zen Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Charles Lindberg was the first man to fly from NY to Paris non-stop in 1920s, today many pilots do that everyday ----> Therefore I conclude that today's pilots are better than Lindberg :orderorder:
Raghav_12 Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Dude we are talking of batting here. Carl Hooper was a glorious batsman to watch but a huge underachiever. Averaged in low 30s so not sure how much difference he actually made.. No. He averaged in mid-high 30's. Atleast put correct facts when you are in a debate over net.
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Yes. Spot On. Andy Flower is much better example of one man army in batting. But again that doesn't preclude somebody from defining as Sachin also as one man army. I am not precluding anything - if you want to believe that Azhar, Sidhu, Ganguly, Dravid are in the same league as batting as Whitall, Campbell, G Flower it's completely your prerogative.
someone Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Imo, this all comes to one simple question. How old are you? Ask any post 90s, the straight forward answer will be be Sachin. So for the sake of this discussion, it is best to not debate as I never got to see Richards play cricket...
maniac Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Coming from someone who has happily withstood cruel Mumbai afternoon heat to watch 13 year old Tendlya bat in school matches and also being able to sense that this boy was made for greatness, I do believe Don's 99.94, 29 centuries in just 52 test matches etc etc make him clear numero uno. But c'mon folks, Viv vs SRT, its SRT all the way. Those who think its Viv are biased against SRT in my book. Not that it matters! I am glad you agree on the Viv vs SRT aspect of the debate.As I mentioned the only reason as to why Don can be brought up in a debate is due to his superhuman like stats in test cricket but what about the fact that Sachin has almost unbeatable records in 2 very different formats. Let me throw this in the guy is so good to adapt and acheive legendary status that he wen scored a 100 at tontee-tontee recently.Don's legacy can be comparable with Sachin but when it comes to skill Sachin is ahead.This is not a biased view or anything,this is a proven fact.
Lurker Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 No. He averaged in mid-high 30's. Atleast put correct facts when you are in a debate over net. Nope cant be othered. You feel free to keep running to Statsguru. I am fine with factual mistakes with 2-3 run differential. Even if Hooper scored in mid to high 30s, as you looked up, he would hardly be considered a great batting support for Lara. His numbers are not exactly different to Mike Gattings of this world...never heard him as world beaters. But sure feel free to keep cheering fanboy.
CasualVisitor Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 CasualVisitor, check these out and let me know which bowler is better than say a Steyn http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74604 http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=61609 BB, IMO considering all the variables into play, Sachin would have been the greatest batsman of all time if he had averaged around 75 in tests and had cracked as many test centuries. Till such time Don is the best. Debate closes for me!
mishra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 That's your subject .... may be the armyman could discuss that with you :giggle: Just back.. Jealous are you? :--D
maniac Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Sure' date=' bro! We can also include Ramesh, Manjrekar, Prabhakar, and Kapil with the bat for Tendulkar.[/quote'] Allright Carl Hooper was in the same league as S.Ramesh What about Walsh and Ambrose's contribution during Lara's peak.Who was their equivalent in Sachin's time.with all due respect to them ...Srinath and Prasad???
mishra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 So you will decide what I need and what I do not...> Free Advice: Worry about yourself first and then think of others!!!!!! P.S. I have never seen Ashoka the emperor. Yet there are many reasons I feel he was (very probably)the greatest ruler(i.e. policy maker) of India... better than everyone I have photos/videos for in the modern times :icflove: Dont you find contradiction in first two sentences of yours? How can I or anyone take you seriously ? :--D
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Allright Carl Hooper was in the same league as S.Ramesh What about Walsh and Ambrose's contribution during Lara's peak.Who was their equivalent in Sachin's time.with all due respect to them ...Srinath and Prasad??? Walsh and Ambrose were bowlers the last time I watched them bowl. Anyhow, I am not making a case for Lara being a one man army but if Tendulkar can be counted as one I see no reason to exclude Lara.
CasualVisitor Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 I am glad you agree on the Viv vs SRT aspect of the debate.As I mentioned the only reason as to why Don can be brought up in a debate is due to his superhuman like stats in test cricket but what about the fact that Sachin has almost unbeatable records in 2 very different formats. Let me throw this in the guy is so good to adapt and acheive legendary status that he wen scored a 100 at tontee-tontee recently.Don's legacy can be comparable with Sachin but when it comes to skill Sachin is ahead.This is not a biased view or anything,this is a proven fact. What is to say that Don would not have adapted as efficiently. Its not Don's fault that there was only one format in his days.
mishra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 whats the need to actually watch a player bat/bowl when you have the mighty StatsGuru showing 99.94 :phehehe: Most definitive source of cricket :--D
Sachin=GOD Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 BB' date=' IMO considering all the variables into play,[b'] Sachin would have been the greatest batsman of all time if he had averaged around 75 in tests and had cracked as many test centuries. Till such time Don is the best. Debate closes for me! BTW how have you come to that figure - I mean, what criteria have you used to to arrive at the conclusion that making 75 centuries in today's times is good enough for a player to be called the best ever :hmmm: why not 65 or 85. Also, what about the 48 centuries he has scored in ODIs?
mishra Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 So whats your logic? Scoring runs were easy then and it is difficult now? Very convincing logic' date=' I must say :)[/quote'] So why Lindall isnt better then Imran Khan?
maniac Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 BB' date=' IMO considering all the variables into play, Sachin would have been the greatest batsman of all time if he had averaged around 75 in tests and had cracked as many test centuries. Till such time Don is the best. Debate closes for me![/quote'] What is the significance of '75'??? 99 100's across 2 completely different formats of the game with high quality bowling attacks ,a mediocre team for the most part of his career,in different conditions and surfaces not good enough for you. If you go back to the thread I have mentioned Don's legacy to be atleast comparable to Sachin but definetely Don is not winning this battle.
sarcastic Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Dont you find contradiction in first two sentences of yours? How can I or anyone take you seriously ? :--D No I did not. I gave a free advice only because you tell me what I need to do. (Your post was asking me to give you one!!!) Off course, Your r free to take whatever u want to take and do whatever you want to do with ur life..>> It was only an advice and not an effing statement such as You need to be subjected to "blah blah blah"...
Bublu Bhuyan Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Don't understand why some of you guys have a problem with Bradman. Isn't being the second best batsman (arguably) in Test cricket history a HUGE honor for Tendulkar? For me, there is just one batsman who is a clear cut ahead of Tendulkar - The Don. Others who can make a case ahead of Tendulkar are Sobers, Richards and Hobbs. Then there's Hammond and Hutton who can lay claim to be as good as Tendulkar.
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 So why Lindall isnt better then Imran Khan? Errr....he was better than Imran.
CasualVisitor Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Dont you find contradiction in first two sentences of yours? How can I or anyone take you seriously ? :--D Remember "army" fiasco? Boy you do have thick skin..
Recommended Posts