Jump to content

Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud

Feed

By Feed
in Cricket Talk

Bradman is the greatest, Sachin comes only second: Waugh, Benaud  

2 members have voted

  1. 1.


Recommended Posts

99.94 Newbie

99.94

Posted
Posted
Well you are the sane voice then. As some are actually saying he is the best player ever, as in put him in a time machine and play him today he would be the best in world. This whole thread is waste of time. As to summarise these are the facts. 1. Bradman is the most dominant player of an era. Thus he could be called the greatest on this fact. 2. Tendulkar is in reality the greates batsman ever. As in put all the greats from the past and let them play tommorow then Tendulkar would be the best. Thus he could be called the greates batsman ever on this.
Exactly. You can only judge a player from what they achieved in their time, therefore Bradman is the best. Where is the definitive proof that Tendulkar is the best? If this thread has achieved anything, it is that Tendukar is not a good as he is made out to be.
Link to comment
King Tendulkar Newbie

King Tendulkar

Posted
Posted
Exactly. You can only judge a player from what they achieved in their time, therefore Bradman is the best. Where is the definitive proof that Tendulkar is the best? If this thread has achieved anything, it is that Tendukar is not a good as he is made out to be.
Those are your rules of engagement. I say the title of who is the greatest batsman ever should be judged by who ACTUALLY is the greatest batsman ever. Not who was best in their era. On that basis Tendulkar is the best. Also please note Bradman was greatest of a very amateur era and uncompetitive era. He played only one competitive team in England and only toured one country in England. So yes he was the most dominant player of his era but it was a very uncompetitive era, against a very small goup of players
Link to comment
99.94 Newbie

99.94

Posted
Posted
Those are your rules of engagement. I say the title of who is the greatest batsman ever should be judged by who ACTUALLY is the greatest batsman ever. Now who was best in their era. On that basis Tendulkar is the best.
There is absolutely no defintive proof that Tendulkar is the best.
Link to comment
Sachinism Newbie

Sachinism

Posted
Posted
No it still doesn't prove your unsubstantiated claim of Larwood's bouncers were only chest high. You :fail: there. Obviously you had a biased view there. An Indian fan with Tendulkar as avatar is giving fair and balanced opinion about Tendulkar vs Bradman argument. We all know how "unbiased" it can be. :cantstop:
Whats with this constant BS about fanboys and biased views just because we're fans of Sachin. What a joke you guys are; constantly attacking the posters
Link to comment
King Tendulkar Newbie

King Tendulkar

Posted
Posted
Sehwag averages 91 against Pakistan. In those matches sachin averages 44. So there is no guarantee tendulkar would not have averaged 45 in 1930s
He would average close to 300. Ronaldo and Messi if played in 30s football game would score 10 goals a game. Tiger Woods would win each tournament by 30 shots plus. Federer would not drop a game in whole season. Now take of the rose tined glasses of the 30s and get in the real world
Link to comment
King Tendulkar Newbie

King Tendulkar

Posted
Posted
Sehwag averages 91 against Pakistan. In those matches sachin averages 44. So there is no guarantee tendulkar would not have averaged 45 in 1930s
Yep and the army of alexander the greats would defeat the USA army of 2010:hysterical::hysterical: As there is no guarantee that USA army could defeat a pre BC army:hysterical:
Link to comment
99.94 Newbie

99.94

Posted
Posted
Well no 30s player can be in the debate as the greatest ACTUAL batsman ever. Thus clear Bradman is not the best
Even though you admitted he was earlier.. There's just no point arguing with you. Thank goodness there's an 'ignore poster' button.
Link to comment
King Tendulkar Newbie

King Tendulkar

Posted
Posted
Well you are the sane voice then. As some are actually saying he is the best player ever, as in put him in a time machine and play him today he would be the best in world. This whole thread is waste of time. As to summarise these are the facts. 1. Bradman is the most dominant player of an era. Thus he could be called the greatest on this fact. 2. Tendulkar is in reality the greates batsman ever. As in put all the greats from the past and let them play tommorow then Tendulkar would be the best. Thus he could be called the greates batsman ever on this.
Nope this is what I said!
Link to comment
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted
Outsider - to actually be able to explode the numbers of Don Bradman we need a 90 year old who has been an avid cricket watcher. Preferably English or even an unbiased Australian if such a person exists. There is, I repeat, no substitute for watching the actual action through one's own eyes. I certainly doubt whether Bradman's technique of altering his grip while playing backwards of square on the legside would have worked in today's cricket. You decide that for yourself. A pity then that M F Hussain does not know too much about cricket :)! [For all I know, he could be a cricket enthusiast :)]
his expertise lies in licking tongue at Bollywood actresses
Link to comment
Dhondy Newbie

Dhondy

Posted
Posted
Consider this: Hansie Cronje has dismissed Tendulkar 5 times - as many as Donald and one more than Pollock - and should get as much credit as Donald for keeping Tendulkar's average down against South Africa. I would have shown a passing interest in your analysis, if you had considered frequency and total number of dismissals by a bowler as well but without all that it is basically a waste of time. Btw, no bowler owned a batsman as much as McGrath did against Lara. Check out the number of dismissals and the frequency.
As I said, you have won. I am overwhelmed by your Nobel laureate like intelligence and am about to see my therapist now to recover from being so utterly outclassed. Rejoice.
Link to comment
vvvslaxman Grand Master

vvvslaxman

Posted
Posted
That tactic was practiced for a grand total of 3 tests and you are claiming that as clinching evidence tells all that is needed to know of how desperate the pro-DGB party is. And yeah SRT faced far more faster bowlers than DGB ever did. These guys dont need the presence of close-in fielders to cause serious injury and it happens far more regularly than a one of test series of which DGB missed one. There is no shortage of such video clips on YT. In his very first series SRT got hit by Waqar on his face ... nobody even keeps track of these things.Ambrose had a repution of breaking fingers. But the OTT response by Aus to Bodyline tells us how gentlemanly things were back then. Compare that to the open press conf of captains promising chin music and grevious bodily harm. They dont even spare the tailenders these days. Sorry you got no case. .
90% of them are crap :cantstop: . Even the other 10% he didn't dominate. Probably spinners.Not pacers like say a Veeru, Kapil Dev, Gilly, Richards dominated. All you could come up with us war wounds of Tendulkar. It was not like every batsman in those matches were seriously hurt like in Bodyline series where they targeted the body at express pace. What is next ? Dravid got hit by Sohdat Hossain at 128k so he is better than Larwood? Take out Tendulkar's performance against those bowlers. What did he end up with? He still averages only 65!! So you got no case. If i extend your logic it won't be just Bradman > Tendulkar it will be whole lot of batsmen > Tendulkar.
Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...