Zen
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 14,878
So because you can't argue with his 100% valid points(well except the Vaughan inclusion), its trolling? Yeah.......no.
That's because I didn't take the bait.Not his fault you can't give a valid argument to what he's saying though is it.
Was just thinking about this. I don't know how I'd react the day he retires. It's unimaginable really. He'll be remembered by future generation as the greatest ever IMO.
He played on flat decks most of the time. He's not even better than Lara or Ponting let alone Richards and Bradman. He'll be remembered as the greatest, yes. . .in Amol's arse.
In India...
Not his fault you can't give a valid argument to what he's saying though is it.
So because you can't argue with his 100% valid points(well except the Vaughan inclusion), its trolling? Yeah.......no.
It truly has been a pleasure watching him bat all these years, and he just keeps going on and on. Most definitely the greatest that there has ever been in the modern game. Ridiculous just how good he is. Bringing such delight to more than a billion people for so many years takes some doing......
Hehe someones getting wound up.
You lose any credibility when you include Ponting in there to be honest.
But with Vaughan I must say it is close.![]()
Most of the older posters probably are aware of my unhealthy obsession with the great man. Simply the greatest sportsman I've had the privilege of watching/secretly stalking.
Anyway, so he's 37. And is averaging over 90 in tests this year. And became the first batsman to score 200 in a limited over game not too long back. Things like this aren't supposed to happen, are they?
I think Tresco was better at his best too. You're blinkered man.
As I said greatest ever cricket below 5ft5. Yes! Definitely!
So because you can't argue with his 100% valid points(well except the Vaughan inclusion), its trolling? Yeah.......no.
Yeah, I don't think so. He's been the best for close almost the best part of two decades now. He'll be remembered as the best. A world cup would be the absolute icing but it won't happen.
Children!
Spoons on a WUM
Of course he is.
Marchi, what does this have to do with the world war exactly? Cricket was an unrecognizable game back then. Playing the same team twice every year on the same pitches. It's like playing a home game every 5 months against the same attack. Madness I say! I'm not ready to count someone who played a game nothing like the one today.
Sachin's the best. I don't like to believe so, I believe so. Lara was good and explosive on his day but he wasn't technically as sound as Sachin, he didn't match him in terms of performances and was the lesser of the two.
Jopub, what relevance does the bowling one play in the nets have? For all you know he could have struggled against them. Who did he play that was so hostile that makes the likes Sachin played not so? The list of bowlers Sachin played and dealt with is incredible.
And there's absolutely no comparing the pressures faced by Sachin. Even players like Warne can't quite fathom the pressure he faces. It's almost inconceivable.
I'll say it once again so y'all hear me, he's the best.![]()
I have one question. Why is it that Indian players' achievements are always knocked for not having played quality pace bowling, or on green pitches.. but the players like Richards, Bradman aren't ever measured on their ability to play spin? It's almost like spin bowling isn't a part of cricket.
Jopub, what relevance does the bowling one play in the nets have? For all you know he could have struggled against them.
Relevance ? huge
mmm well facing up to Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Courtney Walsh, Curtley Ambrose etc in practice is enough to make you as good as Viv Richards was - in the net or otherwise - these were the greatest, fastest, consistantly most aggressive bowlers that have played the game
He may well have 'struggled' against them but for me its no accident that Richards phenomenal technique and courage against any other speed merchants was honed by playing against his own teamates in practice.
Its pretty obvious anyone with Richards prodigious gifts practicing against that attack will come out of it with a a bucketful of confidence
No, for sure it helped him get some good practice. But it has no baring on how good he was compared to others. eg. 'Viv was the best because he got to play amazing bowlers in the nets' is a completely useless statement.Relevance ? huge
mmm well facing up to Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Courtney Walsh, Curtley Ambrose etc in practice is enough to make you as good as Viv Richards was - in the net or otherwise - these were the greatest, fastest, consistantly most aggressive bowlers that have played the game
He may well have 'struggled' against them but for me its no accident that Richards phenomenal technique and courage against any other speed merchants was honed by playing against his own teamates in practice.
Its pretty obvious anyone with Richards prodigious gifts practicing against that attack will come out of it with a a bucketful of confidence
The rules were different back then, Jo. The game was well balanced between bat and ball - in fact, if anything the ball ruled. As I said earlier, uncovered pitches, old bouncer laws and a lack of batting protection in contrast to flat pitches and limited bouncers per over rule. Viv never wore a helmet in his life, which helped him and players of his ilk learn to play the hook magnificently. But yeah, he was fearless. I've seen some cracking players but he was a cut above all. For me, he's the Maradona/Pele of batting.
Just wondering shouldn't Sunil Gavaskar be counted above the likes of Vivian Richards etc..sure Richards was a great player but he didn't have to face the fierce bowling attack of WI whereas Gavaskar despite being a short batsman had a great record against W.Indies
While watching some retarded Argentine/Bosnian/Iranian indie movie no less, mind!Spoony is genuinely a bit retarded. It's pointless to argue with him, though, because he'll respond with some twattish one-liner which he alone thinks is funny.
Of course he is.
Marchi, what does this have to do with the world war exactly? Cricket was an unrecognizable game back then. Playing the same team twice every year on the same pitches. It's like playing a home game every 5 months against the same attack. Madness I say! I'm not ready to count someone who played a game nothing like the one today.
Sachin's the best. I don't like to believe so, I believe so. Lara was good and explosive on his day but he wasn't technically as sound as Sachin, he didn't match him in terms of performances and was the lesser of the two.
Tendulkar isn't even close to being considered greater than Sir Donald Bradman. 99.91 is a freakish average which no one has or ever will come close to. So what if he versed England 70% of the time in international games. If it were so easy back then his teammates would have been close to his average (for the record, his average was 179, 201 and 75 against India, SA and the WIndies respectively, playing each 5 times). Not only is Bradman the greatest cricketer who has lived, he is probably the greatest ball athlete who's ever lived. No other number one athlete in their sport has such a magnitude in scoring rate between the best and second best player.
Bradman's average is 4.4 standard deviations above the average for cricket. For comparison, Michael Jordan's points per game is 3.4 standard deviations above the average and Pele's scoring rate is 3.7 standard deviations above average.
People are getting really carried away with Sachin's recent great form.
Sachin's the best. I don't like to believe so, I believe so. Lara was good and explosive on his day but he wasn't technically as sound as Sachin, he didn't match him in terms of performances and was the lesser of the two.
why bother comparing the greats of the game who have achieved what they have just because of their love for the game! Covet records they may. But that hasn't stopped them one bit in enjoying what they do.![]()