DONADO said:
Collingwood's got more natural talent than Dravid.
Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Collingwood's got more natural talent than Dravid.
You, my friend are really clueless. Iv been following the game for the last decade(i dont claim to be some big expert), but from about 1996 to 2003, there wasnt any doubt who the best batsman in the world was.. Sachin was clearly better, i dont need to name reasons why, but everyone knew it.. all the 'experts' when asked would say it, Lara himself acknowledged it a few times.. Bradman never saw any similarities between himself and Lara did he?UNITED_OG said:
This discussion has gone on a bit.. Sachins been better and more consistant for a whole decade. Lara once in awhile comes along and breaks records when it least matters(except for that one innings against aus). Everything else has been pointless.. i dont know what happened, wheather he lost motivation nor do i care but for those 7 or 8 years, he wasnt as good as Sachin.
These comparisons have only come about of late since Sachin got injured.
amolbhatia100 said:
Ironic.
Lara is better than Tendulkar.
amolbhatia100 said:
Wrong. From 1996-2003 Lara and Steve Waugh were as good as Tendulkar if not better. During that period Steve has won more tests matches with his bat more than Lara and Sachin put together
Dubai_Devilish
Steve waugh was known for saving matches not winning them.vijay said:
He should n't even be compared to Sachin.
crappycraperson said:
who told you that? List out some matches he had saved for Australia
First you list the matches he won for australia...vijay said:
crappycraperson said:
Its a very long list..
1996 --..... Starting from his series winning knock in the final test against England and 200 against West Indies, ....It goes on and on..Almost all his knocks have turned the series around and won tests for Australia
If my memory serves right.. The only tests Aussies lost despite Steve scoring centuries were against West Indies and India. He still managed to pull Aussies to a formidable total but Lara and Laxman scored amazing second innings centuries.
You posted Steve was renowned for saving matches for Australia. List some of the matches he had saved for Australia, if there is any.....
Crappycraperspastic
Vigay
Vigay
vijay said:
Your an idiot. Even Steve Waugh would be embarissed by that comparison. He played for one of the greatest teams EVER. That sort of makes a difference. Sachin carried a very average cricket team and did something with it.. Lara sunk with his ship and once in awhile showed glimses of brilliance. Whenever India played Australia or England or most teams, all their players were usually in awe of Sachin. They knew that if Sachin got out the rest would crumble, Steve consistantly had a set of world beaters alongside him. Infact wasnt there a time he was playing so poorly they dropped him or were about to??
Thats just the worst comparison iv heard here.. Steve Waugh was a grafter, he was mentally tough and knew how to battle. Sachin is on a different level and possibly the best batsman of all time(not including Donald). And your theory of them winning tests in which he performed is even worse, because Australia usually win almost every test.
Prior to 96, he was an allrounder, played below the pecking order of 6 quality batters that included the likes of Boon, Marsh, M.Waugh, Border, Taylor, et al. If a player gonna bat lower down the order behind these players, he would hardly get a chance to bat and whenever he bats, he was either in a position to score quickfire 80's or if the top order collapses, he has to bail out the team with big hundreds. Either he must score and win test matches or he loses his place.
This trend continued after 96, whenever the top order clicked, Steve shifted the gears and blasted quickfire 80's and 90 either in the first or second innings to push the score up and when the top order failed, he hit big hundreds and carried the tail but still he was the best batsman among the six, scored and won more matches than any other Aussie batters. Check how many times, Aussie's have won even after the top order had crumbled you can judge Steve's consistency. Sachin would’ve shackled under that kind of pressure and even Lara would’ve found it difficult to survive under such conditions.
Steve played along with a great team
. INSIGHTFUL..He built the team... After Boon and Taylor and Marsh were succeeded by more aggressive but inexperienced batters, it became even hard for Steve and still he made the difference between an above average team and a great team. Aussie bowlers usually won Test Matches mainly because of the comfortable targets set by Steve Waugh, as they weren’t as good as the West Indies quickies, capable enough to run down an opposition if enough runs weren’t put on the board. Between 96 and 2003, he had won more MOM awards than any other batters and almost all his centuries have turned the series around- made the Aussies to win from losing position and decide the series. For instance, ignore some of his contributions - England would've won the Ashes way back in ‘97’ itself and Windies would not have lost their invincibility and SA, Pak would’ve appeared stronger and may’ve even won the WC. Bottom-line... Aussies would not have been invincibles. Incidentally only when he hit his first test century - 177 against England at Leeds Aussies started to dominate England and England were able to win back the Ashes only after his retirement
amolbhatia100 said:
Your pedantic arguments about Sachin and superlative comparisons with Bradman once again reflects the extent of the drivel spouted by the Indian Media has hacked kids in the subcontinent.
amolbhatia100 said:
You're
Bradman was a freak incident. Statistically no one can compare to him, and hence automatically he has to be considered the best batsman ever. But its tough to compare eras so far apart.. conditions then were a lot different. They played such little cricket in the year.vijay said:
Im pretty sure with the amount of cricket there is now and the pressure the likes of Sachin have to shoulder, it wouldnt have been possible for Bradman to average even close to 99.
And Sachin is better than Waugh. Even Lara's better than Waugh.
amolbhatia100 said:
Agree. He would've still averaged around 90. With Test matches few and far between, Sachin would've averaged around 45, if he had played along with Don.
Steve Waugh retired in 2004. Agree with you again.
Cant believe iv wasted so many posts on an individual who makes such little sense. How the feck did you come up with that?? Why would Sachin average 45 if he played tests few and far between with much less pressure on himself, as opposed to 57, playing tons of one day and test cricket consistantly for 16 years, with a whole nation wanting a century every time he goes out to bat.vijay said:
amolbhatia100 said:
You've wasted a lot of posts by repeating the same one liner
Tendulkar the great ....three times a week and twice on Sundays
He is good but not as hyped by the media.
Get a grip
Anyone that good has to be overhyped by the media. This thread has dragged on quite a bit. We have differing opinions. Lets leave it at that.vijay said:
amolbhatia100 said:
Are you admitting Sachin is overhyped ?
Sure he is, but so is Bradman. Or Ronaldhinio.Sultan said:
amolbhatia100 said:
Bradman wasn't over hyped, as the media weren't so big those days to over hype a particular player.
Ronnie is overhyped just like Sachin.
Overhyped, maybe....but they deliver.
Four pages on and Lara is still better than Tendulkar.
16 years on and Sachins still better.Dubai_Devil said:
Good call.
The younger crappy types like amol
The younger crappy is the reason textspeak is banned in the Caf.
:wankers:
There is actually not any text speak in this thread from me thought initially I did have a habbit of using 'cos' instead of because and some other stuff.
Good ol' Amol eh.
That vijay guy was a nutter.
Vij was interesting.
Inzy > Tendulkar
How do I (or young crappy) type?
About as interesting as chicken pox.
No wonder United_OG got banned. What a tool.
Meant nothing negative. It's just your fanboyism towards Sachin and Federer.
Nothing wrong with being a Sachin fanboy, imo