What Sachin Tendulkar has that Don Bradman didn’t - Atherton

[nikred]

I understand pressure can make activities harder' date=' but who can really say tendulkar feels more pressure to perform than someone on debut for any international team.[/quote'] Have you ever wondered how those tailenders manage to amass those runs when they know they are going to lose anyways. Its due to lack of pressure. Pressure does play on your mind.

[Sachinism]

Have you ever wondered how those tailenders manage to amass those runs when they know they are going to lose anyways. Its due to lack of pressure. Pressure does play on your mind.

to add to that, when they get close to the total and feel they could actually win, they usually get out as the pressure gets to them and they cant handle it

[Fontaine]

i dont really get the argument that tendulkar has more pressure to contend with and therefore better

I don't think it's an argument as much as it is speculation as I doubt anyone here actually saw Bradman play, and hence could make any valid judgement or comparison on the pressure he faced. However, to be fair, no one here is actually paid to voice their opinions. Atherton is. This is where Atherton's comparison between the two batsmen is not only narrow minded but, like I said, a very pedestrian argument as he's only focused on one difference that is the wearing of a helmet. No other differences are thought of or investigated which is exactly what makes his articles, in general, worth less than the paper they're printed on. As a matter of fact, what is particularly, shameful, in my opinion, is that Atherton implies that Richards looks down upon Tendulkar with the following quote taken well out of context: "It is, he said, no longer a man’s game." Instead of quoting Sir Viv by proxy, why didn't Atherton ask Richards specifically about Tendulkar, when after all, he is the article's primary subject? Because the answer, most likely, would not have fit into the narrow minded argument Atherton is blindly pushing forward. So, I'll do what Atherton didn't and provide you with Sir Richards thoughts directly on Tendulkar:

But he (Tendulkar) is a marvelous player. I have always been pretty fanatical when I see Sachin Tendulkar bat. I love the class, I love the talent and I would love to see him go a little bit longer with his Test match cricket because I still believe that there is lot to be accomplished.

[coffee_rules]

What kind of a tribute article is this? So much eloquence for just these words - "Bradman didn't wear helmets, Tendulkar did". He reeks of bitterness god knows for what reason. Colonial Hangover may be.

[Guest Gunner]

Atherton managed an International career with an average under 40. What does Atherton mek in comparison to Bradman then? It is usually a portrayal of intellectual inferiority to indulge in attacking the author of an article instead of the subject matter but on this one instance I will forgive myself. Like fontaine mentioned above Atherton's articles are mostly an exercise in tedium bereft of even a modicum of new thoughts or concepts.

[Guest Gunner]

What kind of a tribute article is this? So much eloquence for just these words - "Bradman didn't wear helmets' date=' Tendulkar did". He reeks of bitterness god knows for what reason. [b']Colonial Hangover may be.

Do we always have to bring that up when we debate an Englishman? It has been in excess of 60 years since they left and I do wonder sometimes who suffers from the hangover.

[nikred]

Do we always have to bring that up when we debate an Englishman? It has been in excess of 60 years since they left and I do wonder sometimes who suffers from the hangover.

Maybe your generation of Indians not my generation. :P

[The Outsider]

Is this supposed to be an article commending Tendulkar on 20 years of international cricket?

[Guest Gunner]

Maybe your generation of Indians not my generation. :P

Glad to hear that. :P

[Ram]

What a ridiculously one-sided article! Seems as though Atherton embarked on a single-minded mission to discredit Sachin’s greatness, which seems so cheap, especially coming at a time when Sachin is celebrating 20 years in the sport. The tone of the article stands out for the very odd theme – Why would anyone bring up Bradman and his so-called greatness, when it would have been more appropriate to reflect on the greatness of what has been truly a marvelous 20 year long career of Sachin? A case of sour-grapes? Or, if I were to adorn the ‘Fox news’ hat, a case of one white man rooting for another? When the rest of the world stands in awe and applauds Sachin for stupendous achievements, Atherton decided to stoop low to take below-the-belt shots. Atherton makes it seem as though it was Tendulkar’s fault that helmets and other protective gear are now around, when quite clearly, Sachin (and all other modern day batsmen) have been beneficiaries of the natural evolution in which the game has been played. Does that in any way, discredit what Sachin has achieved in his career? Absolutely not! Only blind-sighted commentators will compare players across eras.

