Tendulkar is today's Bradman, says Brian Lara

[zen]

There can never be any sports person without flaws. Sachin' date=' like any other player has some flaws but what makes him better than everyone else is the fact that he has less flaws than all others and even in areas where he has some flaws he has done things which a few other could have done (remember 241* against Aus - he had developed a chink in his armor in that series and then we all saw his reply).[/quote'] You bolded the part but do you even know what you replied to? :hysterical: Read it again. Your post just illustrated my point. :giggle:

[zen]

Lol...Not getting the point. It is implied that Pace Bowlers of bradmans era were NOTHING as compared to todays bowlers. They were right arm medium-slow bowlers like collingwood/watson in all probability. The proof is that the batsmen were able to survive on those uncovered pitches without even a helmet whereas playing today's fast bowlers without helmet is unthinkable (even on today's covered pitches). I hope you THINK (not from your behind that is:P) before expressing your shock the next time.

This is getting even more comical! It has already been explained that's not even a point. I thought I already answered that based on below (if you know how to comprehend). If Tendulkar is greater than Bradman based on the bowlers they faced then there are players who faced better bowlers than Tendulkar!

So if you agree that the bowling standard of 70s-80s was greater than it is today then one can argue that Tendulkar wouldn't avg as much as he is avg now. If he can be found out by the likes of Donald then like you imagine Bradman to fail against Steyn, some folks can imagine Sachin to fail against quality bowlers like Lillee, Marshall, Holding, Thompson, etc. On th other hand, if you think that Tendulkar is a quality batsman and would have been successful at any point then same goes for Bradman. In short, there is no point in your argument. And you are free to write "disagree" or "wrong again" or whatever w/o even understanding how the arguments that you make are being used against your points

You are trying to prove something that I didn't even debate :hysterical: :icflove:

[vaibhav_delhi]

Yet a poll on ICF - Indian Cricket Fans - says that around 50% of the posters believe Bradman to be the greatest ever and only 30% disagreed. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=212051

well...Depends on what question you ask. You may get a different result if you ask. 'Is sachin the best. In this one, 46% think bradman is the best(includes a few pakis as well). 54% think No or Dont know. I remember a poll on SMH (sydney morning herald) during recent ind-aus series, where 85% of the people polled(of around 18k total) that sachin has surpassed the Don. Dont have the link currently though.

[zen]

well...Depends on what question you ask. You may get a different result if you ask. 'Is sachin the best. In this one, 46% think bradman is the best(includes a few pakis as well). 54% think No or Dont know. I remember a poll on SMH (sydney morning herald) during recent ind-aus series, where 85% of the people polled(of around 18k total) that sachin has surpassed the Don. Dont have the link currently though.[/

:hysterical: .... that poll excluded Bradman. In Australia, it is taken that Bradman is #1 and beyond such comparisions And if i recall correctly someone posted the link to a similar (if not the same) poll here too, where everyone including yours truly voted for Tendulkar (Indian bias). :--D

[vaibhav_delhi]

This is getting even more comical! It has already been explained that's not even a point. I thought I already answered that based on below (if you know how to comprehend). If Tendulkar is greater than Bradman based on the bowlers they faced then there are players who faced better bowlers than Tendulkar! You are trying to prove something that I didn't even debate :hysterical: :icflove:

Lol..Not getting the point...again 1. As I have mentioned, Tendulkar has faced Great bowlers too. Perhaps not the best ever WI bowling attack in Marshall n holding but almost as great an attack. And batted better than any other batsman (in eyes of majority cricket experts and fans). And much better than those who batted against Marshall and holding. 2. While on the other hand, the crap that bradman faced is not even worth comparing with great attacks. (shown by my posts above) I hope this post settles the issue. :icflove:

[vaibhav_delhi]

:hysterical: .... that poll excluded Bradman. In Australia, it is taken that Bradman is #1 and beyond such comparisions And if i recall correctly someone posted the link to a similar (if not the same) poll here too, where everyone including yours truly voted for Tendulkar (Indian bias). :--D

sirjee...apparently it didnt exclude bradman: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/australia-in-india/top-stories/In-Aussie-poll-84-say-Sachin-best-ever/articleshow/6738529.cms http://www.google.co.in/search?q=SMH+sachin+poll

[zen]

sirjee...apparently it didnt exclude bradman: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/australia-in-india/top-stories/In-Aussie-poll-84-say-Sachin-best-ever/articleshow/6738529.cms http://www.google.co.in/search?q=SMH+sachin+poll

The economic times says: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/In-Aussie-poll-84-say-Sachin-best-ever/articleshow/6739870.cms

It's possible that a lot of Indians voted to skew the results in Sachin's favour.

:giggle:

[zen]

Lol..Not getting the point...again 1. As I have mentioned, Tendulkar has faced Great bowlers too. Perhaps not the best ever WI bowling attack in Marshall n holding but almost as great an attack. And batted better than any other batsman (in eyes of majority cricket experts and fans). And much better than those who batted against Marshall and holding. 2. While on the other hand, the crap that bradman faced is not even worth comparing with great attacks. (shown by my posts above) I hope this post settles the issue. :icflove:

Sure, what else did Tendulkar do? :hysterical: Obviously, you don't understand the process of evolution :P

[vaibhav_delhi]

The economic times says: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/In-Aussie-poll-84-say-Sachin-best-ever/articleshow/6739870.cms "It's possible that a lot of Indians voted to skew the results in Sachin's favour. " :giggle:

Lol....I wasnt even debating that.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Sure, what else did Tendulkar do? :hysterical: Obviously, you don't understand the process of evolution :P

lol....that is not even valid here. Surviving and scoring was easier in bradman's era and he extracted most out of that. Doesnt mean that he would have been a great now when the standards of cricket have been much much higher.

[Sachin=GOD]

Sure, what else did Tendulkar do? :hysterical: Obviously, you don't understand the process of evolution :P

To all your points I have only 1 answer - I'd like to believe the words of some former cricket legends against your word on Sachin being the greatest of all time: http://www.cricketndtv.com/storypage.aspx?id=SPOEN20100156402 ..........Viv Richards http://www.indianexpress.com/news/awed-hadlee-says-sachin-greatest-batsman-e/442661/ ............Richard Hadlee http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/shane_warne/article2364258.ece........Shane Wrne http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/sachin-tendulkar-immortal-at-200/Tendulkar-better-than-even-Bradman-Nasser-Hussain/articleshow/5615151.cms...........Nasser Hussain and I have not included any Indian cricketer in this list otherwise it would be biased (according to you at least) :hatsoff:

[zen]

lol....that is not even valid here. Surviving and scoring was easier in bradman's era and he extracted most out of that. Doesnt mean that he would have been a great now when the standards of cricket have been much much higher.

The points that you are making are pointless. Which is why I said you need to understand "evolution". If you think that Bradman wouldn't have been one of the greats if he were playing today then same can be argued that if those playing today were born in Bradman's time, they wouldn't even come close to avg 100 :winky: .... I hope that you realize that you cannot transport people back and forth in time :P Bradman excelled in the conditions that he was presented it. Touched the holy grail of batting, i.e. a career avg of 100 after 50 tests, broke most of the records of his era, made an amazing impact with the way he played the game (like hitting a hundred in a session on 6 occassions, scoring a double in 214 minutes, hitting 300 in a day) and out shone other ATG of his era. The concept of the greatest batsman is because of Bradman. If Bradman didn't exist then there is no greatest batsman, period. Even if it had averaged 80, when the next best avg of his time was around 60, he would still have been the greatest. May be you should refer to Raja > Hammond thread. It summerizes all the points that folks like you make. And ofc, if you have an addition to it, the list can be updated. :--D

[vaibhav_delhi]

To all your points I have only 1 answer - I'd like to believe the words of some former cricket legends against your word on Sachin being the greatest of all time: http://www.cricketndtv.com/storypage.aspx?id=SPOEN20100156402 ..........Viv Richards http://www.indianexpress.com/news/awed-hadlee-says-sachin-greatest-batsman-e/442661/ ............Richard Hadlee http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/shane_warne/article2364258.ece........Shane Wrne http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/series-tournaments/sachin-tendulkar-immortal-at-200/Tendulkar-better-than-even-Bradman-Nasser-Hussain/articleshow/5615151.cms...........Nasser Hussain and I have not included any Indian cricketer in this list otherwise it would be biased (according to you at least) :hatsoff:

Add to it, Akram, Lara, Zaheer Abbas, Mcgrath(?)

[vaibhav_delhi]

The points that you are making are pointless. Which is why I said you need to understand "evolution". If you think that Bradman wouldn't have been one of the greats if he were playing today then same can be argued that if those playing today were born in Bradman's time, they wouldn't even come close to avg 100 :winky: .... I hope that you realize that you cannot transport people back and forth in time :P Bradman excelled in the conditions that he was presented it. Touched the holy grail of batting, i.e. a career avg of 100 after 50 tests, broke most of the records of his era, made an amazing impact with the way he played the game (like hitting a hundred in a session on 6 occassions, scoring a double in 214 minutes, hitting 300 in a day) and out shone other ATG of his era. The concept of the greatest batsman is because of Bradman. If Bradman didn't exist then there is no greatest batsman, period. Even if it had averaged 80, when the next best avg of his time was around 60, he would still have been the greatest. May be you should refer to Raja > Hammond thread. It summerizes all the points that folks like you make. And ofc, if you have an addition to it, the list can be updated. :--D

well...they may be pointless to you but they are absolutely valid. Bradman is considered the greatest by some only due to his bloated average, very few people have actually seen him play, so they dont know what they are talking about. Bradman played only 17 innings in his career against sides other than england. He faced and mastered similar the dibbly-dobbly stuff again and again throughout his career. Cant even be compared with modern greats sachin or Lara.

[EnterTheVoid]

Bradman is the baap. Tendulkar will never be as good as Bradman

[vaibhav_delhi]

Bradman is the baap. Tendulkar will never be as good as Bradman

Ganguly is the baap of bradman. He is the Dada.

[vaibhav_delhi]

well...Depends on what question you ask. You may get a different result if you ask. 'Is sachin the best. In this one, 46% think bradman is the best(includes a few pakis as well). 54% think No or Dont know. I remember a poll on SMH (sydney morning herald) during recent ind-aus series, where 85% of the people polled(of around 18k total) that sachin has surpassed the Don. Dont have the link currently though.

Here's the link http://www.smh.com.au/polls/sport/cricket/super-star-tendulkar/20101011-16g7a.html

[zen]

Here's the link http://www.smh.com.au/polls/sport/cricket/super-star-tendulkar/20101011-16g7a.html

This is getting really dumb. That poll isn't scientific (don't feel the need to go in to it further) and doesn't represent the opinion of the entire cricketing world It's hilarious that folks like you actually think that polls means something but that not surprising as it reflects the general mentality of those who think Sachin > Don

[zen]

well...they may be pointless to you but they are absolutely valid. Bradman is considered the greatest by some only due to his bloated average, very few people have actually seen him play, so they dont know what they are talking about. Bradman played only 17 innings in his career against sides other than england. He faced and mastered similar the dibbly-dobbly stuff again and again throughout his career. Cant even be compared with modern greats sachin or Lara.

So based on your (clownish) assessment can we assume that those who average 50 are better than Sir Don Bradman, who avg 100. Therefore one can also assume (based on the arguments that you have made) that someone who averages 30 now would be better than someone who averages less than 60 in Bradman's time, thus I guess we can even conclude that Raja (grand avg of 32) > Hammond (avg 58 mainly due to playing crap bowlers) or in your words the likes of Hammond can't even be compared with the likes of Rameez Raja :hysterical: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=213283

[vaibhav_delhi]

So based on your (clownish) assessment can we assume that those who average 50 are better than Sir Don Bradman, who avg 100. Therefore one can also assume (based on the arguments that you have made) that someone who averages 30 now would be better than someone who averages less than 60 in Bradman's time, thus I guess we can even conclude that Raja (grand avg of 32) > Hammond (avg 58 mainly due to playing crap bowlers) or in your words the likes of Hammond can't even be compared with the likes of Rameez Raja :hysterical: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=213283

Lol...Averages dont mean jack. Jayawardena's average is as good as Lara doesnt mean that he is as good as Lara. You are so ****ing dumb. I suggest you read the opening post and chaos's post in this thread: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=251603 chaos's post epitomizes your mindset.