'Tendulkar better than Bradman' : Zaheer Abbas

[pensionplan]

spoken like a true Bradman Fanatic ... ( and BTW by having a monicker that says "srtfanaticssucks" aint making you a mahan atma ) .. And ? I can play this game of hurling insults ... here sample the following 2 posts : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1214909&postcount=444 http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1213481&postcount=368 Iam sure you have a way to twist that around as shovering praise on modern batsman ... The fact of the matter is other than hurling insults and innuendo there is hardly anything original (never mind earth shattering ) you bring to the table. And going by your logic SMG must also be a SRT "Fanatic" as he bowed to him on live TV. And speaking of "Stats to suit my POV" .... all of your comrades went underground the moment those videos were unearthed highlighting the great phashht bowlers from 30s and 40s plying their skills with keepers standing up and pitches covered . Like I said before ignorance has no cure and the Bradman fanatics are some of the most ignorant and next only to those inhabiting the green ghetto across LOC. And BTW long before you joined the forum I had said that VS , BCL and Ponting and even perhaps RD stood good chances of equaling or breaking DGB's records if they played in those same circumstances. Some SRT fanatic with jaundiced view I must be ehhh ? Move on buddy the likes of you are dime a dozen on this forum.

So these are the posts you got to show I undermined Tendulkar. Nice. You are more proving the point that you are a true srtfanatic and nothing else picking on anyone that is debating a point as those posts you are pointing to suggest. Anyone who can follow those trail of posts can see that. You can call me a Bradman fanatic or anything you want, I am fine with it. But Tendulkar as great as he is and I am a huge of his as opposed to being a fanatic is in a group of players like Richards, Border, Lara, Ponting that at one time or the other over a period of time amazed with their batting display and a debate can be had who among them is the best based on various parameters one can come up with. But in that group is each one better than Bradman. I have not yet seen a compelling argument as yet. And by the way if the likes of me a dime a dozen on this forum then what does that make you? The greatest srtfanatic there ever is.

[maniac]

Wasn't Abbas Sunil Gvaskar's only test wicket???

[Nirvanam]

WISDEN' date=' when it rated Tendulkar the second best ever in 2002, said it perfectly. Something along the lines like, "Tendulkar can never be the greatest batsman of all time. That spot has already been taken".[/quote']That has to be one of the stupidest logic ever! I mean come on, which rational human being will rule out the infinite time left in the universe in a go. Forget the infinity of time...within 8-9 yrs itself that logic has shown to be hollow and stupid. There are already two other batsmen who share the best category along side Don - Sachin and Lara. People consider Bradman the best because, as evidenced in that stupid statement from Wisden above, they want to. Not because there is any rationality in their beliefs but it is what they want to believe. The world is what we believe it to be.

[Nirvanam]

And you need to do the same when it comes to other players instead of being hung up on this one player and trying to downplay other players who are as good and bettered Tendulkar depending what makes a great player in ones estimates. The game is much bigger than a player or two.

Sorry, you are hung up on this one player called Bradman as the best ever batsman in the History of Test cricket. It is when you guys get hung up on someone whom you neither saw playing nor have any decent idea of the opposition he played against yet claim he is the best because your fathers and grandfathers and mothers and grandmothers consider him to be. History repeats itself. In western Europe for quite a few centuries ppl believed the earth was flat. When one man suggested it wasn;t they killed him. It took another century to change the minds of the later generations. It will take time for the change in beliefs to happen...it has started. Every paradigm goes thru a process of change. As known to the west only recently from Kuhn's description. A paradigm shift happens goes thru the following stages. 1.The existing paradigm encounters anomalies (Sachin hammers minnows and that too Away) 2. Initially anomaly is ignored (WI,SA,Ind are essentially minnows for Bradman is ignored) 3. People try to explain the anomaly with the existing paradigm (oh but Braddy boy was way better than his peers) 4. A new paradigm is proposed in which the anomaly is resolved (what we are proposing) 5. The establishment rejects the proposal often resorting to ridicule (shining example is rett) 6. The new paradigm finally gains acceptance as it accounts for new observations (Hayden bashing 386 v/s Zim, Viru scoring 293 in a day, Viru and Lara scoring 2 triples, every tom, dick, and harry or amar, akbar, and anthony feasting on minnows) It may not change the beliefs of ppl who started watching Sachin play only after they themselves were > 30 yrs old (coz by that time the rigidity of world-view is established in the mind). The only way that paradigm can go out of existence is beautifully described by Max Planck that great Physicist who was facing criticism from other greats like Einstein about his quantum theory. Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die" Unless you are willing to test your assumptions of your world-view I'll bet that you will carry this belief of Bradman = best with you on your funeral pyre. But by that time there would be enough new knowledge and methods for rational, objective comparison which would establish that no batsmen in the history of the Test game are greater than Sachin, Lara, and Bradman. Ppl who still cling on to the old notions will die as grumpy old men and women. You cannot stop the change in paradigm. Just in case cricket goes back to being played by only 2 good nations and rest of them are minnows, you may end up with at least one batsman who will score at an average of 199.9994. There already are ppl whop average > 100 in half the context of the above statement.

