Technique of batsman in the video : Is it exquisite or not ?

[The Outsider]

All of Tendulkar's fan boys' arguments hinge on just on thing - denounce any cricket which was played before Tendulkar. That in itself shows how hollow the argument is.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Funny thread - yeah Hobbs' technique is top notch. He goes back and across, plays the cut shot perfectly, drives with control.

compared to modern day batsmen, he looks like a tailender, IMO. i cant think of any other sport which glorifies figures of the long distant past as much as cricket does.

[yoda]

i cant think of any other sport which glorifies figures of the long distant past as much as cricket does.

Let's see, Tennis - Laver and his grand slam (4 in same year) is still mentioned, Golf - Jack Nicklaus, Boxing - Ali, Basketball - Bill Russell, Footy - Pele, ...

[The Outsider]

compared to modern day batsmen, he looks like a tailender, IMO. i cant think of any other sport which glorifies figures of the long distant past as much as cricket does.

Let me ask you, why? He moves back and across, he presses forward, he rolls his wrists. You want to compare his technique with the likes of Sehwag and Pietersen averaging 50+? Hobbs would beat them hands down.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Let's see' date=' Tennis - Laver and his grand slam (4 in same year) is still mentioned, Golf - Jack Nicklaus, Boxing - Ali, Basketball - Bill Russell, Footy - Pele, ...[/quote'] of course they wil still be mentioned, but they arent unanimously considered the greatest of all time. furthermore, none of them played in 20s and 30s.

[yoda]

of course they wil still be mentioned, but they arent unanimously considered the greatest of all time. furthermore, none of them played in 20s and 30s.

Nicklaus is considered greatest by many, at least till TW or someone else overtakes his GS record, Ali is considered the greatest of all time, .... A lot of these guys got their records 40-50 years ago, and they are still considered ATGs.

[The Outsider]

of course they wil still be mentioned, but they arent unanimously considered the greatest of all time. furthermore, none of them played in 20s and 30s.

Ali and Nicklaus are not considered among the greatest of all time? :hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

Then it alll depends on the natural talent plus discipline plus hand eye coordination plus love towards game. Now you please answer with straight face do you find Sachin Tendulkar lacking in any of these aspects. And yes these guys Bradman or Hobbs or WG Grace or even that shepherd would have reqd much more than this to survive in modern day cricket. If todays cricketer had some advantage so does batsman of that era also had to start with Bradman or Hobbs might have no clue of 100 mph Yorker of Akhtar or Warne spin or Wasim bhai reverse swing. May be Bradman would have struglled against a quality left arm like Zaheer who knows this. Looking at the technique of Hobbs I think Malinga would have taken his wicket 9 out of 10 times in first over itself. Since I do not have any idea about their hand eye coordination plus love towards game I can not comment how much they would have been able to survive. But yes Sachin would have and so did Dravid and Sunny and richards that I know.

Again all the things are possible only when they carry the benefit of cricketing evolvement to that era . It is like saying i am better than Newton because i knew about gravity even when i was 8. Fact is you had years of cricket evolvement at your disposal. You have incredible resources to learn and hone your skills. If Tendulkar were born in that era and represented India he could not have been as successful as he is now.

[vvvslaxman]

wtf....what kind of an argument is that?

When you bump into a WTF argument.. you have to throw a WTF argument

[yoda]

Again all the things are possible only when they carry the benefit of cricketing evolvement to that era . It is like saying i am better than Newton because i knew about gravity even when i was 8. Fact is you had years of cricket evolvement at your disposal. You have incredible resources to learn and hone your skills. If Tendulkar were born in that era and represented India he could not have been as successful as he is now.