[coffee_rules]

It is usually a portrayal of intellectual inferiority to indulge in attacking the author of an article instead of the subject matter but on this one instance I will forgive myself. Like fontaine mentioned above Atherton's articles are mostly an exercise in tedium bereft of even a modicum of new thoughts or concepts.

Do we always have to bring that up when we debate an Englishman? It has been in excess of 60 years since they left and I do wonder sometimes who suffers from the hangover.

:giggle: Seriously, I don't know how else to explain the article supposed to be a tribute to 20 years of cricket of an established player. Can you take a stab at it (explaining the tone of the article)?

[Fontaine]

The tone of the article stands out for the very odd theme – Why would anyone bring up Bradman and his so-called greatness, when it would have been more appropriate to reflect on the greatness of what has been truly a marvelous 20 year long career of Sachin?

Seriously, I don't know how else to explain the article supposed to be a tribute to 20 years of cricket of an established player. Can you take a stab at it (explaining the tone of the article)?

This isn't new for Atherton. What you have to understand is the motivation behind Atherton's articles. His individual accomplishments don't really merit any special consideration by the ECB and if any of you have had the misfortune of hearing him speak or comment then you know he has a special gift of taking even the most exciting of topics and turning it into something as dull as dishwater. His motivation is to be part of the ECB setup but unlike Ashley Giles who's got the favored son aura because of his part in Englands Ashes triumph, Atherton has neither the talent nor the accomplishments to back that up. So he routinely writes articles that pander to a conservative, traditional, almost colonial outlook of a lot of the ECB. In other words he's a kiss ass hoping that in a few years he can sneak into some position in the ECB like Ashley Giles and the other cronies.

[donkey]

Had I been a better batsman than "Pampered Bradman" if I had access to batting pads during my galli cricket days. I know one dumb*** who wouldn't know sure.

[goose]

Atherton is one of those stupid brigade that reckons Tendulkar might be great but never as great as Bradman, because, errr, Bradman was great first. If Bradman's career followed Tendulkar's, along with all the changes in the sport i.e. in reverse, i suspect most scribes would find it demeaning in the extreme to even consider Bradman to be in the league of Tendulkar.

[Guest Gunner]

:giggle: Seriously, I don't know how else to explain the article supposed to be a tribute to 20 years of cricket of an established player. Can you take a stab at it (explaining the tone of the article)?

I think everyone has mentioned that the tone of the article is derisive and lacks forethought. What more do you want?

[Guest Gunner]

This isn't new for Atherton. What you have to understand is the motivation behind Atherton's articles. His individual accomplishments don't really merit any special consideration by the ECB and if any of you have had the misfortune of hearing him speak or comment then you know he has a special gift of taking even the most exciting of topics and turning it into something as dull as dishwater. His motivation is to be part of the ECB setup but unlike Ashley Giles who's got the favored son aura because of his part in Englands Ashes triumph, Atherton has neither the talent nor the accomplishments to back that up. So he routinely writes articles that pander to a conservative, traditional, almost colonial outlook of a lot of the ECB. In other words he's a kiss ass hoping that in a few years he can sneak into some position in the ECB like Ashley Giles and the other cronies.

I think that is a major at Oxbridge. He is an alumni after all.

[goose]

Yeh, he studied at my college, Downing.

[The Dark Horse]

Its unfair to compare two batsmen of different eras. IMO Don>God. But Atherton:hehe: English cricket has plaenty of worries to contend with.

[vvvslaxman]

What Irfan Pathan has that Atherton didn't? He wasn't dismissed 17 times by Mcgrath

[The Dark Horse]

What Irfan Pathan has that Atherton didn't? He wasn't dismissed 17 times by Mcgrath

:haha: And Irfan is not brainless either:giggle: