top bracket across various phases and winning record titles is what makes him a cut above the rest. This despite not being no 1 ranked player during some of those years. 

 

Now let us transalate that to cricket.

 

There was Lara,Waugh,Ponting,Kallis,Flower,Sangakkara,Dravid etc etc spread across 24+ years of Sachin’s career...Sachin may have not  always been no.1,sometimes 2 or 3 even(not lower than that obviously ) but he adapted and lasted all those years,made the highest number of runs and 100s across 2 formats, highest run getter in World Cup,man of the series in a World Cup etc etc....so are we saying in this case Sachin only accomplished that due to longetivity or because he adapted and was cut above the rest in his sport.

 

Now hopefully I was able to get the point across to you and many others who argue that Sachin is not the best ever.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

That will be Game Set and Match Sachin then 

[Cricketics]

19 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ok it’s being a trend now. Let me explain again and read very carefully.

 

I am not an expert on tennis so won’t get into minute details and detailed stats.

 

but I have enough general knowledge  to know that Federer has been around for atleast 17 years(you probably know his exact tenure  better) .

 

I know that  atleast 17 years for a fact because I remember watching the 2001 Wimbledon  qf between him and Sampras from start to finish ...anyway that is just refreshing that wonderful memory that is stuck with me and nothing to do with what I am about to say.

 

Federer correct me if I am wrong is not no.1 anymore? Is he? But I believe he is still in the top rankings.

 

I believe  Agassi and Sampras where still playing right around Federer’s rise, then came Roddick,Nadal and then came Murray,Del Porto, Djokovic etc etc....excuse me for this but  I am just throwing around names as a casual fan but you probably know the actual top players or more names but you get the idea.

 

Anyway the context was Federer is an ATG in tennis and the best ever for lasting 17+ years...being the highest grand slam winner,winning on every turf etc etc....

 

.do you agree with the argument that the only reason he accomplished all that was just because he played 17+ years?

 

I personally don’t agree with that because lasting 17+ years and competing and being in the top bracket across various phases and winning record titles is what makes him a cut above the rest. This despite not being no 1 ranked player during some of those years. 

 

Now let us transalate that to cricket.

 

There was Lara,Waugh,Ponting,Kallis,Flower,Sangakkara,Dravid etc etc spread across 24+ years of Sachin’s career...Sachin may have not  always been no.1,sometimes 2 or 3 even(not lower than that obviously ) but he adapted and lasted all those years,made the highest number of runs and 100s across 2 formats, highest run getter in World Cup,man of the series in a World Cup etc etc....so are we saying in this case Sachin only accomplished that due to longetivity or because he adapted and was cut above the rest in his sport.

 

Now hopefully I was able to get the point across to you and many others who argue that Sachin is not the best ever.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

I agree with most part but I wasn’t even discussing with you if Sachin is the greatest cricketer or not. You were discussing that with someone else above

 

I only mentioned Federer is the greatest sportsmen when I ovserved his name somewhere in your post. 

 

Two different discussions that - One for greatestt sportsman and one for greatest cricketer which is what you are trying to claim if I am right as per the part which I put in bold.

 

 

Btw, Federer in decline was winning top ATP tournaments. Tennis is not just about grandslams, its about full calendar with plenty of tournaments. There are just 4 grandslams, so to stay on top or in top 40 in ranking, you have to do well in other tournaments.

 

You lose points every time you skip a tournament which you have played that particular tournament a year before. So this is where Federer has been exceptional.in staying on top of tthings and coming back easily in top 10 even after injuries, hence for me the greatest sportsman.

 

Sachinis the greatest sportsman of this era .Yes indeed he is. The past era in fact now as he has retired and we are in new era.

[maniac]

9 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

I agree with most part but I wasn’t even discussing with you if Sachin is the greatest cricketer or not. You were discussing that with someone else above

 

I only mentioned Federer is the greatest sportsmen when I ovserved his name somewhere in your post. 

 

Two different discussions that - One for greatestt sportsman and one for greatest cricketer which is what you are trying to claim if I am right as per the part which I put in bold.

 

 

Btw, Federer in decline was winning top ATP tournaments. Tennis is not just about grandslams, its about full calendar with plenty of tournaments. There are just 4 grandslams, so to stay on top or in top 40 in ranking, you have to do well in other tournaments.

 

You lose points every time you skip a tournament which you have played that particular tournament a year before. So this is where Federer has been exceptional.in staying on top of tthings and coming back easily in top 10 even after injuries, hence for me the greatest sportsman.

 

Sachinis the greatest sportsman of this era .Yes indeed he is. The past era in fact now as he has retired and we are in new era.

Ah...now I see the problem

 

This is not to make you feel better but I have said this before and it is probably what a lot of icf feels anyways ...Going by the current trend Kohli is on his way to surpass Sachin.

 

Right now I think Kohli has slightly overtaken Dravid or tied with him.

 

it is Sachin,Sunny,Kohli and Dravid in that order right now.

 

A good England tour,good 2nd set of overseas tours and a good 50 over WC and he may tie with Sachin, 2 good 50 over WCs and he might surpass him.

Edited February 9, 2018 by maniac

[Tattieboy]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ah...now I see the problem

 

This is not to make you feel better but I have said this before and it is probably what a lot of icf feels anyways ...Going by the current trend Kohli is on his way to surpass Sachin.

 

Right now I think Kohli has slightly overtaken Dravid or tied with him.

 

it is Sachin,Sunny,Kohli and Dravid in that order right now.

