Certainly not. I'm sure Yousuf, Jayawardene, Sangakkara and Chanderpaul also have similar seasons of stellar success somewhere in their careers. I think the article is trying to make the point that Tendulkar's longevity might be very hard to replicate in the future. Of course he had the advantage of starting off at 16, which is extremely rare.To be honest there have been other players who have had one or two years at the level of Sachin in 2010. Ponting had a year (2003?) where he averaged over 100. Neil Harvey was extraordinary for the first year or two of his career. Sobers had an amazing year when he scored that triple hundred. Viv in 1976. And so on. So while Sachin has been amazing it's not unprecedented in the post-war era.
How can it be impossible to do the Sachin when he arguably isn't the second best batsmen?Reasonable article and I can understand the adulation but still Don>> SRT>= Viv, Chappell, Hobbs, Lara, Hammond etc etc etc.
Agree.Whenever I read an article that tries to put Tendulkar on the same level as The Don I die a little inside.
Will post more then. Tell me when you are clinically declared dead.Whenever I read an article that tries to put Tendulkar on the same level as The Don I die a little inside.
Will post more then. Tell me when you are clinically declared dead.Don't worry mate your posting in general makes me die a little inside .
Haha yeah same.Whenever I read an article that tries to put Tendulkar on the same level as The Don I die a little inside.
Yeah I hate how they underrate Sachin like that.Whenever I read an article that tries to put Tendulkar on the same level as The Don I die a little inside.
Not many on here would appreciate that irony fredI read recently, and no Richard didn't write it but would no doubt approve, that if you applied the First Chance Average to Bradman's test career it would still be 75 - so even if you judge the bloke by a different set of rules he's still the best - well the best apart from Andy Ganteaume, obviously
Who knows what tendulkar might have averaged in bradmans era,Unless man invents a time machine we will never know how good different players will be in different era's.I read recently, and no Richard didn't write it but would no doubt approve, that if you applied the First Chance Average to Bradman's test career it would still be 75 - so even if you judge the bloke by a different set of rules he's still the best - well the best apart from Andy Ganteaume, obviously