Sachin=GOD Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Oh Wren and Martin ke champion, please explain how does the following statement imply what others think about Dhyanchand and not what you consider : And anyhow, here is your chance - who was better Shahbaz or Dhyanchand in your consideration? so, have you watched Don Bradman's batting???
The Outsider Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 so' date=' have you watched Don Bradman's batting???[/quote'] No, I haven't except for the occasional clips, Wren and Martin. Now will you answer my questions or record player will stay stuck?
zen Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Rett, you still don't get it do you? Bradman is considered the GREATEST AUSTRALIAN EVER, forget GREATEST CRICKETER/GREATEST BATSMAN, but the GREATEST AUSTRALIAN EVER. Now, if you went to any cricket ground in Australia and spoke to your average joe, you'd probably find 7/10, if not more, that would place Sachin higher than Bradman. Now, think for a moment, what it means for Australians to say that and what Sachin has achieved for them to say that. Here you have Indians saying that Tendulkar is not the greatest in spite of what he has achieved. And Tendulkar is considered as the God of cricket in India Now think for a moment, what it means for Indians to say that :winky: The truth probably is that if we had a Ponting or a Lara, and if Tendulkar were playing for another country (say Pakistan), we would have hyped up Ponting / Lara > Tendulkar and Bradman :P
zen Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 When it comes to sports, Ind and many of the fans are not that developed. Since Ind usually does well in cricket, it is the area where we look to hype things up. It is similar to how many in Pakistan hype up beating Ind in sports because that probably is the only avenue, where Pak can compete with India. Similarily for Ind, many focus on cricket and hyping up our stars as the best. The amount of time someone visiting Ind is asked abt Tendulkar and to draw comparisions with DBG is freakish. As we develop as a sporting nation, we will become more truer (and less biased) sports fans!
akshayxyz Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 akshay, The reason the avg is mid 50s is because of those great bowlers and indeed the next tier of BLee, KAsprowicz, Malinga,Ntini,Flintoff , Anderson etc etc etc ... these are all very good bowlers the likes of which almost non-existant in the 30s and 40s. Try asking the Bradman fans on where they rate bowlers such as Maurice Tate, Bill Bowes, Voce, Verity, Larwood, Bedser, Gubby Allen when compared to the modern bowlers and see how the discussion suddenly becomes an exercise of "Who can hurl the most smilies and insults". I mean how can anyone in their right mind pretend that a slow left arm bowler (like Toshack) be more potent than a strike bowler like Flintoff ? This is what it means when people do a straight comparison of SRTs avg with Bradmans Avg ( test or FC ) . If the Bradman fans are soo adamant about Bradmans greatness then they must also accept that bowlers like Toshack and Bowes and Tate were far better than the likes of Flintoff , Srinath, Kapil Dev etc ... I have tried to get a straight forward answer from the Bradman fans but all that comes back is smilies insults and innuendoes. Perhaps you might get a response. Exactly. But I do not think I am going to get any reasonable response either. If you noticed Rett's "100 m race" example to prove "peer domination" - in comparison to my snooker example - where I clearly mentioned why it is more analogous to difference in extent of domination between cricketing eras. (Indian domestic snooker scene being an era or two behind European scene).
CSK Fan Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 When it comes to sports, Ind and many of the fans are not that developed. Since Ind usually does well in cricket, it is the area where we look to hype things up. It is similar to how many in Pakistan hype up beating Ind in sports because that probably the only avenue, where Pak can compete with India. Similarily for Ind, many focus on cricket and hyping up our stars as the best if they have it in them to be amongst the best. The amount of time someone visiting Ind is asked abt Tendulkar and draw comparisions with DBG is freakish. As we develop as a sporting nation, we will become more truer (and less biased) sports fans! Actually I see quite the opposite. Developed nations take immense pride in their heroes, including sporting heroes. And this is never an objective excercise, i.e, no one looks just at numbers to say they are the best. They will not allow anyone to speak against them and defend them with lots of pride we Indians have been suffering from an inferiority complex for a long time. During my dad's time, they never used to speak about one aspect of India without bitterness. Everything was going downhill and everyone was corrupted. Its only when we come to the forfront in all aspects, setting up new milestones in all areas, that we are finally starting to take pride in our achievements and having the feel good factor Unfortunately for some Indians, that complex still remains. So an Indian can never be as good as people from those 'advanced' country no matter what he achieves. We would rather pull our own down in the name of being 'objective' than admit that even Indians can be the best
The Outsider Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Actually I see quite the opposite. Developed nations take immense pride in their heroes, including sporting heroes. And this is never an objective excercise. They will not allow anyone to speak against them and defend them with lots of pride we Indians have been suffering from an inferiority complex for a long time. During my dad's time, they never used to speak about one aspect of India without bitterness. Everything was going downhill and everyone was corrupted. Its only when we come to the forfront in all aspects that we are finally starting to take pride in our achievements Unfortunately for some Indians, that complex still remains. So an Indian can never be as good as people from those 'advanced' country no matter what he achieves. We would rather pull our own down in the name of being 'objective' than admit that even Indians can be the best Yeah and now we seem to be outdoing the developed nations by claiming Dhyanchand was the best hockey player, but Bradman wasn't the best batsman because he played in an amateur era and no one has seem him play. :hysterical:
zen Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Actually I see quite the opposite. Developed nations take immense pride in their heroes, including sporting heroes. And this is never an objective excercise. They will not allow anyone to speak against them and defend them with lots of pride we Indians have been suffering from an inferiority complex for a long time. During my dad's time, they never used to speak about one aspect of India without bitterness. Everything was going downhill and everyone was corrupted. Its only when we come to the forfront in all aspects that we are finally starting to take pride in our achievements Unfortunately for some Indians, that complex still remains. So an Indian can never be as good as people from those 'advanced' country no matter what he achieves. We would rather pull our own down in the name of being 'objective' than admit that even Indians can be the best when translated to Tendulkar, almost all believe that he is amongst the best players the world has seen and an AT great .... Ofc, there is no need to hype him as the greatest when he isn't one. The inclination to hype him as the best at any cost is unwarranted and nothing to do with national pride or whatever. It is more like an obsession My 2 c
CSK Fan Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Yeah and now we seem to be outdoing the developed nations by claiming Dhyanchand was the best hockey player' date=' but Bradman wasn't the best batsman because he played in an amateur era and no one has seem him play. :hysterical:[/quote'] As I said, taking pride in our heroes is never an objective excercise
zen Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Exactly. But I do not think I am going to get any reasonable response either. If you noticed Rett's "100 m race" example to prove "peer domination" - in comparison to my snooker example - where I clearly mentioned why it is more analogous to difference in extent of domination between cricketing eras. (Indian domestic snooker scene being an era or two behind European scene). You compared the difference in standard in the same era to show the difference in standards b/w different era. If you still don't get it, Bradman played in the best scene of his era, much like the European scene that you are trying to show, while the Indian cricket schene would be similar to the scene that you discribed (CK Naydu, Vijay Merchant maybe) To take the those who played in the best scene of that era and compare them with the weakest of this era is ....
The Outsider Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Exactly. But I do not think I am going to get any reasonable response either. If you noticed Rett's "100 m race" example to prove "peer domination" - in comparison to my snooker example - where I clearly mentioned why it is more analogous to difference in extent of domination between cricketing eras. (Indian domestic snooker scene being an era or two behind European scene). Your peer domination 'rebuttal' has already been smoked in case you have not noticed and are sticking your head in the sand : The eras are not disconnected. There are several greats whose careers have spanned a long time, during which many changes to the game have been made, but all the greats adapted their games to maintain roughly the same level of performance. Bradman and Miller played together, Miller and Sobers overlapped, Sobers and Gavaskar overlapped. It's not like Sobers was averaging 100 during his overlap with Miller and started averaging 30 during his overlap with Gavaskar. Cricket has changed a lot ever since Tendulkar debuted, but he still remains a 50-60 averaging batsman. The second bolded part is not for amusement purpose. It's a direct corollary of your argument that the strength of Bradman's peers could have been poor. If that were indeed the case, you should not hesitate to claim Rameez as a better batsman than Hammond. Ironically, that is the only thing which can support your 'peer domination theory falls flat' argument - to prove that Hammond was as mediocre a batsman as Rameez.
zen Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 I wonder how we would rate Tendulkar, if he played for Pakistan :giggle:
The Outsider Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 As I said' date=' taking pride in our heroes is never an objective excercise[/quote'] Taking pride in heroes in not the same as being blinded my jingoism. Please don't sully me by equating your jingoistic and illogical foolhardiness to my objective pride in heroes.
CSK Fan Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Taking pride in heroes in not the same as being blinded my jingoism. Please don't sully me by equating your jingoistic and illogical foolhardiness to my objective pride in heroes. Define objective pride. Sounds like an oxymoron to me
The Outsider Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Define objective pride. Sounds like an oxymoron to me Being proud of an accomplishment defined by objective criteria, rather than emotional attachment to it. Pride need not always arise out of jingoism.
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