-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition
- Thread starter smash84
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
:
biased indian
International Coach
Bradman
Tendulkar
Sobers
Warne
Imran
Tendulkar
Sobers
Warne
Imran
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
In my opinion...
Because he was and is a very one dimensional cricketer and it is arguable if he was the (2nd) best at even that dimension. Wasn't a great fielder, not much of a leader/captain and in terms of match-winning or turning knocks his probably don't list very highly.
I really find it hard to fathom that he gets in the top 5 ahead of Warne, Marshall, Murali, Richards, and quite a few others. He was great at what he did but he rarely transcended the game IMO to be in the top echelon of players. If he ended up second and ahead of Imran and Sobers...then I'd be at a loss for words.
Last edited:
biased indian
International Coach
i was putting in a prediction like how it might end up...I know that your username is biased indian but this is a little over the top
if i had actually send in a list my top 5would have been
Bradman
Sobers
Tendulkar
Marshall
Viv Richards......
Last edited:
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
In seriousness though...
The justification for Warne et.al. can apply equally to a dozen and more of other cricketers including Tendulkar. I could mention the fact that Tendulkar owns every batting record today, performed for over 2 decades remaining among the top 5-6 batsmen for most of this period, inspired an entire generation and more, was a top performer in days Gooch and Boon, and is a top performer in days of Clarke and Cook etc. But that's not what I am going to do as I did not have him in top 5 myself, possibly for some of the reasons that you yourself mentioned.
However, I find the certainty and authority with which you summarily rule out any possible argument to include Tendulkar in top 5 quite amusing. It's also a curious thing that you single out Tendulkar for that sort of assessment. It's not as if you are advocating a strictly stats/facts based evaluation either, like PEWS does. You are leaving enough room for subjectivity, influence, intangibles etc. One can make a completely stats/facts based argument and also talk about the intangibles for Tendulkar perfectly well. On the other hand for some others it would be possible to justify a next-only-to-bradman status only on intangibles.
In that sense I think there is a very, very long list of cricketers who can be considered eligible for next-only-to-bradman. This includes someone like Lillee too who I didn't even have in my 25, but I totally get the rationale that someone will like to use to put him at #2.
I just find your arguments a result of a deep seated bias or dislike for Tendulkar or his stardom, deny it as much as you like.
I really find it hard to fathom that you find it so hard to fathom that Tendulkar could be in someone's top 5.
The justification for Warne et.al. can apply equally to a dozen and more of other cricketers including Tendulkar. I could mention the fact that Tendulkar owns every batting record today, performed for over 2 decades remaining among the top 5-6 batsmen for most of this period, inspired an entire generation and more, was a top performer in days Gooch and Boon, and is a top performer in days of Clarke and Cook etc. But that's not what I am going to do as I did not have him in top 5 myself, possibly for some of the reasons that you yourself mentioned.
However, I find the certainty and authority with which you summarily rule out any possible argument to include Tendulkar in top 5 quite amusing. It's also a curious thing that you single out Tendulkar for that sort of assessment. It's not as if you are advocating a strictly stats/facts based evaluation either, like PEWS does. You are leaving enough room for subjectivity, influence, intangibles etc. One can make a completely stats/facts based argument and also talk about the intangibles for Tendulkar perfectly well. On the other hand for some others it would be possible to justify a next-only-to-bradman status only on intangibles.
In that sense I think there is a very, very long list of cricketers who can be considered eligible for next-only-to-bradman. This includes someone like Lillee too who I didn't even have in my 25, but I totally get the rationale that someone will like to use to put him at #2.
I just find your arguments a result of a deep seated bias or dislike for Tendulkar or his stardom, deny it as much as you like.
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Hmmm, I think it might be Imran, Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Warne in that caselol........at least one interesting surprise coming up which many people will not like.....and another that some might not
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Never been to India, eh?
Not that I think he's better than Sobers, or Imran, or Hobbs, etc..
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
+1
He didn't revolutionize anything, was not a great match winner, he accumulated runs for 20 years and had a great technique. Apart form the longevity it's even hard to say he was the best of his era ahead of Lara and Ponting, There are also some who say Dravid was better in a crisis and even the better match winner. People constantly defend Dev's bowling stats by saying that he bowled on those flat tracks, but never factor that in when discussing Sachin. Part of what I said about Warne, Marshall and Viv were that they were winners, can't indisputably say that about Tendy, he wasn't a great captain, or slip fielder or bowler like Sobers or captain and all rounder like Imran, and tired of hearing all the nonsense of carrying the hopes of a billion people, all players carry the hopes of their countries, it a privalege not a burden. He to me is comparable with Lara, Ponting, Hammond and Headley, but below the aforementioned Richards, Marshall, Warne, Sobers and of course Bradman.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
People do, but that argument doesn't stick around because it has no merit.
Spark
Global Moderator
I got so ****ing confused there because I thought you were talking about Dev. Read through his bowling stats - "average of 240 vs England? wtf?"
But yeah one of the things about Tendulkar that does stand out is that he's one of the few top-echelon batsmen, possibly only alongside Bradman and Border and maybe one or two others whose name I can't recall, who is just as good away as they are at home. The only genuine hole in his statistical record from a career POV was South Africa, and he definitely fixed that on his last tour.
But yeah one of the things about Tendulkar that does stand out is that he's one of the few top-echelon batsmen, possibly only alongside Bradman and Border and maybe one or two others whose name I can't recall, who is just as good away as they are at home. The only genuine hole in his statistical record from a career POV was South Africa, and he definitely fixed that on his last tour.
Last edited: