That will be even better.
That will be even better.
RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*
For some reason I think it'll be Bradman, Imran, Sobers, Tendulkar, Warne in that order.
"Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
- C.L.R. James
lol........at least one interesting surprise coming up which many people will not like.....and another that some might not
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
I know that your username is biased indian but this is a little over the top
Wonder though if it is acceptable to put Viv Richards or Malcolm Marshall or Shane Warne at #2, why do people get up in arms when Tendulkar is put on #2. Not a direct response to Smali's comment but a general observation.
itbt I don't actually have much problem with people putting Tendulkar at number 2
Last edited by smalishah84; 13-04-2012 at 12:40 AM.
@ankit.....I think Richards gets rated at number 2 due to the intangibles that he brings to the side
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 by Ikki; 13-04-2012 at 05:11 AM.
Last edited by ankitj; 13-04-2012 at 05:34 AM.
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.
Last edited by ankitj; 13-04-2012 at 06:58 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)