Tendulkar 200* Vs Sehwag 219

[zen]

People arguing that '83 was vital because it changed the future of Indian cricket. Tendulkar is THAT if not more important. Nearly all young batsmen grow up idolising him. Without Sachin we don't have Sehwag

FYI, we are not discussing the imp of Kapil vs Sachin :winky: The discussion is abt the knocks :P

[zen]

On a side note: heights of player worshiping ----> Saurau fanboys think 183 is the best knock ever played :facepalm: We should rename this forum to Indian fanboys :haha:

[yoda]

People arguing that '83 was vital because it changed the future of Indian cricket. Tendulkar is THAT if not more important. Nearly all young batsmen grow up idolising him. Without Sachin we don't have Sehwag

That is BS. Just because someone says they idolized a player doesn't mean if that player didn't exist, the world would have vanished. It just means that player would have picked someone else to idolize and could still have been the same devastating player he is. Some of you guys are a lot like the Ganguly fanatics who claim without Dada there is no Yuvraj, Harbhajan, Dhoni or even Sehwag.

[Magneto]

if ind had lost even zim would have 8 points. and they had one match left with west indies (and they had defeated aus which was a better team than indies at that time so there was a possibility of zim beating indies). so if ind had lost to zim and aus then indies and aus would have gone through. if ind had lost to zim and won against oz and zim had lost against indies it would be 3 way tie between zim aus and indies.

Okay, a few points first: a) Australia was a weak team - This has been one of Australia's leanest periods. From Jan 1, 1982 till the end of the World Cup (June 20 was when their last match was played), Australia had played 35 completed ODIs, of which they had won 14 and lost 21. Kim Hughes was the captain, their batting was quite weak, and Liliie and Thomson were on a decline (so much so, that they were not even opening bowlers anymore). They had even lost a series to newbies Sri Lanka. In a similar timeframe, WI won 15 of their 20 matches and were the best team in the world. They even smashed India in India after the world cup. So, in no way was Australia better than WI. b) Zim were supper minnows - Though Zim had a surprise victory against a weak Australia team, they were thumped in the next three matches. No way on earth were they expected to beat the best team in the world. All I am saying is that there was no REALISTIC possibility of them beating the Windies. This was their first international tournament ever, and Windies were Giants. They anyway lost to the Windies by 10 wickets in the last match. c) If India lost to Zim - Then India would be on 8 points and Zim at 8 as well. And the Aussies were on 8 as well. So, it would have been virtually a quarterfinal between India and the Aussies, with the winner becoming the No.2 side in the group. Even if Zim would have upset the Windies (which was only a theoretical chance), they would be on 12 but would have got knocked out due to their poor run rate. For the record, the Zim team won only 2 matches after playing 30 matches from 1983-1993. Kapil's knock was a great one, a world record, and Indians had never seen such a knock in ODIs coming from their own country. That is the reason why it had been a little over-romanticised too.

[phaedrus]

Without Sachin we don't have Sehwag

and no sachin without gavaskar and so on and so forth based on that logic.

[Magneto]

On a side note: heights of player worshiping ----> Saurau fanboys think 183 is the best knock ever played :facepalm: We should rename this forum to Indian fanboys :haha:

You being a Kapil-fanboy? :P

[Yoda-esque]

Tendulkar's 200 was better

[Sachinism]

If a lot of these kids didn't have Sachin as a hero, they wouldn't have been out all the time trying to emulate him.

That is BS. Just because someone says they idolized a player doesn't mean if that player didn't exist, the world would have vanished. It just means that player would have picked someone else to idolize and could still have been the same devastating player he is. Some of you guys are a lot like the Ganguly fanatics who claim without Dada there is no Yuvraj, Harbhajan, Dhoni or even Sehwag.

Doesn't always work like that. Not everyone can be idolized. If they hadn't been captured by Sachin they may have focused on other interests. Sachin captured people's attention, people watched cricket to watch Sachin. Other players didn't have that kinda hold on viewers. The Ganguly thing is different, he pushed for their selections and backed them by giving decent runs

[Laaloo]

If a lot of these kids didn't have Sachin as a hero' date=' they wouldn't have been out all the time trying to emulate him.[/quote'] :--D

[zen]

if I am not wrong, Tendulkar idolized Viv Richards :P

[yoda]

If a lot of these kids didn't have Sachin as a hero, they wouldn't have been out all the time trying to emulate him. Doesn't always work like that. Not everyone can be idolized. If they hadn't been captured by Sachin they may have focused on other interests. Sachin captured people's attention, people watched cricket to watch Sachin. Other players didn't have that kinda hold on viewers.

Yes, not everyone can be idolized, by the same token there is more in the cricketing world than Sachin for young players to idolize. Problem with some of you guys is that you think that cricket starts and ends with Sachin. It may be true for some you guys personally, but for the rest of the world that ain't the case.

[Sid]

if I am not wrong' date=' Tendulkar idolized Viv Richards :P[/quote'] :D

[akshayxyz]

That is BS. Just because someone says they idolized a player doesn't mean if that player didn't exist' date=' the world would have vanished.[b'] It just means that player would have picked someone else to idolize and could still have been the same devastating player he is. Some of you guys are a lot like the Ganguly fanatics who claim without Dada there is no Yuvraj, Harbhajan, Dhoni or even Sehwag.

100% agree on hypothesis, if not this idol, there would have been some other that idol. However, that does not change the facts that stand as they are. So, it is mere recollection and appreciation of actual facts than anything else. An analogy, if not to your current parents, you might have been born to some other.. however that does not mean you start disrespecting your parents (or ridicule your brother who respects), for the hypothesis that there could have been some other parent. Choice is yours, you can appreciate what you have, or devalue/undervalue them - hypothesizing over imaginary alternatives.

[Sachinism]

Yes' date=' not everyone can be idolized, by the same token there is more in the cricketing world than Sachin for young players to idolize. Problem with some of you guys is that you think that cricket starts and ends with Sachin. It may be true for some you guys personally, but for the rest of the world that ain't the case.[/quote'] Are you seriously going to live in denial? Most young lads in India from mid-90's grew up idolizing Sachin. There has always been Sachin-hysteria and that is one of the reasons why you have the anti-Sachin brigade, who feel its OTT and unjustified and in order to get the balance right, you'll bring him down on any occasion you can. Yes there are other cricketers in the world, but do you really think most of the Indian public could care about them? You've heard interviews of new breed of Indian cricketers, you know most of them do idolize him.

[bulbul]

Are you seriously going to live in denial? Most young lads in India from mid-90's grew up idolizing Sachin. There has always been Sachin-hysteria and that is one of the reasons why you have the anti-Sachin brigade, who feel its OTT and unjustified and in order to get the balance right, you'll bring him down on any occasion you can. Yes there are other cricketers in the world, but do you really think most of the Indian public could care about them? You've heard interviews of new breed of Indian cricketers, you know most of them do idolize him.

i dont think most of the guys ...may be some portion ... All of them are here :winky:

[yoda]

Are you seriously going to live in denial? Most young lads in India from mid-90's grew up idolizing Sachin. There has always been Sachin-hysteria and that is one of the reasons why you have the anti-Sachin brigade, who feel its OTT and unjustified and in order to get the balance right, you'll bring him down on any occasion you can. Yes there are other cricketers in the world, but do you really think most of the Indian public could care about them? You've heard interviews of new breed of Indian cricketers, you know most of them do idolize him.

So who is denying that he was the idol for most budding batsmen in the 90s? You said that if there was no Sachin, there would be no Sehwag. I said that is BS, not sure what relevance your rant above has to the "No sachin" scenario. You seriously think if there was no Sachin, there would be no Sehwag? You think that the Sehwag as we know it wouldn't have come still, idolizing a Richards for example? If you think so, then you are delusional who can't think beyond Sachin. The attempt at you fanatics to minimize the performance of any player who is not named Sachin is 100x worse than any arguments/posts by any of the so called "anti-Sachin" brigade. I thought Gangulians were bad, you guys make them look like Angels.

[zen]

sachin fanboyz :facepalm:

[Sachinism]

Forget India. My cricket club. Started playing at a pretty young age, every member of the team's favourite player was Sachin.

[yoda]

Forget India. My cricket club. Started playing at a pretty young age' date=' every member of the team's favourite player was Sachin.[/quote'] So? If there was no Sachin you guys would have given up playing cricket is it?

[vvvslaxman]

Didn't see this innings live. Caught the highlights. Pacewise both bowling were on par. Roach was infact touching 149 kph at times. By the way what the hell coventry and anwar doing in that list.