 

A good England tour,good 2nd set of overseas tours and a good 50 over WC and he may tie with Sachin, 2 good 50 over WCs and he might surpass him.

Do I detect it's back to deuce and serving with new balls 

[maniac]

Just now, Tattieboy said:

Do I detect it's back to deuce and serving with new balls 

No by this point completed the diamond slam...that was just a masters tournament :)

[Tattieboy]

Just now, maniac said:

No by this point completed the diamond slam...that was just a masters tournament :)

Advantage Sachin and match point but going to be a long rally between him and Virat 

[Cricketics]

8 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Advantage Sachin and match point but going to be a long rally between him and Virat 

Good one.  Lol

[Cricketics]

16 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ah...now I see the problem

 

This is not to make you feel better but I have said this before and it is probably what a lot of icf feels anyways ...Going by the current trend Kohli is on his way to surpass Sachin.

 

Right now I think Kohli has slightly overtaken Dravid or tied with him.

 

it is Sachin,Sunny,Kohli and Dravid in that order right now.

 

A good England tour,good 2nd set of overseas tours and a good 50 over WC and he may tie with Sachin, 2 good 50 over WCs and he might surpass him.

May be, I don’t care honestly. I enjoyed the best of Sachin, and enjoying the best of Kohli.

 

In most Sachin vs Kohli threads or kohli vs Smith threads, which have been many here on icf already in the last few years, I have mentioned how Sachin is ahead of all since guys like Kohli/Smith have not even scored half the runs as Tendulkar yet. I have mentioned in all those threads that Smith is the current best in test and Kohli the current best in ODI’s. One final prediction I have made there is that Kohli isn’t the current best test bat, but will be the best bat  in all the formats by the time he retires from all forms of cricket in 5-7 years or may be later, who knows.

 

 

 

Last but not the least, I only posted in the thread when I read the name “Federer”.

 

P.s - I have my car number plate as “Federer” so you can imagine now why I posted in this thread the moment I read “Federer” mentioned in this thread. I could not care less about the comparison between Tendulkar and Kohli. I was never interested. I love talking about Federer though.

 

 

 

[Tattieboy]

7 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

May be, I don’t care honestly. I enjoyed the best of Sachin, and enjoying the best of Kohli.

 

In most Sachin vs Kohli threads or kohli vs Smith threads, which have been many here on icf already in the last few years, I have mentioned how Sachin is ahead of all since guys like Kohli/Smith have not even scored half the runs as Tendulkar yet. I have mentioned in all those threads that Smith is the current best in test and Kohli the current best in ODI’s. One final prediction I have made there is that Kohli isn’t the current best test bat, but will be the best bat  in all the formats by the time he retires from all forms of cricket in 5-7 years or may be later, who knows.

 

 

 

Last but not the least, I only posted in the thread when I read the name “Federer”.

 

P.s - I have my car number plate as “Federer” so you can imagine now why I posted in this thread the moment I read “Federer” mentioned in this thread. I could not care less about the comparison between Tendulkar and Kohli. I was never interested. I love talking about Federer though.

 

 

 

Andy Murray is better lol

[Jimmy Cliff]

48 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ok it’s being a trend now. Let me explain again and read very carefully.

 

I am not an expert on tennis so won’t get into minute details and detailed stats.

 

but I have enough general knowledge  to know that Federer has been around for atleast 17 years(you probably know his exact tenure  better) .

 

I know that  atleast 17 years for a fact because I remember watching the 2001 Wimbledon  qf between him and Sampras from start to finish ...anyway that is just refreshing that wonderful memory that is stuck with me and nothing to do with what I am about to say.

 

Federer correct me if I am wrong is not no.1 anymore? Is he? But I believe he is still in the top rankings.

 

I believe  Agassi and Sampras where still playing right around Federer’s rise, then came Roddick,Nadal and then came Murray,Del Porto, Djokovic etc etc....excuse me for this but  I am just throwing around names as a casual fan but you probably know the actual top players or more names but you get the idea.

 

Anyway the context was Federer is an ATG in tennis and the best ever for lasting 17+ years...being the highest grand slam winner,winning on every turf etc etc....

 

.do you agree with the argument that the only reason he accomplished all that was just because he played 17+ years?

 

I personally don’t agree with that because lasting 17+ years and competing and being in the top bracket across various phases and winning record titles is what makes him a cut above the rest. This despite not being no 1 ranked player during some of those years. 

 

Now let us transalate that to cricket.

 

There was Lara,Waugh,Ponting,Kallis,Flower,Sangakkara,Dravid etc etc spread across 24+ years of Sachin’s career...Sachin may have not  always been no.1,sometimes 2 or 3 even(not lower than that obviously ) but he adapted and lasted all those years,made the highest number of runs and 100s across 2 formats, highest run getter in World Cup,man of the series in a World Cup etc etc....so are we saying in this case Sachin only accomplished that due to longetivity or because he adapted and was cut above the rest in his sport.

 

Now hopefully I was able to get the point across to you and many others who argue that Sachin is not the best ever.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

Federer is a steady eddy who has "accumulated" 20 Grand Slams because he has played for around 2 decades without ever dominating his greatest rivals (negative H-H against Nadal and Djoker). Also happened to "choke" in Grand Slams against Nadal and Djoker with most of his final wins against Tier 2 and 3 opponents. Oh and he won the French Open only because Nadal went missing! Another longevity merchant like Giggs and SRT!

[Mariyam]

Yes

 

Sachin, Sachiiiiiiin