:two_thumbs_up: For some reason, many can't seem to understand/accept that greatness has to be measured with respect to the times those people lived in. Yes, all sport evolve and people are bigger, faster, sharper than ever before, it doesn't mean we claim superiority over all generations.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Ali and Nicklaus are not considered among the greatest of all time? :hysterical:

not unanimously. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Manny_Pacquiao]

:two_thumbs_up: For some reason, many can't seem to understand/accept that greatness has to be measured with respect to the times those people lived in. Yes, all sport evolve and people are bigger, faster, sharper than ever before, it doesn't mean we claim superiority over all generations.

no, but it does it mean that we can glorify these people from the 30s as being far better than those of the modern day??

[The Outsider]

no' date=' but it does it mean that we can glorify these people from the 30s as being far better than those of the modern day??[/quote'] But, we can do it the other way round?

[vvvslaxman]

no' date='[b'] but it does it mean that we can glorify these people from the 30s as being far better than those of the modern day??

Don't think anyone claims they are far better.Infact this thread original post is just the opposite . It is saying current players are far better than yesteryear players. Personally we should leave each one to their era. But is it not uncommon pioneers of a sports having a special place.

[The Outsider]

not unanimously. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Don't know which world you are living in, but Nicklaus and Ali are still considered to be among the benchmarks of their sports. Ali is still referred to in all major Boxing matches and Nicklaus was the standard Tiger was weighed against and Tiger came up way short. But to give you some more perspective - Michael Jordan and Jahangir Khan are still considered the greatest a couple of decades after their peak.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Don't know which world you are living in' date=' but Nicklaus and Ali are still considered to be among the benchmarks of their sports. Ali is still referred to in all major Boxing matches and Nicklaus was the standard Tiger was weighed against and Tiger came up way short.[/quote'] actualy, the unanimous opinion is that tiger will easily surpass nicklaus given his relatively young age. besides, nicklaus didn't dominate his peers the way tiger has. tiger has stalled for reasons not related to sport. boxing goes by weight classes anyway, you could make a case for ali being the best heavyweight but going beyond that is the realm of the clueless. dont comment on things u know nothing about. i know its the way here on indian ******** fans, but lets no ruin another thread... dunno why these people are even brought up. these are guys from the 60s, not the 30s. if you wanna argue a case for ppl from the 30s, you should be pointing out rocky marciano, billy tilden, etc. and try comparing them to your modern day guys. but nobody would do that because its ****ing stupid. feel free to take a stab at that one tho.

[The Outsider]

^ Changing your own goal posts?

[vvvslaxman]

actualy' date=' the unanimous opinion is that tiger will easily surpass nicklaus given his relatively young age. besides,[b'] nicklaus didn't dominate his peers the way tiger has. tiger has stalled for reasons not related to sport. boxing goes by weight classes anyway, you could make a case for ali being the best heavyweight but going beyond that is the realm of the clueless. dont comment on things u know nothing about. i know its the way here on indian ******** fans, but lets no ruin another thread... dunno why these people are even brought up. these are guys from the 60s, not the 30s. if you wanna argue a case for ppl from the 30s, you should be pointing out rocky marciano, billy tilden, etc. and try comparing them to your modern day guys. but nobody would do that because its ****ing stupid. feel free to take a stab at that one tho.

You mean like Tendulkar hasn't dominated his peers the way Bradman did? :fishing:

[Manny_Pacquiao]

^ Changing your own goal posts?

what goal posts? my point still stands, athletes from the modern era are still taken more seriously than those from the amateur eras. if anything, the guy who mentioned those superstars of the 60s just proved my point. its pretty obvious considering the higher standard of competition. except in cricket of course, this is where the amateur era guys from the 30s are unanimously considered the greatest ever for some bizarre reason.

[The Outsider]

what goal posts? my point still stands, athletes from the modern era are still taken more seriously than those from the amateur eras. if anything, the guy who mentioned those superstars of the 60s just proved my point. its pretty obvious considering the higher standard of competition. except in cricket of course, this is where the amateur era guys from the 30s are unanimously considered the greatest ever for some bizarre reason.

Do you even know what "amateur" and "professional" is? I can list tons of crappy cricketers from the 30s and 40s who were "professionals" (with the exception of the War time).