SRT vs RD

[zubinpepsi]

I think its absurd to compare bradman with anyone.. Hes light years ahead of the rest...

[King Tendulkar]

Sachin is better then bradman. bradman played in uncompetitive era were only real oppo were england and we know how cr#p they are.

[CC1981]

Sachin is better then bradman. bradman played in uncompetitive era were only real oppo were england and we know how cr#p they are.

Boolsheet argument, simply because bradman was not just the best of his era, he utterly dominated his era like no one has ever done, before or after. And while Sachin had to face better bowling & more competetive fielding, Bradman most definitely batted on far harder pitches to bat than Tendy. So that factors in too. Make no mistake, i don't think Bradman would average 99 in the modern era either, but he would most defintiely average atleast 10 runs more than Tendy in either form of the game. And that'd make him easily the best of the modern times too. And look, there is absolutely ZERO argument on this because Tendulkar himself is on record saying that Bradman was way better than Tendy. Your God has conceded the case. Who are you to counter Tendy's own opinion of how good he is and who is better than him ? Typical case of hero-worship gone mad, even when the hero himself has said he is not the ultimate hero. Tendulkar is #2 at best, never #1 in history of batting. Anybody who challenges that is working from nationalistic agendas and such that clouds their judgement in cricketing matters.

[King Tendulkar]

Bradman was never tested in subcontninent on big turners. In fact the only place he ever toured was England. Never played anywere else. How would he have fared in the windies/sa/ indian subcontninent? We dont know. How would he have coped touring in alien enviroments like pakistan? We dont know! He played when there was only one other major cricketing nation. Thus claiming to be the best with all these unknowns is ridiculous! sachin has proven he can play anywere against all attacks.

[Anakin]

Bradman was an amateur, a very good one among many, as simple as that.

[King Tendulkar]

Bradman was an amateur' date=' a very good one among many, as simple as that.[/quote'] Good way of putting it

[sandtest]

And look, there is absolutely ZERO argument on this because Tendulkar himself is on record saying that Bradman was way better than Tendy. .

I have never read actual statement of Sachu in this case, if possible, offer some more info/links. Even if your statement is true, it seems a situation where a Great is appreciating and praising another Great from previous era. It should not be wrongly interpreted that previous era Great is WAY BETTER than present era GREAT as you have twisted. Both are GREATS and Sachu by showering praise over Bradman has only proved that how humble and down to earth he is. My respect for Sachu has increased even more.......I am proud that I started following a game which is played by a Great man from India --- Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. Jiyo Mere Laal......Tum ho Cricket ke gaurav.!!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

Even if your statement is true, it seems a situation where a Great is appreciating and praising another Great from previous era.

There is a difference between appreciating a great and saying 'oh no, he is/was clearly better than me'. Predictably, this is the exact *SAME* argument given by the lara-worshippers from the caribbean when i say that one of my main reasons for considering Tendulkar to be better than Lara is because Lara *himself* said so. Same standards apply here- Tendulkar doesnt go around saying he is better/worse than other players- you'll notice that his interviews are politically correct to a fault- he usually says ' XYZ is a very good/great player, great to play against' etc. Except in the case of Bradman- where he categorically said that ' i am nobody in front of Bradman'. Look, sometimes players know that their fans get carried away by elavating them for the sake of nationalism/regionalism/religion/race etc. and sometimes the absurdities in comparisons embarasses them. Hence sometimes these once-in-a-lifetime statements are dropped to show just exactly where THEY think the score should stand.

[CC1981]

Bradman was never tested in subcontninent on big turners. In fact the only place he ever toured was England. Never played anywere else.

And Tendulkar is untested against bodyline or batting without helmet against bowlers tossing unlimited bouncers. Tendulkar is untested on uncovered pitches as well. There are factors in Bradman's favour too.

Thus claiming to be the best with all these unknowns is ridiculous! sachin has proven he can play anywere against all attacks.

the above shows that there are conditions on which Tendulkar too remains untested. I agree that Bradman's era's lower level of competetiveness inflates his record a bit if we were to compare it to modern day standards. But there are factors for bradman that makes up for it a bit- so much so that the gap isn't as pronounced as you'd think. This is why Bradman's batting average is an anomaly for his era- it is not like there were 5-10 batsmen around with 50+ average or 4-5 bowlers around with under-20 average- Bradman's era too had just 2/3 50 averaging batsmen, 2-3 20-25 averaging bowler and 2-3 25-30 averaging bowlers. Once you factor in that it was Australia,west indies, india & england who played cricket back then, those numbers seem just about right and consistent with the 60s/70s/80s/90s etc. And the scale of the anomaly ( 99.94 batting ave. when next best dood with similar allround experience had 55-56 batting ave) is gigantic- so much so that Bradman *must* be cosidered the best ever batsman,period.

[CC1981]

Bradman himself said SRT was better

Categoric lie/ misunderstanding by someone with questionable English skills. Bradman said that Tendulkar reminded him of himself - nothing more. Simple meaning is, Tendulkar's game reminded Bradman of his own game. Doesnt mean Bradman is better/worse than Tendulkar or vice-versa from that comment ( he left it unanswered in typical Bradman style- he never entertained comparisons with anyone seriously). All it means is that Tendulkar's game and bearing resembles Don Bradman's.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

Usual nonsense from someone who questionable non-existent ethics

What nonsense ? Its basic English 101. Kindly do not tranfer your inability to understand English properly as to a questionable explanation- Bradman said " I see him in me" and i gave you a precise definition of the sentence in English. YOU are the one chatting nonsense and your usual lies ( and i am not the only poster to point this dishonest trait in you, if i may add so) by twisting it to say Bradman said Tendulkar is better than he was.

he wouldnt have said it if he wasnt impressed by SRT's batting.

Ofcourse Bradman was impressed by Tendy's batting. Anyone sane should be impressed by Tendy's batting in his heydeys. The best batsman in the last 50-60 years in cricket is quite a sight to behold at his pomp. However, bradman did not make any comments to who is/was better- he did not use a single comparative phrase, only a relative conjunction.

Anyone who still twists that to suit his agenda is obviously lacking in many things one of which is ethics.

Says the guy with questionable ethics who puts Tendulkar ahead of Bradman using faulty statistical analysis and utterly nationalistic motivations, not of purely cricketing ones. I repeat: Tendulkar himself is on record stating that he cannot be compared to a batsman like Bradman, Bradman was a league better. He is an anomaly that no amount of your hinduvta propaganda and wishing away wont conceal really. All your arguments fall flat simply due to the fact that Bradman's nearest competetitor boasted a record only 60% as good as Bradman at best. And once you eliminate Bradman(the statistical anomaly of his time), the 1930s-40s era is just similar to most other subsequent decades in terms of statistics. Anyone with pretensions about statistics but ignorant about the importance of scale of the anomaly under investigation is really a hack of the lowest order. And i am willing to go out on a limb and say that you exhibit extremely low proficiency at statistical analysis, performing a task only known as data mining. And i seriously doubt you've had anything but the most basic training at statistics at best- i would be surpised if you have even formally read up on anything more profound than root mean squared theorem. The scale of Bradman's anomaly simply leaves one conclusion - he is to batting what Gauss is to mathematics, what Einstien and Plank are to 20th century Physics and Newton is to non-relatavistic physics. The one peerless standout, a genius amongst geniuses. Ofcourse, this doesnt deter from the other geniuses one iota, for they represent the best of the best in the field.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

Pretty much the entire forum here knows about your abusive and other disgusting traits dont kid yourselves ....

Just like the entire forum knows that you are the only one to vent your frustrations at getting outwitted by resorting to banning and you are the only moderator to issue ban specifically to one individual to settle score. What i showed there is not abuse, unless you are such a sensetive guy that pointing out your error in understanding is equivalent of abusing you.

"I see him in me" = SRT not as good as DGB .... nice try.

" I see him in me" = His batting reminds me of me. NOT he is better/worse than me. Ambrose would remind someone of Garner and Garner would remind someone of Amby. Piysush would remind someone of young mushie, mushie of Piyush. NOT a comparison issue here. Again, this is simple English comprehension, which is where your problem is, nothing more twisting or otherwise. YOU twisted the ' he reminds me of me' to 'he is better than me' when it most categorically does NOT mean that in English. So good job trying to lie and then pretend to be the one abused.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

CC, take a deep breath. You have made your point. Move on. Online forums are not the places to get ballistic about convincing someone, just make your point, put in your facts and move on. You say, "I see in me" is pointing out a similarity, someone else says its an acknowledgement by Bradman that Tendulkar was better. You are not going to make him change his mind by getting personal and writing one post after another.

[CC1981]

wont you please point me to that thread ... pleeeeease ?

It would've been a lot easier to remember had it only been a once or twice instance instead of over half a dozen times due to your whimsical and vendetta oriented moderation ( in one word : dadagiri), which usually were reversed in a matter of minutes after i commented upon it through proper channels. As i said to you before- do not attempt to show dadagiri to me- it simply will not work. It hasnt worked so far for you, so i don't really get what reason you have for continuing to do so.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

So there is no thread but only a bunch of hot air ?

Your English comprehension is shocking really. When one says ' he reminds me of me', you amazingly interpret it as 'he is better than me'. When someone says 'there are simply too many threads to keep track of where your typical dadagiri has surfaced', you interpret it as ' so there is no thread'. How marvellously disingeneous.