ICC's top 20 all-time list

[weldone]

But the tone of the thread has been set from the first post itself. The thread starter didn't post the ICC link and quoted the distorted statement from the Indian media suggesting some conspiracy against Tendulkar.

If the actual rating link was posted in the first place, I dont think this thread would have seen much light.

And I clarified my point more than once...And also that my point is not what the thread-starter had in mind...It's not necessary that when you post in a thread you talk exactly about the point that the thread-starter had in mind, all threads do evolve right? Otherwise where is the point of same person posting twice in the same thread?

 

[weldone]

First of all, Sachin is NOT Bradman, he never will be, nowhere close either. That he is a highly distant No. 2 is highly debatable too. Forget all time No. 2 He isn't the indisputable no. 1 of his generation either, he is not even the indisputable no. 1 batsman of his own country and to some extent he is not the indisputable no. 1 among the Indian batsmen of his generation either (Hint :- Many actually prefer Dravid over him).

Point 1: And when did I say he is Bradman?
Point 2: Give me examples of 3 persons who prefer Dravid over Tendulkar over their entire careers; not those who used to 4 years ago, but those who still do...

 

[Sanz]

Point 1: And when did I say he is Bradman?

You used the example of Bradman to speculate about the reaction in Aussie media, which IMO isn't a valid one, because of Bradman's place in the history of world sport (not just cricket).

Point 2: Give me examples of 3 persons who prefer Dravid over Tendulkar over their entire careers; not those who used to 4 years ago, but those who still do...

You can find it out by starting a poll on this forum. I know at least one member(TEC) who thinks of Dravid much more highly than he does of Tendulkar.

 

[pup11]

I haven't read trough the earlier pages of the thread, but this is what i think of this whole thing, a) this is a really stupid idea on the part of ICC, as there is no way one should or could compare greats from different eras successfully b) imo it really shouldn't matter what a stupid list says, because the likes of Tendulkar, Warne and their fans don't need some list to tell them that they both are one of the batsman and bowler respectively to ever play the game.

 

[Precambrian]

ICC reinvents themselves whenever they feel they are outclassed by the individual boards in CMI (Cricket Moronity Index). Such a thing is this list.

And as if to accentuate the role-play, they come out with an explanation that these rankings are not necessarily indicators of greatness. Wow! Take a bow!

 

[Matt79]

Susudear, you're back!

 

[gwo]

I was talking about the heading itself - that could be misleading...not the explanation thereunder...

**** me rotten.

Sensationalism in the media, who would have thought?

Expecting people to learn how to read?

Am I expecting to much here?

See Sanz's point about Lillee. No Australian journo's commented on that. If theres any thing wrong it's India's media for playing their audience like a bunch of ******** kids, expecting people not to question their articles and the validity of their claims.

**** I hate stupid people.

 

[Precambrian]

Susudear, you're back!