World's Greatest Cricket Legend

[SJS]

Bradman was the best, but Tendulkar is much more well-known.

To whom ?? People in the year 2005 ??

Do you have any idea what Bradman's status was in the world in his cricketing days ?

The only way to compare would be to see hundred years from now. Unfortunately you and I wont be there

 

[archie mac]

Disagree about comparing with the contemporaries only.
That makes an assumption that if the player were present today, a more intense scrutiny of their technique/style wouldnt reveal any flaws and they would be just as successful.
I am comparing playing abilities empirically and cricket playing ability empirically 150 years ago was nowhere close to what it is in the modern times...in that case, since you can be only compared to your contemporaries, some hobnob batsman in 1600s is equivalent to Lara/Tendulkar and some hobnob underarm bowler is equivalent to Malcolm Marshall.
And Sobers was the UNDISPUTED allrounder of his time, easily equivalent of WG Grace of the 50s/60s/70s. No allrounder came within half a distance of him- his fielding/catching were hall of famer category, his bowling was pretty good and his batsmanship was easily the best of his generation.

I read the comments of CB Fry on the book called 'a social history of English cricket' by Derek Birley.

I really don't see how else you can compare a player, except with his contemporaries, as things have changed so much. If Marshall had been born in the 1600 he would have bowled underarm no choice, and he still would have been great.

I would think Sobers the A/R of all time. But not the legend of all- time. In his book 'One Hundred Greatest Cricketers' John Woodcock had them 1. Grace 2. Bradman 3. Sobers. I would have gone Bradman, Grace and Sobers.

 

[archie mac]

Well Rhodes and Mankad are the only two openers. So that settles that.
Bradman at 3, Hammond at 4, Walcott at 5 and Sobers at 6 is also undisputed. I would put Goddard at 7, ask Miller and Botham to toss up for the next two positions and Imran and Hadlee to toss up for the last two

Mankad
Rhodes
Bradman
Hammond
Walcott
Sobers
Goddard
Miller
Botham
Imran
Hadlee

12th man : Kapil Dev

I thought Goddard was an opener?

 

[C_C]

Hammond wasnt a proper allrounder...essentially an earlier version of Steve Waugh/Jayasurya......
And Rhodes/Mankad wernt the only two openers to open in Test cricket....Eddie Barlow was an opener as well.
If i were to pick an allrounder's XI, it would look as this:

Mankad
Barlow
Kallis
Sobers
Imran
Miller
Gillchrist+
Greig
Botham
Hadlee
Kapil

 

[C_C]

I really don't see how else you can compare a player, except with his contemporaries, as things have changed so much. If Marshall had been born in the 1600 he would have bowled underarm no choice, and he still would have been great.

The players of the modern times,having a higher fitness level, dedication, competition and professionalism are far likelier to succeed than a player 200 years ago timewarped into today's world with existing skill level and mastery.
Its like if Newton was timewarped today, his knowledge would be no more than a 2nd year math/physics student. But a Physics prof today timewarped back into the past could teach Newton and the rest a lotta things.
Human existance isnt constant, it is progressive in its sophistication and development.
There is no reason to assume otherwise in cricket or in any sporting endavour.

And yes, if Tendulkar was born in the 1600s, he wouldnt have had anywhere close to the skill level of the players today.
Assuming that they would make a linear progression and 'catch up' if born in the modern era is a big assumption indeed.

And yes, Sobers is a bigger Legend than Grace....just who did Grace enthrall ? English and Aussie public ? Sobers enthralled a lot more diverse and substantial population base at a higher skill level and near-equal dominance of the game.

 

[social]

I've never heard of train delays, major work stoppages, stock market shutting down etc. due to bradman.... And Bradman didnt impact the populace of as many Test playing nations as Tendy did- atleast, not in his career.Tendulkar's popularity is sky high in almost every cricket-playing country, except for perhaps Pakistan. Bradman's mystique is built predominantly around ENG and AUS, with certain appreciation from India and South Africa. Bradman's popularity wasnt sky high... he wasnt 'ultra-popular' in South Africa, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh..........

The legend, the mystique, the myth and the fairytale is based on public perception and reverence. That isnt necessarily proportional to how good or bad a player is, simply because the bulk of the cricket-mad public is largely ignorant of the finer points of statistics, accomplishments, etc. And as i've given examples above, often the mystique surrounding the player has very little correlation to how good he actually was.

Sorry, but if we're talking about test playing nations then there really is no comparison.

Tendy is a great player but in the vast majority of the cricketing world, "that's all" he'll be known as.

Bradman is, and most likely will forever be, known as "the best."

He lifted a nation's spirits in times of depression and war.

His dismissal produced a front page of England's biggest newspaper that stated only "He's out!"

His batting encouraged tens of thousands of people to attend first-class matches whilst his dismissal caused almost an equal number to leave.

His status was such that he commanded personal audiences with other country's royalty.

Sachin himself nominates meeting Bradman as one of the highlights of his life.

He is cricket's Elvis Presley, Michael Jordan, and Babe Ruth rolled into one.

His name may not be recognised by a boy in Toronto but, amongst cricket nations, he is beyond comparison.

 

[King_Ponting]

The players of the modern times,having a higher fitness level, dedication, competition and professionalism are far likelier to succeed than a player 200 years ago timewarped into today's world with existing skill level and mastery.
Its like if Newton was timewarped today, his knowledge would be no more than a 2nd year math/physics student. But a Physics prof today timewarped back into the past could teach Newton and the rest a lotta things.
Human existance isnt constant, it is progressive in its sophistication and development.
There is no reason to assume otherwise in cricket or in any sporting endavour.

And yes, if Tendulkar was born in the 1600s, he wouldnt have had anywhere close to the skill level of the players today.
Assuming that they would make a linear progression and 'catch up' if born in the modern era is a big assumption indeed.

And yes, Sobers is a bigger Legend than Grace....just who did Grace enthrall ? English and Aussie public ? Sobers enthralled a lot more diverse and substantial population base at a higher skill level and near-equal dominance of the game.

Mate what the hell are u trying to say. Like richie benaud once said " A player who was great in any era will be great today". And if a player from say the sixties was warped into the present day he would also have all of todays technological benefits of todays cricketer and likewise with the vice versa. It would stupid to even conimplate something like that

 

[C_C]

Again, you forget that India's population is over a billion and as such, a superstar in India today has much bigger reach than a non-indian superstar 60-70 years ago.

And why are you restricting it to test playing nations ? Do you think that the aura, the legend and the mystique is limited strictly on such basis ? Do you think that just because Arabia has no F1 grounds or F1 drivers in history of the competition, there arnt people there who revere Senna ? You think no one from Mongolia has heard of Tiger woods ?
Its about the overall aura,legend, mystique etc.... something where a superstar of Sachin's status today has a MUCH bigger reach than a superstar twice or thrice as good as him 50-60 years ago.
Its not about If this or If that but its about what the FACT is. And the FACT is, nobody has reached as many people, no body has influenced, enthralled and generated acknowledgement of reverence from as many people as Tendulkar has......
And i think that is what the thread is talkin about...the legend. Not how good/bad a player is.

Hercules is one of the most awe-inspiring and well known legend....and its most likely not even true..... Alexander's tale is one of the greatest legends in mankind's history but he didnt achieve a fraction of what Genghis Khan or the british empire did.

 

[King_Ponting]

Again, you forget that India's population is over a billion and as such, a superstar in India today has much bigger reach than a non-indian superstar 60-70 years ago.

And why are you restricting it to test playing nations ? Do you think that the aura, the legend and the mystique is limited strictly on such basis ? Do you think that just because Arabia has no F1 grounds or F1 drivers in history of the competition, there arnt people there who revere Senna ? You think no one from Mongolia has heard of Tiger woods ?
Its about the overall aura,legend, mystique etc.... something where a superstar of Sachin's status today has a MUCH bigger reach than a superstar twice or thrice as good as him 50-60 years ago.
Its not about If this or If that but its about what the FACT is. And the FACT is, nobody has reached as many people, no body has influenced, enthralled and generated acknowledgement of reverence from as many people as Tendulkar has......
And i think that is what the thread is talkin about...the legend. Not how good/bad a player is.

Hercules is one of the most awe-inspiring and well known legend....and its most likely not even true..... Alexander's tale is one of the greatest legends in mankind's history but he didnt achieve a fraction of what Genghis Khan or the british empire did.

And you forget to realise the world is full of more than just indians mate, last time i checked there was over 6 billion and only just over a billion in india...

 

[C_C]

Like richie benaud once said " A player who was great in any era will be great today".

And i disagree with that comment utterly and totally.
Since it makes a BIG assumption that a player who was great in a previous era of lower sophistication and professionalism would find the goings as easy as he did before and that no flaws would be uncovered after detailed analysis.

And if a player from say the sixties was warped into the present day he would also have all of todays technological benefits of todays cricketer and likewise with the vice versa. It would stupid to even conimplate something like that

He would have the benifit of technology no doubt.... but whether he would neutralise the advantage of technology for the opposite skillset(ie, bowler/batsman) is a huge assumption... Its like saying nobody would discover a flaw in the technique of so-n-so simply because nobody did back then. Well, that is a big assumption.

What the player would be lacking, is the higher levels of fitness, dilligence and a more methodical approach to the game. that is something they would have to make up and whether they will be able to makeup or not is a HUGE assumption.

Anyways, i personally think that the 60s is comparable, since it is in the professional era and not that removed in time...but anything before that and we are looking at a handicap for players from that era.

 

[Dasa]

To whom ?? People in the year 2005 ??

Do you have any idea what Bradman's status was in the world in his cricketing days ?

The only way to compare would be to see hundred years from now. Unfortunately you and I wont be there

Maybe I could live to 119!
Anyway, yes, of course Tendulkar is well-known now. The thing is, in Bradman's day there was not the scope for worldwide publication of his name - sure people in cricketing nations knew of him, but I doubt many outside those nations knew of him or who he was. Again, I'm not disputing that he is the greatest, I'm just saying he was not as "legendary" and well known as Tendulkar is now. If Bradman were playing now he would undoubtedly be the most well-known, but he isn't.

His name may not be recognised by a boy in Toronto but, amongst cricket nations, he is beyond comparison.

The thread title is "World's greatest cricket legend" - among cricketing nations Bradman is a legend, but you ask a random person anywhere in the world and the odds are that the one name they'll know about cricket is Tendulkar.

 

[Dasa]

I think the problem with this is people aren't separating the skills/abilities of the players from their "legendary" status. No one is saying Tendulkar is better than Bradman - but the fact is, he is more "legendary" because of the era he is in and the nation he is from.

 

[C_C]

And you forget to realise the world is full of more than just indians mate, last time i checked there was over 6 billion and only just over a billion in india...

So what ? Popularity is about how many heads you turn, isnt it ? That means anyone who has exalted status in India would is most likely to be the most popular cricketer on the planet...and you have a problem with that ? Getting a bit un-democratic, arnt we ?

Like i said, if you drop into a non-cricketing nation with very little immigration from cricket-playing countries ( like Eastern Europe/China/Africa/South America etc), the name most likely to be recognised would be Tendulkar.
I have personal experience with this, so has many people. This shows that the legend of Tendulkar transcends the mere aficionados and touches people who are so far removed from the sport that they dont know anything about it or its players apart from having an inkling about tendulkar.

 

[C_C]

I think the problem with this is people aren't separating the skills/abilities of the players from their "legendary" status. No one is saying Tendulkar is better than Bradman - but the fact is, he is more "legendary" because of the era he is in and the nation he is from.

PRECISELY.
this isnt about how good you are. This is about how legendary you are.

 

[Craig]

There is little doubt that Tendulkar is "known" by a higher proportion of the world's population than Bradman ever was (extensive advertising campaigns in the USA and China will tend to do that for you).

However, Tendy's impact in cricket playing countries was miniscule compared to "the Don." Instances such as train delays, work stoppages, front page headlines, etc were EVERYDAY occurrences during Bradman's career, extending even to Sheffield Shield and tour matches.

Whilst not wishing to detract from Tendulkar's career, the world's awareness of him is symptomatic of the times rather than a commentary of his standing.

I would have to agree with you.

I have read that when Bradman was on tour in England inthe mid-30's a a captain asked his bowler/s not to get Bradman out as people spent their hard earned cash (and in the Great Depression it was) to watch him bat and bat for a long time to get their money's worth so the club in turn could make some extra cash.

I would also have to go for WG Grace as well, I mean who else can turn around to the umpire and say after being first ball "I always play a trial ball" or tell the umpire he can't be out LBW? If a player tried that now that is his match fee going down the drain.

 

[social]

Again, you forget that India's population is over a billion and as such, a superstar in India today has much bigger reach than a non-indian superstar 60-70 years ago.

And why are you restricting it to test playing nations ? Do you think that the aura, the legend and the mystique is limited strictly on such basis ? Do you think that just because Arabia has no F1 grounds or F1 drivers in history of the competition, there arnt people there who revere Senna ? You think no one from Mongolia has heard of Tiger woods ?
Its about the overall aura,legend, mystique etc.... something where a superstar of Sachin's status today has a MUCH bigger reach than a superstar twice or thrice as good as him 50-60 years ago.
Its not about If this or If that but its about what the FACT is. And the FACT is, nobody has reached as many people, no body has influenced, enthralled and generated acknowledgement of reverence from as many people as Tendulkar has......
And i think that is what the thread is talkin about...the legend. Not how good/bad a player is.

Hercules is one of the most awe-inspiring and well known legend....and its most likely not even true..... Alexander's tale is one of the greatest legends in mankind's history but he didnt achieve a fraction of what Genghis Khan or the british empire did.

Ive already agreed that Sachin has reached more people world-wide than Bradman.

However, unless the Indian cricket fraternity is incredibly ignorant AND is representative of feelings world-wide amongst the cricket-watching fraternity (which it isnt), then elevating Sachin to Bradman's status (legend-, aura-, pereception- or whatever wise you like to name) is simply nonsense.

Put simply, I would be amazed if Sachin inspires any feelings other than respect outside of India and Indians abroad in cricket communities, i.e not some kid watching a Pepsi commecial in Shanghai. Myth, aura, whatever simply do not come into it.

Bradman's record, on the other hand, is so far ahead of anyone else ever to play the game that it inspires incredulity from even the greatest cricketers.

 

[Nate]

I put Tendulkar, which is something for me.

He has just inspired so many people in a country that lives for cricket. In saying that, Sir Don was indeed a role model for many people coming out of the depression. But Tendulkar is seen as a legend in so many ways. He is not of a huge physical stature by any means, but stands up on the toughest occasions, for a country that wants it the most.

 

[C_C]

However, unless the Indian cricket fraternity is incredibly ignorant AND is representative of feelings world-wide amongst the cricket-watching fraternity (which it isnt), then elevating Sachin to Bradman's status (legend-, aura-, pereception- or whatever wise you like to name) is simply nonsense.

First, what is this fraternity ? Fraternity of players and ex-players ? Fraternity that is slightly wider to include aficionados like you and me ? Fraternity that involves anyone with even a remote interest and inkling about cricket ?
Look, i dont wanna be pedantic about aficionados or enlightened fraternity or just cricket county fraternities... I am simply talking about what contributes to the legend- its simply mass appeal and reputation amongst the masses. And put simply, when it comes to sports, the bulk of the fans are ignorant- third world or otherwise. Not many in even sports-mad nations like Australia can belt off the averages of great players or remember their signature innings, justify why they think that so-n-so is the best etc. Most of the sports public are fringe publics........publics who watch occasionally, get on with the flow and have an inkling about who is good and who isnt...sorta like party smokers.

I am not gonna draw an arbitary line.
My mom has heard about Elvis Presley, though she cannot name a single song by him.
My ex has head of Tendy but her knowledge is limited to basically 'Tendy is a great cricketer'.
Their opinions dont count ? Why not ? For its the collective mass appeal that goes into building of the legend........in the case of Lengendary status, its simply a matter of popularity/awe, not aficionado-esque research.
And in that respect, Tendy is simply far and far ahead of everyone.

You've already agreed that Sachin has reached more people worldwide than Braddles....and that is the fundamental aspect/definition of a legend - how many people you reach and how many people get to acknowledge you.

 

[King_Ponting]

You've already agreed that Sachin has reached more people worldwide than Braddles....and that is the fundamental aspect/definition of a legend - how many people you reach and how many people get to acknowledge you.

Yeh maybe your definition of a legend. But if we take it as a percentage influence of the population at that time im sure you'll see that the percentage of perople influenced in crikcet playing nations, would be much the same if not higher for bradman compared to tendulkar

 

[howardj]

I'll go for the inimitable IVA Richards. There's never been a man with such a cool cat demeanour!