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

[Sachin=GOD]

I would pay money to see how you can make posts like this with a straight face' date=' after claiming Dhyanchand to be the greatest hockey player on one hand. :hysterical:[/quote'] please read that post again - I never said that "I consider him to be the greatest hockey player". I only said that he's widely regarded as the greatest player ever.

[The Outsider]

please read that post again - I never said that "I consider him to be the greatest hockey player". I only said that he's widely regarded as the greatest player ever.

Uhh...okay...whatever you say! :hysterical:

With all due respect - kabhi naam bhi sunna hai Major Dyhyan Chand ka????? He was so great that many a times the opposition team simply refused to take the field against him. The Holland team had his hockey stick checked for magnets hidden in it that caused him to score goals. There is a statue of Major Dhyan Chand in Vienna that has 4 hands and 4 sticks. After seeing his prolific play at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Hitler offered him German citizenship and an offer to promote him to the rank of a Colonel (which he of course, refused) , at one stage in his career he toured East Africa and scored 60+ goals in just around 20 odd matches.............and his age in that tour was 42 or 43. On another tour to New Zealand he scored over 200 goals in a single tour. He is widely regarded as the greatest hockey player to have ever graced the game and was called a "magician with a stick". As for the NDTV sport person of the century, these days most people have'nt heard the name of Major Dhyan Chand or even if they have, seeing the current state of Indian Hockey, many people may not think that Indian hockey ever had such an outstanding player (for your information the Indian hockey team was one of the most successful sports teams of all time, winning 8 Olympic Golds among other honors)

So, let's hear it now - who was a better hockey player, Dhyanchand or Shahbaz Ahmed?

[Sachin=GOD]

Uhh...okay...whatever you say! :hysterical: So, let's hear it now - who was a better hockey player, Dhyanchand or Shahbaz Ahmed?

So, have you watched Don Bradman's batting or (as I suspect) your "opinion" about his "greatness" is based on Statsguru, cricket writers, match reports, ex cricketers etc :hmmm:

[Dhruv200]

Sachin has achieved more than what Bradman achieved

[The Outsider]

So' date=' have you watched Don Bradman's batting or (as I suspect) your "opinion" about his "greatness" is based on Statsguru, cricket writers, match reports, ex cricketers etc :hmmm:[/quote'] Have you watched Dhyanchand play before extolling his greatness and calling him an outstanding player?

[Sachin=GOD]

Have you watched Dhyanchand play before extolling his greatness and calling him an outstanding player?

Have you watched Bradman play before extolling his greatness and calling him an outstanding player?

[The Outsider]

Have you watched Bradman play before extolling his greatness and calling him an outstanding player?

I never said you have to watch someone play before extolling his greatness. But you seem to be making that claiming selectively for Bradman and not for Dhyanchand. You probably haven't even watched more than the occasional clips and highlights of Gavaskar and Kapil.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

The Indian hockey that won so many gold medal in the past isn't great. I bet today's Ind team would easily pawn that great Ind hockey team. That great hockey team wouldn't even know how to play on astro-turf properly, the game has changed a lot :P

[Sachin=GOD]

I never said you have to watch someone play before extolling his greatness.

So you are basing You Own Opinion about the greatest cricketer on what other people have seen or heard or written (in case of Bradman) as against what you have actually seen (in case of Goddy). I'm sorry to say but I cannot, under any circumstances base my opinions about something solely on what others 50-60 years ago might have seen or heard or written. I have seen Goddy bat and I am basing my opinion on what I have seen, not what I've heard from ex cricketers like Gavaskar or Benuad or Warne or Shashtri etc or writers like Bhogle or Roebuck or Sambit Bal etc.

But you seem to be making that claiming selectively for Bradman and not for Dhyanchand.

Again, I said he is widely regarded the greatest. Nowhere did I say that I consider him to be the greatest.

You probably haven't even watched more than the occasional clips and highlights of Gavaskar and Kapil.

And how could I have watched Gavaskar live in action when he retired in 1987 and I was'nt even born then

[zen]

so I take it that, for you, Shabhaz Ahmed is greater than Dhyanchand because you haven't seen Dhyanchand play!

[yoda]

Same old regurgitated arguments. :hahaha: See the videos, look how stupid they look. LOL! Ofc DUH, they played in the 1930s. Hello! According to some of you greatness of the past simply gets replaced by greatness of present and which in turn by greatness of the future all because of natural progression of man kind. I am glad most people have the sense to understand the concept of time and where things stand historically with respect to time and how to NORMALIZE them to a common denominator when comparing greatness across eras to arrive at the so called great of all time.

[The Outsider]

So you are basing You Own Opinion about the greatest cricketer on what other people have seen or heard or written (in case of Bradman) as against what you have actually seen (in case of Goddy). I'm sorry to say but I cannot, under any circumstances base my opinions about something solely on what others 50-60 years ago might have seen or heard or written. I have seen Goddy bat and I am basing my opinion on what I have seen, not what I've heard from ex cricketers like Gavaskar or Benuad or Warne or Shashtri etc or writers like Bhogle or Roebuck or Sambit Bal etc.

