Would rank them equally
It is not like there is daylight between Gavaskar and Tendulkar tbf
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
Tendulkar the better bat and Murali the better bowler probably.
Because you can only be a product of the system that made you I guess, whether or not that affects greatness I don't know
There are two colours in my head
In fact, I'd be very surprised if the exploits of the just retired generation are bettered. I reckon 1990-2010 was the optimal time for setting cricketing records.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
And above all must be once in a life time talent like Murali.
Eh, it's a legitimate point. Obviously Murali's record is amazing but it's amazing primarily because :
1) He's one of the greatest bowlers ever, and arguably the greatest spinners ever
2)As he said, it's getting obvious now that tests won't be as frequent as they once we're.
3) Murali did have plenty of factors in his favor in terms of pure quantity of wickets. Being the only world class ATG bowler in a weak attack is a huge benefit (look at Hadlee) and imo I don't see how anyone can argue against it.
And am I the only one who doesn't find Murali and Tendulkar's records THAT remarkable in terms of pure number of runs/wickets. Tendulkar got so many runs because he debuted incredibly early and played at a world class level for longer than anyone in test cricket, not necessarily that he was better than everyone else. Murali while he was a wicket taking machine if seen in proper context his stats are incredibly brilliant instead of "omg best bowler ever he's unbeatable", because of the aforementioned factors in his favour. You may take this post as belittling their achievements, but that wasn't the intention. If their records don't get beaten I don't think it shows they were better than ever one else. If Lara/Ponting had been spotted and drafted into the national team at 16 they probably would have 16000 runs. Similarly if Warne had played for Sri Lanka instead of Murali I'm sure he would've got 800 wickets
Last edited by OverratedSanity; 13-10-2013 at 10:30 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)