So because you can't argue with his 100% valid points(well except the Vaughan inclusion), its trolling? Yeah.......no.
Sachin Tendulkar
- Thread starter amolbhatia50k
- Start date
He's just repeating one post over and over and over and over again; that's a big giveaway. And then there's the Vaughan and "he's always played on a flat track" bits thrown in for good measure. Knock yourself out though.
Not his fault you can't give a valid argument to what he's saying though is it.
Leave them man. They didn't see the likes of Richards play without helmets, batting on uncovered pitches, when bowlers could bowl as many bouncers as they liked. The pitches generally have been flat post 90s.
That's because I didn't take the bait.
In India...
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.
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.
Valid arguments? Saying someone else is better is not really valid argument. And when you mention people like Vaughan, it can only crack you up, hardly a mood setter for getting into a debate!
Pitches, bah! He's done it on every type of pitch you can find. His technique is sublime. There's a reason why Bradman was so impressed he heaped all that praise. He's faced the best bowling possibly world cricket has ever seen. The only thing that matches the bowling Sachin's faced is probably the West Indian attack back in the day, and Richards never had to face that, just watch other teams squirm facing them.
I'll give valid reasons just for the fun of it. Off the top of my head:
1. Most hundreds, he could get 100 international hundreds, beat that.
2. Most runs in test cricket, most runs in ODI cricket.
3. A staggering average DESPITE starting his career when he was 16. Unlike a Ganguly who only truly got into the team when he was a matured player and close to his best at 22 or something, Sachin started off at the tender age of 16. He had to learn and improve on the job.
4. A 21 year career. To highlight what Sachin's been through, I think Bradman played 52 tests in 20 years. All against the same team played in Australia or England. Sachin's gone through all these years of playing international cricket when the game's schedule has been at it's craziest. ODI's, Tests, T20 and God knows what next.
5. 10/2 Syndrome. He's a number 4 batsman who usually had to play the new ball.
6. First batsman to score 200 runs in a one day international.
7. One of the finest batsman in world cup history with being the best batsman twice.
8. Taking the best spinner of all time apart.
9. Averaging 90 plus for 2010 at the age 37. Nuts.
10. Ok I'm bored of this now, but most importantly the pressure he's had to endure these 20 years. To stay humble and full of class, and not let your performances nosedive with the immense pressure he's had to bear on his shoulders, is nothing short of genius. I have nothing but admiration and awe for the way he's handled it.
Double hundred for the little master
His points are rubbish. Sachin's average outside India is actually a little less than his average in the India and has scored more runs away than in India. With Averages of 59 in Australia, 62 in England and 50 in NZ. Only an Idiot will say that he scores most runs on flat tracks.
Not better than Ponting
I haven't seen the likes of Richards, so can't comment on it but Lara wasn't better than him.
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......
The pressure has to have been the biggest challenge for him though. He's always had the talent to deal with the opposition and environment, but I doubt he ever anticipated the sudden burden he had to take of practically carrying Indian cricket. Must have been quite a shock for a player of his age.
I absolutely loved Tendulkar, he was just getting into the team as I started watching cricket as a 7-year old in 1991. He was amazingly good for someone so young. And even in a line-up which had quite some talent, he was a stand-out. But for the period between, the 92 world cup and 96, he was carrying the batting on his own at least in one-days (yes there was Azhar, whose strokes were mesmerizing(he was my favourite then for his style) and there was Kambli for the one-off occasion), but the Indian batting line-up's performance had a great correlation to Tendulkar's performance. That changed a bit once, Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman established themselves.
Yes, the 1998 Sachin was absolutely great, but there was also the Sachin who used to go to Colombo and hit straight sixes against the battery of left-arm bowlers, which was great to watch. There was a program on DD, in 1998 called 'Sachin at 25', which was brilliant. (I actually recorded the voice on tape, and listened to it many times) The commentary as Tendulkar was playing Australia in Sharjah was great.
That he performed consistently in the circumstances, he has is in itself a really big achievement.
Tendulkar is a genius, however in terms of individual performances Lara was as good or maybe better. Over all Tendulkar is the greater cricketer, but to judge individually as a batsman Lara was as good (he didn't have as good a supporting cast, however bad India was during the time, the Windies were worse unfortunately). I guess Lara had the advantage of being left-handed and as a result gets a little points on the style front.
It is not going to easy for an Indian (or any one else) to determine who the better batsman is/was? However, the better cricketer, there is little doubt
Yes, the 1998 Sachin was absolutely great, but there was also the Sachin who used to go to Colombo and hit straight sixes against the battery of left-arm bowlers, which was great to watch. There was a program on DD, in 1998 called 'Sachin at 25', which was brilliant. (I actually recorded the voice on tape, and listened to it many times) The commentary as Tendulkar was playing Australia in Sharjah was great.
That he performed consistently in the circumstances, he has is in itself a really big achievement.
Tendulkar is a genius, however in terms of individual performances Lara was as good or maybe better. Over all Tendulkar is the greater cricketer, but to judge individually as a batsman Lara was as good (he didn't have as good a supporting cast, however bad India was during the time, the Windies were worse unfortunately). I guess Lara had the advantage of being left-handed and as a result gets a little points on the style front.
It is not going to easy for an Indian (or any one else) to determine who the better batsman is/was? However, the better cricketer, there is little doubt
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.
I think Tresco was better at his best too. You're blinkered man.
As I said greatest ever cricket below 5ft5. Yes! Definitely!
quality batsman
Vivian Richards
(and by the way he did play against his own awesome attack - every single day)
- that's why he became the best ever)
And he also played against true aggressive hostile bowlers
Tendulkar is a great player but Richards is on some other level
Agree. He's not trolling. 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.
How's his average
Its nowhere near 99.94 is it? Oh and before you bring in the 52 tests argument, there was that little thing in the middle of his career called world war 2. You know, it wasn't important or anything.... Sachin is on level with Lara no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise. For the last 10 years, he's battered with one of the best attacks in Cricket. For the last 14 years of his career Lara batted with one of the most average. He's good, but he's not the best.
Children!
Spoons on a WUM
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.
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.
It's an interesting point. I do think until around 2002 or so, although foreign teams batsman did struggle against our spinners, we were absolutely hopeless on fast and bouncy tracks. Which made us come across very very badly. So I guess any criticism is fair.
But you're right, over the last 10 years or so, the importance of spinners is slowly dying. People come to India, and when they see a pitch not helping pacers and helping the spinners, there's a lot of moaning about the pitch not up to the mark, but the same doesn't happen in Australia if it heavily favors pacers.
Also, in general Indian's aren't as vocal as their western counterparts (apart from our board) so maybe that perception gets conveyed.
As for Sachin, it's absolute nonsense that he didn't play quality bowlers. He's possibly played across two decades of the highest standard of International cricket, with some of the greatest bowlers ever plying their trade in his time. He's dealt with them all.
I'd like someone to come up with a list of great bowlers other batsman before Sachin's time faced. I simply cannot see it being on a different level as the ones his time has produced. A big chunk of Pakistan's great bowlers were during Sachin's time, almost all of SA's greatest bowlers were during Sachin's time, Australia's greatest attack was during Sachin's time, England err...
Off the top of my head only West Indies had better bowlers before his time, and the only batsman of the highest standard at the time was Richards, who didn't even have to face them.
What next? who's the greatest ever footballer? Robbie Savage?
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.
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.
Yeah that's Sachin. Now go make your own Vaughan thread!
Possibly called cricketers with incredibly long noses.
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
The only person Sunny could be compared with would be Sir Geoffrey.
Sachin, Lara and Sir Viv would be my players of the century.
Agree, Sults. Richards was just a class act. Sachin is the one batsman who comes closest to him according to me.
While watching some retarded Argentine/Bosnian/Iranian indie movie no less, mind!
Mumbai should be renamed Sachinpur
Sticky wickets, bodyline, dodgy padding and cricket bats that aren't worth a pinch of shit in modern terms. The weight and thickness was completely different. Half the power out of modern day cricketers comes from the "elastic effect" of modern day bats. Modern day cricketers wouldn't know what to do on the pitches that the old guys use to play on. And you've just proved my point. You have no respect for what others have done. Its this self righteous bullshit that Spoony is implying. Sachin is a good cricketer, but outside of India he's only as good as Lara and the likes. Modern batsman have been spoonfed. The pitches in modern cricket are an absolute sham. They drastically favor batsman and recently when we do get pitches that favor bowling '2005 ashes series' we get some of the best most entertaining cricket in living memory.
Sachin also had a far better team to rely on even if they were "shit"
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.
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.
No-one has said that Sachin is greater than Bradman. I don't think anybody can eclipse what Bradman achieved in his career.
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.
As much as I would like to agree with you, it is not true. For the time that Lara played, he was as good if not better. Technically too he was as good or maybe better. And in performances, Lara was much more crucial to West Indies than Sachin to India (which says a lot)
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.
I completely agree with this sentiment. There is nothing better then watching a great talent excel in their field.