That's such a stupid line of thinking. Did you ever see World War I? Did you see the Kargil war? Kargil war was bigger than World War I?

Again, I said he is widely regarded the greatest. Nowhere did I say that I consider him to be the greatest.

Wrong. For example, "He was so great that many a times the opposition team simply refused to take the field against him." The statement has nothing to do with him being regarded as the greatest. You are stating your opinion.

And how could I have watched Gavaskar live in action when he retired in 1987 and I was'nt even born then

So, Gavaskar does not qualify for greatness because you did not watch him? But Hayden would make your all time XI because you watched him? You did not answer - is Shahbaz Ahmed a greater hockey player than Dhyanchand? That's the closest to the Bradman-Tendulkar analogy you will get.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[akshayxyz]

You have conveniently ignored my query - which was: How do you defend/argue-against that, "40% ( random ) better than peers" in Don's era is better/worse than "2.5% (random) better than peers" in highly competitive modern era???

Some factors that makes Bradman the greatest batsman: 1. peer domination 2. batting records like 300 in a day (exceptional SR) 3. highest number of 100s per innings 4. unmatched avg of 100, after 50 tests and 20 years of playing cricket Bradman shouldn't be compared with others. And you only have to take a bunch of cricketers to compare the quality. Unless the implication is that even someone like Rameez Raja is better than all-time greats like Hammond. LINK Cricinfo World XI: Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Garry Sobers, Adam Gilchrist, Malcolm Marshall, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee Cricinfo, The Second XI: Sunil Gavaskar, Barry Richards, George Headley, Brian Lara, Wally Hammond, Imran Khan, Alan Knott, Bill O'Reilly, Fred Trueman, Muttiah Muralitharan, SF Barnes If fingers are raised against someone like Bradman, then rest assured they can be raised against Tendulkar to the point where it can be difficult to say he is better than the likes of Lara or Richards or Sobers. Personally, I rate Sobers as #2 (after Bradman)

[Sachin=GOD]

@Outsider & Rett: You have still not answered my question - have you seen Bradman's batting - At least a few full innings in videos???

[zen]

You have conveniently ignored my query - which was: How do you defend/argue-against that, "40% ( random ) better than peers" in Don's era is better/worse than "2.5% (random) better than peers" in highly competitive modern era???

I think I replied to that. may be it was not the reply you were looking for :P Anyways, will give it another try: Rough examples Example 1: 5 contestants for a 100 mts race Grp A 1. 5 sec 2. 10 sec 3. 10.1 sec 4. 12 sec 5. 15 sce Grp B 1. 10 2. 10.1 3. 10.2 4. 11 5. 11.5 The one with 5 sec is the best, because irrespective of which grp or time period he belongs to Example 2: Dhyanchand Peer domination only comes in when some folks try to suggest that scoring at 100 in 1930s was easy. In that case, those folks have to show that even someone like Rameez Raja > Wally Hammond :winky:

[zen]

@Outsider & Rett: You have still not answered my question - have you seen Bradman's batting - At least a few full innings in videos???

what's wrong with you? :hmmmm2:

[zen]

Btw, I did a search to find out how do the batsmen fare when playing against both: - McGrath and Warne LINK - Wasim and Waqar LINK - Donald and Pollock LINK - Ambrose and Walsh LINK Tendulkar's numbers when McGrath-Warne, Wasim-Waqar and Donald-Pollock have played together: 16T, 31I, 1257R @ 40.54 w/ 4 100s :winky: I couldn't see his name on the Ambrose-Walsh combo (min criteria was 200 runs) :P

[akshayxyz]

I think I replied to that. may be it was not the reply you were looking for :P Anyways, will give it another try: Rough examples Example 1: 5 contestants for a 100 mts race Grp A 1. 5 sec 2. 10 sec 3. 10.1 sec 4. 12 sec 5. 15 sce Grp B 1. 10 2. 10.1 3. 10.2 4. 11 5. 11.5 The one with 5 sec is the best, because irrespective of which grp or time period he belongs to Example 2: Dhyanchand Peer domination only comes in when some folks try to suggest that scoring at 100 in 1930s was easy. In that case, those folks have to show that even someone like Rameez Raja > Wally Hammond :winky:

That still does not answer my question. - Wrong example. The 100 meter race example is valid only if they are occurring in similar conditions..or same tournament/era. In fact, even if you take example of races, I am sure - margin of victory in races in 30s would be more than margin of victory in 2010.. That does not make 30s best runner better than 2010's best runner. Also - Keep Dhyanchand out of this - that is different sport, different rules, different dynamics..e.g. Dhyanchand would get full match to exercise his skills, even if he happens to make a mistake. In cricket - One moment of brilliance from bowler/fielder, or one moment of lapse can call curtains to batting innings. There is hardly any argument about the quality of present day bowlers/fielders that reduces the chances of playing long innings by long margin. Try again. P.S. One more factor due to global warming, average temperature has increased by about couple of degrees, and with batsmen loaded with so much stuff, it becomes uncomfortable to carry through long innings :P.