[CSK Fan]

Sorry, you are hung up on this one player called Bradman as the best ever batsman in the History of Test cricket. It is when you guys get hung up on someone whom you neither saw playing nor have any decent idea of the opposition he played against yet claim he is the best because your fathers and grandfathers and mothers and grandmothers consider him to be. History repeats itself. In western Europe for quite a few centuries ppl believed the earth was flat. When one man suggested it wasn;t they killed him. It took another century to change the minds of the later generations. It will take time for the change in beliefs to happen...it has started. Every paradigm goes thru a process of change. As known to the west only recently from Kuhn's description. A paradigm shift happens goes thru the following stages. 1.The existing paradigm encounters anomalies (Sachin hammers minnows and that too Away) 2. Initially anomaly is ignored (WI,SA,Ind are essentially minnows for Bradman is ignored) 3. People try to explain the anomaly with the existing paradigm (oh but Braddy boy was way better than his peers) 4. A new paradigm is proposed in which the anomaly is resolved (what we are proposing) 5. The establishment rejects the proposal often resorting to ridicule (shining example is rett) 6. The new paradigm finally gains acceptance as it accounts for new observations (Hayden bashing 386 v/s Zim, Viru scoring 293 in a day, Viru and Lara scoring 2 triples, every tom, dick, and harry or amar, akbar, and anthony feasting on minnows) It may not change the beliefs of ppl who started watching Sachin play only after they themselves were > 30 yrs old (coz by that time the rigidity of world-view is established in the mind). The only way that paradigm can go out of existence is beautifully described by Max Planck that great Physicist who was facing criticism from other greats like Einstein about his quantum theory. Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die" Unless you are willing to test your assumptions of your world-view I'll bet that you will carry this belief of Bradman = best with you on your funeral pyre. But by that time there would be enough new knowledge and methods for rational, objective comparison which would establish that no batsmen in the history of the Test game are greater than Sachin, Lara, and Bradman. Ppl who still cling on to the old notions will die as grumpy old men and women. You cannot stop the change in paradigm. Just in case cricket goes back to being played by only 2 good nations and rest of them are minnows, you may end up with at least one batsman who will score at an average of 199.9994. There already are ppl whop average > 100 in half the context of the above statement.

what a post :cheer::two_thumbs_up:

[pensionplan]

Sorry, you are hung up on this one player called Bradman as the best ever batsman in the History of Test cricket. It is when you guys get hung up on someone whom you neither saw playing nor have any decent idea of the opposition he played against yet claim he is the best because your fathers and grandfathers and mothers and grandmothers consider him to be. History repeats itself. In western Europe for quite a few centuries ppl believed the earth was flat. When one man suggested it wasn;t they killed him. It took another century to change the minds of the later generations. It will take time for the change in beliefs to happen...it has started. Every paradigm goes thru a process of change. As known to the west only recently from Kuhn's description. A paradigm shift happens goes thru the following stages. 1.The existing paradigm encounters anomalies (Sachin hammers minnows and that too Away) 2. Initially anomaly is ignored (WI,SA,Ind are essentially minnows for Bradman is ignored) 3. People try to explain the anomaly with the existing paradigm (oh but Braddy boy was way better than his peers) 4. A new paradigm is proposed in which the anomaly is resolved (what we are proposing) 5. The establishment rejects the proposal often resorting to ridicule (shining example is rett) 6. The new paradigm finally gains acceptance as it accounts for new observations (Hayden bashing 386 v/s Zim, Viru scoring 293 in a day, Viru and Lara scoring 2 triples, every tom, dick, and harry or amar, akbar, and anthony feasting on minnows) It may not change the beliefs of ppl who started watching Sachin play only after they themselves were > 30 yrs old (coz by that time the rigidity of world-view is established in the mind). The only way that paradigm can go out of existence is beautifully described by Max Planck that great Physicist who was facing criticism from other greats like Einstein about his quantum theory. Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die" Unless you are willing to test your assumptions of your world-view I'll bet that you will carry this belief of Bradman = best with you on your funeral pyre. But by that time there would be enough new knowledge and methods for rational, objective comparison which would establish that no batsmen in the history of the Test game are greater than Sachin, Lara, and Bradman. Ppl who still cling on to the old notions will die as grumpy old men and women. You cannot stop the change in paradigm. Just in case cricket goes back to being played by only 2 good nations and rest of them are minnows, you may end up with at least one batsman who will score at an average of 199.9994. There already are ppl whop average > 100 in half the context of the above statement.

Unlike some of you here I am not hung up on just one player and look desperate to prove that he is the best of all time in the meantime deducing theories that may not be acceptable to many, defiining minnows as they please and try to downplay the players that perhaps are better. Bradman means nothing special to me at a personal level. However I have not seen one argument that made cricketing sense to me that a player who averaged upwards of 35-40 points better than the next best player is vastly inferior to a group of modern players that are averaging in the 50's that includes the likes of Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Border, Richards, Chappell etc. And just because you have defined some parameters to show a player is inferior does not mean those should be acceptable to all. Plus I would love to be convinced that my favorites cricketers Vishy and VVS that played in the modern day and age are better than Bradman.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

Unlike some of you here I am not hung up on just one player

Your pathetic user name clearly proves otherwise. Suprised mods allowed such a user name on an INDIAN cricket forum.

[pensionplan]

Your pathetic user name clearly proves otherwise. Suprised mods allowed such a user name on an INDIAN cricket forum.

Yes sometimes mods perhaps need to balance things out here. Since you seem to be ruffled by a user name/moniker may be it touched upon a raw nerve. How do I know?

[pensionplan]

ohh trust me you will be the most unhappiest person if someone even tried to do that ..... the first thing you will do is create a new moniker like "VVSFanaticsSuck" dive headlong into the discussion shooting from your hips and then see how things lay. This is the classic modus-operandii of bradman fanatics. Camouflage or simply proclaim to be neutrals and attack those who question DGB. Old trick.

Ha..Ha..Ha..This is what I call clutching on to the straws.

[Nirvanam]

Unlike some of you here I am not hung up on just one player and look desperate to prove that he is the best of all time in the meantime deducing theories that may not be acceptable to many, defiining minnows as they please and try to downplay the players that perhaps are better. Bradman means nothing special to me at a personal level. However I have not seen one argument that made cricketing sense to me that a player who averaged upwards of 35-40 points better than the next best player is vastly inferior to a group of modern players that are averaging in the 50's that includes the likes of Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Border, Richards, Chappell etc. And just because you have defined some parameters to show a player is inferior does not mean those should be acceptable to all. Plus I would love to be convinced that my favorites cricketers Vishy and VVS that played in the modern day and age are better than Bradman.

Whether you are hung up on one player or not, I don't know but you are definitely hung up in reverse against one player, Sachin. Your username is a dead give away of that. My stance is very clear...please read it to understand me better and if you have any doubts or clarifications feel free to ask me. My stance is: There are no better Test batsmen than Sachin, Lara, and Bradman (although I agree I haven't seen him play and the only reason I have him here is by having faith in the beliefs of some great cricket experts like John Woodcock, Richie Benaud, etc). And any comprehensive comparison between them is basically useless because in the end they will be very near to each other, which would be significantly far from the rest of the ATG batsmen of Test cricket. Here is a simple question to you - if you are really being open minded about who you consider is the best Test bat ever, can you give me one reason other than the distance of Bradman from his peers to make your case? You understand that that reason is a logical fallacy right?

[zen]

oh, the comedy is still on :giggle: Ten > Don, why? 1. Videos. They show that the standard of playing was not high in those days. It's was like BD and ZIm playing. So if a modern player can avg 100 against BD/Zim, he would easily avg 100 in Bradman's time. I know players don't even manage to avg 100 in Ranji trophy but who cares. And ofc if Bradman gets to play in modern times, he would struggle to avg 50. 2. Stats. I can easily display my skills of manipulating stats to show that 57>100. Now ofc the way I show it may not be universally applicable but again who cares as long as it shows what I want to 3. I trust my eyes. I have seen Sachin play and not Bradman. :icflove:

[zen]

Ha..Ha..Ha..This is what I call clutching on to the straws.

Unfortunately, there aren't many straws left for them to clutch on to :hysterical:

[Raghav_12]

However I have not seen one argument that made cricketing sense to me that a player who averaged upwards of 35-40 points better than the next best player is vastly inferior to a group of modern players that are averaging in the 50's that includes the likes of Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Border, Richards, Chappell etc.

I think this is one argument on which I also hung on for long and initially made post on this forun where I simply dismissed the idea of Sachin being comparable to Bradman. My argument was similar to your argument, like even though batting consitions have changed, but how you can put a guy who was around 35-40% superior to his peers (Bradman) with a guy who just managed to edge ahead of his peers (Sachin)? If you put Bradman equal to Sachin, that means Hobbs would be equal to Rameez raja. But there have been answers on this forum which convinced me against the argument that Bradman is greatest because his average was so much superior. I'll mention three examples, which I have come across 1. Mohammad Yousuf scores well in excess of 100 against minnows and in this respect he is around 30% clear of other contemporary greats like Sachin and Ponting. (argument courtsey Bumper) 2. Andy Flower scored at an average of 52 while other Zim player scored at an average of 30. A gap of around 40%. But does that mean there can never be a Zim batsman as great as Flower, just because he would never be able to establish that kind of lead over his peers, as Andy did? 3. In indian domestic cricket Ajay Sharma scored at an average of 68 which is easily 10-20% clear of other indian batting greats like - Laxman, Gavaskar, Dravid etc. Now using Bradman bhakts arguments I can argue for greatness of Ajay Sharma, MoYo and Andy which is like, all of them were playing against same quality of opposition, so why Sharma, MoYo was able to score much more runs than others? It simple says he was greater than others. In this argument there are couple of flaws- a) Some people are good at scoring huge amount of runs agaisnt weaker oppositions, but that doesn't necessarily means that they will do that against stronger oppositions as well b) Batting averages calculated over different set of conditions hardly mean any thing. They have any meaning only if they are under same circumstances. So comparing Sachin's average with Ponting's and Lara's make sense but to compare with Bradman's average of 30's or with Sharma's first class average is ridiculous.

[CSK Fan]

Unfortunately' date=' there aren't many straws left for them to clutch on to :hysterical:[/quote'] Whatever the case, I only see Sachin supporters making some arguments here, the other side has been limited to smileys and pot-shots. And thats true for other threads too. I think that says something

[Nirvanam]

Whatever the case' date=' I only see Sachin supporters making some arguments here, the other side has been limited to smileys and pot-shots. And thats true for other threads too. I think that says something[/quote']What a beaut of an observation that is!!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

What a beaut of an observation that is!!

So you accept that you set out with a pre-conceived notion of projecting Sachin to be better than Bradman wheather the basic premise of that argument makes sense or not to others. So now that you have made yourself clear I can at least see your analysis falls in line with the point you are trying to prove.

[pensionplan]

Whatever the case' date=' I only see Sachin supporters making some arguments here, the other side has been limited to smileys and pot-shots. And thats true for other threads too. I think that says something[/quote']There are two ways to look at it. One the way you seem to suggest and two the other side could be so much off base that smileys and sarcasm are one way to deal with it. Because when someone has this rigid mind-set of being obsessed with this one player and out to prove a point there is nothing much one could do. I have seen some excellent rebuttals by the way from Rett on the other thread.

[pensionplan]

I think this is one argument on which I also hung on for long and initially made post on this forun where I simply dismissed the idea of Sachin being comparable to Bradman. My argument was similar to your argument, like even though batting consitions have changed, but how you can put a guy who was around 35-40% superior to his peers (Bradman) with a guy who just managed to edge ahead of his peers (Sachin)? If you put Bradman equal to Sachin, that means Hobbs would be equal to Rameez raja. But there have been answers on this forum which convinced me against the argument that Bradman is greatest because his average was so much superior. I'll mention three examples, which I have come across 1. Mohammad Yousuf scores well in excess of 100 against minnows and in this respect he is around 30% clear of other contemporary greats like Sachin and Ponting. (argument courtsey Bumper) 2. Andy Flower scored at an average of 52 while other Zim player scored at an average of 30. A gap of around 40%. But does that mean there can never be a Zim batsman as great as Flower, just because he would never be able to establish that kind of lead over his peers, as Andy did? 3. In indian domestic cricket Ajay Sharma scored at an average of 68 which is easily 10-20% clear of other indian batting greats like - Laxman, Gavaskar, Dravid etc. Now using Bradman bhakts arguments I can argue for greatness of Ajay Sharma, MoYo and Andy which is like, all of them were playing against same quality of opposition, so why Sharma, MoYo was able to score much more runs than others? It simple says he was greater than others. In this argument there are couple of flaws- a) Some people are good at scoring huge amount of runs agaisnt weaker oppositions, but that doesn't necessarily means that they will do that against stronger oppositions as well b) Batting averages calculated over different set of conditions hardly mean any thing. They have any meaning only if they are under same circumstances. So comparing Sachin's average with Ponting's and Lara's make sense but to compare with Bradman's average of 30's or with Sharma's first class average is ridiculous.

I have considered most of the points you made here or thought about. Actually this is what I had to say on the other thread. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1213630&postcount=413