Zap_Brannigan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 yao ming! Yuna Kim! Link to comment
vvvslaxman Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan :cantstop: Link to comment
bunny Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Agreed with Zap. You can't compare cricket with chess or squash or some lame **** like that. Dude squash is not lame. It requires more fitness and is played in a lot of countries. And if you are not ready to compare cricket with other sports, then why start this nonsense at all. Link to comment
Zap_Brannigan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Dude squash is not lame. It requires more fitness and is played in a lot of countries. And if you are not ready to compare cricket with other sports, then why start this nonsense at all. No one said its lame but its not competitively played by the masses. As is cases with such sports, the competitive level is much less compared to a much more popular sports. The skill level involved is just not that good. Its true in all sports. Cricket teams of the 1920's will lose to the current teams. WR of athlete records in 1960's are all almost broken by now. Link to comment
bunny Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No one said its lame but its not competitively played by the masses. As is cases with such sports' date=' the competitive level is much less compared to a much more popular sports. The skill level involved is just not that good. Its true in all sports. Cricket teams of the 1920's will lose to the current teams. WR of athlete records in 1960's are all almost broken by now.[/quote'] Cricket itself is played by a handful of countries. And if you are trying to say that cricket has no scope of improvement as far as technique is concerned, then you are sadly mistaken. The game and the technique will be quite a lot different in 2100 than it is now. Link to comment
Zap_Brannigan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Cricket itself is played by a handful of countries. And if you are trying to say that cricket has no scope of improvement as far as technique is concerned' date=' then you are sadly mistaken. The game and the technique will be quite a lot different in 2100 than it is now.[/quote'] Not saying that cricket has nothing to improve upon. I believe that in 50 years most of the batsman will be better than Sachin overall. I believe that very few sports has reached a saturation level that is consistent with todays level in most sports. I believe that a Dhoni is about as good as say a C Ronaldo. Cricket is played in very few countries but the sheer number that plays the game is what separates it from Squash, Badminton and its like. There could be a Cuban power hitter who could belt sixes at will had he played cricket from a young age, but we have seen such type of players in Flintoff, KP, Dhoni who all had to adjust their game in order to survive. Basically i believe that Cricket players skill is as good as it could be at this point in time whether Cubans are playing or not. I am not convinced thats the case with some other sports. Ofcourse, all these are not based on facts or numbers and as i mentioned earlier these are just my opinion. Link to comment
bunny Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Not saying that cricket has nothing to improve upon. I believe that in 50 years most of the batsman will be better than Sachin overall. I believe that very few sports has reached a saturation level that is consistent with todays level in most sports. I believe that a Dhoni is about as good as say a C Ronaldo. Cricket is played in very few countries but the sheer number that plays the game is what separates it from Squash, Badminton and its like. There could be a Cuban power hitter who could belt sixes at will had he played cricket from a young age, but we have seen such type of players in Flintoff, KP, Dhoni who all had to adjust their game in order to survive. Basically i believe that Cricket players skill is as good as it could be at this point in time whether Cubans are playing or not. I am not convinced thats the case with some other sports. Ofcourse, all these are not based on facts or numbers and as i mentioned earlier these are just my opinion. Ok got your point. But I respectfully disagree. Link to comment
fuub Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I would like to see Lebron James and Jordan fielding, if they played cricket to the dedication they put in B.Ball imagine what the new definition of quick single would be Link to comment
Aadhavzone Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Something resisting me to accept Sachin as complete match winner; may be he leaves the grip at end in crucial stages. Anyway none can come near him & he is the best batsmen in the world! :) Link to comment
punjabi_khota Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Dude squash is not lame. It requires more fitness and is played in a lot of countries. And if you are not ready to compare cricket with other sports, then why start this nonsense at all. How is physical fitness the only criteria now ? And regarding popularity, there are more players of cricket in Delhi than players of squash in the world. It is a totally spectator less sport, and has no public appeal at all. Who the **** cares what 2 guys are doing a closed rooom, when no one can even see them. :hehe: Link to comment
triam Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 So what is the term "greatest sportsman" really mean? Excelling in the most popular of sports? Being very good in a very tough but not that popular sport? Or being so good athletically that you can transition between sports and be equally or close to equally good in some sports? If it is just numbers then SRK is the greatest actor of all time, because of the number of fans he has. Link to comment
punjabi_khota Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 So what is the term "greatest sportsman" really mean? Excelling in the most popular of sports? Being very good in a very tough but not that popular sport? Or being so good athletically that you can transition between sports and be equally or close to equally good in some sports? If it is just numbers then SRK is the greatest actor of all time, because of the number of fans he has. Invalid comparison. The popularity of cricket is not only in terms of fans but also players. I don't think sports like badminton,squash,blah blah have nearly as many aspiring players as cricket. In terms of world sport, soccer is the only one that is without doubt more popular. Basketball and tennis are the only other ones I can think of that come close. American football/rugby/hockey would be next I guess. Link to comment
Nova Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Srinath said " It is great to see him complete 20 years in international cricket. I don't think any other sportsperson in Asia has ever achieved such a feat," Correction: Imran Khan and Javed Miandad played for more than 20 years too. Link to comment
DomainK Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No other sport is played for five days. No other sport is played as frequently. No other sport tests your physical and mental strength as much as cricket does. The number of hours a cricketer spends on the ground is unparalleled. Link to comment
Celeste Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No other sport is played for five days. No other sport is played as frequently. No other sport tests your physical and mental strength as much as cricket does. The number of hours a cricketer spends on the ground is unparalleled. But in Squash players with dodgy fitness cannot last a single match. Squash players do not have the luxury of scoring a century in one innings and and walk out and relax in the dressing room getting massages while some substitute does your job in the field. Link to comment
punjabi_khota Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 But in Squash players with dodgy fitness cannot last a single match. Squash players do not have the luxury of scoring a century in one innings and and walk out and relax in the dressing room getting massages while some substitute does your job in the field. Inzi ? Link to comment
triam Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No other sport is played for five days. No other sport is played as frequently. No other sport tests your physical and mental strength as much as cricket does. The number of hours a cricketer spends on the ground is unparalleled. No other sport is played for five days - wrong , im sure you know of the tour de france. as frequently - Wrong. physical strength - Wrong by a mile. mental strength -Maybe, although individual sports are tougher mentally, since there is no one else is around, to support you, imagine a tennis player after a marathon 5 hour match, where his body is broken down to pieces and has to have the mental strength to compete one more game. The number of hours a cricketer spends on the ground is unparalleled - for practice or actually playing the game? Link to comment
Nova Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No other sport is played for five days. No other sport is played as frequently. No other sport tests your physical and mental strength as much as cricket does. The number of hours a cricketer spends on the ground is unparalleled. Don't agree with you. Any sport played at the highest professional level is very demanding. Link to comment
DomainK Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Yes, any sport is demanding, but cricket is played for longer hours. (Though I admit fatties like Inzi are not found in most other sports). Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now