Sachin second only to Bradman - Michael Clarke

[Crookbond]

Sachin second only to Bradman - Michael Clarke And that's the problem with Tendulkar testicles - can't even open up to the remote possibility of another player being better than him. Even if someone rates Tendulkar 2nd best of all time (which in itself is a great thing), they get their panties in a twist. Tendulkar may be better than Bradman in fact for all we know but to completely shun the other possibility clearly shows who the problem is.

[GoldenSun]

And that's the problem with Tendulkar testicles - can't even open up to the remote possibility of another player being better than him. Even if someone rates Tendulkar 2nd best of all time (which in itself is a great thing)' date=' they get their panties in a twist. Tendulkar may be better than Bradman in fact for all we know but to completely shun the other possibility clearly shows who the problem is.[/quote'] Exactly, It's pretty much disrespecting history.

[King Tendulkar]

One Indian tour ? Are you kidding ? He averaged 26 in 14 tests in India and he was Harbhajan's bunny and he was clueless against spinners. Havent you seen this video ? :cantstop: O91bEvmwFP8

Or maybe that proves Bhaji was very good and does not get enough credit:--D

[Scarves]

They were surely. Get real. It would only be romanticism to believe people can be better when they have to work on multiple things in comparison to people when they have to completely focus on single things. Nowaday players focus more' date=' have better support system available so they are bound to be better than the older lot. All you can say that Bradman had shown enough sign to suggest that he would have been as good as anybody else if he had played in current era, but those would be just speculations. As of now, you simply can't compare.[/quote'] Aren't you just comparing? yet you say that you shouldn't compare...so what are you trying to do. Also to the previous comment, the Windies 1960's team weren't paid either which is why I used them. The fact that you are saying that because they have a job is reason for disrespecting every single player before WSC is really naive and stupid. Players focus more and have better support system? I'm sure that the Sheffield Shield, Ranji Trophy and County Championships are still there, so ummm the support system is still the same. So I don't see a difference there because there are still clubs that lead the grade cricket than lead to Shield that lead the Test cricket. So I don't see any difference with the systems and the road to. You are basically saying that the support system and road to tests have changed but if you do your research they haven't.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[maniac]

It's called being "fair" and not regressive. Both questions need to be asked and not just the one which you think is good. It is important to note that the amateurish format (due to technological less advancement etc.) was not Bradman's fault. Important to respect history as much as bask in the present glory. Easy to sit on an armchair and say - "Hey that was amateurish" sitting on the Internet which came into prominence 50 years after the Don had played his last game. By the same logic' date=' 100 years down the line there will be Internet warriors trying to prove some XYZ Sharma > Tendulkar by more runs in IPL games.[/quote'] So maybe by the same logic, say if don took care of himself well and was fit, he would have shined among substandard athletes....kudos to him for that :hatsoff:....no one denies he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries. As far as srt goes, wasn't the playing field even with all the advancements in the field of sports medicine and techniques. Simple it is like comparing a topper of a state university with the topper of iit/iim

[Crookbond]

So maybe by the same logic, say if don took care of himself well and was fit, he would have shined among substandard athletes....kudos to him for that :hatsoff:....no one denies he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries. As far as srt goes, wasn't the playing field even with all the advancements in the field of sports medicine and techniques. Simple it is like comparing a topper of a state university with the topper of iit/iim

I can say the same about Tendulkar - he was ahead of his contemporaries. It is called being product of your times. I don't think you can fathom that simple concept. There is no way of knowing Tendulkar would have done as good as Bradman if he were born in the 1930s and vice-versa. So lets shut shop and celebrate both careers with respect. Also, open your mind to the remote possibility that if both played in the same era there is a chance that Bradman would have fared better.

[maniac]

I can say the same about Tendulkar - he was ahead of his contemporaries. It is called being product of your times. I don't think you can fathom that simple concept. There is no way of knowing Tendulkar would have done as good as Bradman if he were born in the 1930s and vice-versa. So lets shut shop and celebrate both careers with respect. Also' date=' open your mind to the remote possibility that if both played in the same era there is a chance that Bradman would have fared better.[/quote'] Macintosh was way ahead of any typewriter...Ipad may be ahead of it's competition(debate for another day).....but it is a joke to compare an Ipad to a Macintosh As SImple as that

[maniac]

I can say the same about Tendulkar - he was ahead of his contemporaries. It is called being product of your times. I don't think you can fathom that simple concept. There is no way of knowing Tendulkar would have done as good as Bradman if he were born in the 1930s and vice-versa. So lets shut shop and celebrate both careers with respect. Also' date= open your mind to the remote possibility that if both played in the same era there is a chance that Bradman would have fared better.

I cannot because I just don't see say a Rod Laver competing with the likes of forget Nadal even with the 200th ranked Male player in the world even if his old-school racquet was replaced with the new and more powerful ones

[Crookbond]

Macintosh was way ahead of any typewriter...Ipad may be ahead of it's competition(debate for another day).....but it is a joke to compare an Ipad to a Macintosh As SImple as that

And that is unfair - as simple as that. That is not called a comparison - it is called an "obvious truth" which a 3 year old kid with no knowledge of cricket will answer with a high probability. Mercedes in 2000 better than Fords of 1930s - is this even a topic to discuss?

I cannot because I just don't see say a Rod Laver competing with the likes of forget Nadal even with the 200th ranked Male player in the world even if his old-school racquet was replaced with the new and more powerful ones

Like I said earlier, that is not the exercise we are doing and if you are - you do not understand the comparion really. The question/exercise is as follows - IF both players were playing at the same time (with access to same everything), who will be best? That is the "fun" question and a topic which requires to come up with appropriate points. Give it a thought before your next posts and you will understand how difficult it is to compare and in reality a futile exercise. It is not Bradman's fault that he played against 2 Test nations and it won't be Tendulkar's fault if in the next 100 years the IPL will be bigger than Test cricket or cricket will be played only in a desert at 45C. You are judged according to your era not in an era where you were not alive.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --