World's Greatest Cricket Legend

[SJS]

Legends live closer to home !!

Three votes for Imran
Duncan, Shoaib and Nightprowler10

and four for Tendulkar
C_C, Sehwag909, Nnanden and Hit4Six

Yet another criteria/definition of what is a legend...

...that which deflects some of its glory on to you

 

[C_C]

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

Again, WHY limit it to cricket playing nation ?
Simply because it helps the case of bradman ?
If that is your viewpoint, then you take yourself far too seriously.......for you have no business rubbishing the reverence of a person who is a fringe fan....this is like cricketing fundamentalism- if you aint an aficionado or from a cricket-playing nation, yer opinion isnt valid!

And that isnt my definition of a'legend'.
Its the ENGLISH definition of the word 'legend'.

It is defined as :

#

1. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
2. A body or collection of such stories.
3. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.

# One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.
-------------------

You see the highlighted word ? Legend = popularity. Much like the Legend of Christ.

 

[C_C]

Three votes for Imran
Duncan, Shoaib and Nightprowler10

and four for Tendulkar
C_C, Sehwag909, Nnanden and Hit4Six

Yet another criteria/definition of what is a legend...

...that which deflects some of its glory on to you

Are you always this kiss-*** to the anglo-centric perspective ? For you'd notice that Bradman's votes are generated in bulk by aussies or englishmen.......apparently that is 'acceptable' eh ?
I realise that yer a businessman....but this is just taking the mickey!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is Tendulkar "revered", or is he "known"?

 

[C_C]

Is Tendulkar "revered", or is he "known"?

depends on who you ask........i dont think there is a single player in any sport who's had universal reverence.....not even Bradman......for if you read "Beyond the Boundary" by CLR James, you'd find that he considered Headley to be far superior, since Headley was much more accomplished on sticky wickets, had no support and had to deal with open racism against blacks.....So i dont think that thing matters really. Tendulkar, like many superstars, is revered by some and merely known to some.

 

[marc71178]

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

So why are people concentrating more on how well known someone is?

That's something different as well.

 

[C_C]

So why are people concentrating more on how well known someone is?

That's something different as well.

Because legend is about popularity. And popularity means how many people know you.
If you wanna compare fanatic reverance, i dont think ANY player touches Tendy in that regard either, given India's 1 billion + population and the abundance of hero-worshippers in a large population-base.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I guess people have different definitions of legends. For me, its a person who is looked up to and held in the highest regard by everyone. Everyone who has heard of Bradman holds him in the highest regard. This to me is much more integral to being a "legend" than whether someone is known of in Mongolia. To me, that's just being popular, and in this modern day and age, well marketed, as opposed to being a legend. I think it becomes a balance of the two, something like legend status can't be seen in absolutes.

It's like saying that David Beckham is the world's greatest soccer (football) legend.

 

[honestbharani]

I voted for Bradman. It is one thing to be popular in the "Global Village" era. But this guy was popular with Indians when cricket itself wasn't all that popular in India. How many guys get their opponents want them to score their 100th ton against them?

 

[C_C]

Lengend is simply the effect you've had on people. Reverence, hatred, benevolence, indifference, admiration or simple acknowledgement- they are all part of the legend.
As the english dictionary defines the word 'legend', its popularity- popularity that can be based on marketing or research amongst aficionados or self-aggrandising. Whatever the means, its about popularity.
And as such, i dont think any balanced person can claim that any other cricketer is as popular amongst humankind as Tendulkar is.
One hallmark of the greatest legends or legendary figure is to transcend the barriers of humanity and his/her/its direct base.
Such is the legend of Alexander the Great, such is the legend of Hercules, such is the legend of Askhoka the Great, such is the legend of Pele and such is the legend of Tendulkar.

 

[cpr]

In the south west of the city, town called urmston, about 3 miles down the road from the cricket ground

 

[Matteh]

I'm surprised that Botham has no votes despite his "legendary" matches in '81...
I personally voted for Bradman, all it takes is one read of a Wisden to be drowned in complete praise for the guy.
I was tempted to vote for IVAR (fastest 50 in tests(at least at one point) etc) and Lara (376,501,400)...but legendary means (for me) that when you think cricket, you of that person.
As for all this hype that everyone knows Tendulkar...i first heard the name only a couple of years ago yet knew Lara/Warne from the mid 90s when i got into cricket.
From the modern game Gilchrist should be replaced by Jack Russell (Legendary WK) or Steve Waugh (Just generally good for the game)

 

[marc71178]

Because legend is about popularity.

No, popularity isn't the same.

Lots of people are popular, but not legends.

 

[tooextracool]

i refuse to vote in a poll that does not have mark ramprakash or shane watson.

 

[aussie]

In the south west of the city, town called urmston, about 3 miles down the road from the cricket ground

cool, i live in preston

 

[aussie]

No, popularity isn't the same.

Lots of people are popular, but not legends.

eg. the illustrious David Beckham

 

[aussie]

i refuse to vote in a poll that does not have mark ramprakash or shane watson.

, i think i know where your getting at

 

[C_C]

No, popularity isn't the same.

Lots of people are popular, but not legends.

Everyone has a legend- you, me, Lara, Tendulkar or even a fringe player. What we term as 'Legend of so-n-so' is essentially the popularity and perceptions of the masses towards the individual. So popularity *IS* legend and what we consider Legendary status happens to be the very pinnacle of popularity. You might want to open an english dictionary and see the meaning of the word 'legend'. It is associated with popularity.

 

[PY]

You might want to try not being condescending in every post, it's not too endearing to your point.

 

[archie mac]

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

I agree with King Ponting, I think it wrong not to believe the old timers were great players, and to disparage their achievements. It is like saying history is irrelevant because we know more now.