What does Kohli need to surpass Tendulkar?

[ankitj]

You're contradicting yourself now, you just gave reasons for why fans were deluded - since they didn't have access to stats and instead relied on a biased home media, who overrated him. Then you call me deluded lol...ok.

Anyway, I'll leave it here. As usual, any slight questioning of Sachin with Indian fans always ends up in this type of emotional backlash and I really can't be arsed with a 100 to 1 pile on for the rest of the week.

You don't get it, do you? Have you seen my posts here with respect to pressure on Tendulkar argument or lack of superlative knocks from him? You are facing a backlash for trying to accuse Indian fans of hypocrisy, delusion, ignorance etc. when you demonstrate all that repeatedly whenever a Kiwi player is under discussion. It's not because you question Tendulkar but because you refuse to get a mirror.

 

[srbhkshk]

You're contradicting yourself now, you just gave reasons for why fans were deluded - since they didn't have access to stats and instead relied on a biased home media, who overrated him. Then you call me deluded lol...ok.

Anyway, I'll leave it here. As usual, any slight questioning of Sachin with Indian fans always ends up in this type of emotional backlash and I really can't be arsed with a 100 to 1 pile on for the rest of the week.

And yet you can't correlate that with people saying he was under abnormal pressure when playing.

 

[Zinzan]

So u can have your personal preference , while Indian fans can not have preference of assuming that Sachin would win them every game.Once again look in the mirror.
Love how u never include ODI stats.

Yes, because any fans who assume ANY batsman, even Bradman, would win every game for them doesn't understand cricket. You wouldn't think that would you?

This is my final post on the matter, unless you post something else stupid.

 

[ankitj]

I notice you didn't respond with the 2000s stats. Were they not quite so good for him?

Of course. Tendulkar will struggle to get in top 3 or even 5 in 2000s. That was not what was being discussed in last few posts, was it. I couldn't care less how anyone rates Tendulkar. I don't put him in my all time XI often myself and I rate Hadlee over Tendulkar as a package. So you are not going to provoke me by questioning Tendulkar.

 

[Zinzan]

You don't get it, do you? Have you seen my posts here with respect to pressure on Tendulkar argument or lack of superlative knocks from him? You are facing a backlash for trying to accuse Indian fans of hypocrisy, delusion, ignorance etc. when you demonstrate all that repeatedly whenever a Kiwi player is under discussion. It's not because you question Tendulkar but because you refuse to get a mirror.

Just talk him up & argue for his batting skills then, not because many of his fans (and you can't deny this) think he was better than Bradman. And I don't mean educated fans on this forum, but we've all read these absurd arguments elsewhere online in which people genuinely argue he was better than The Don. Just because many were deluded, does not make him any better.

 

[ankitj]

we should have an official "Indian fans suck" thread so that all this trash can be kept aside.

 

[Zinzan]

we should have an official "Indian fans suck" thread so that all this trash can be kept aside.

Before getting all prickly...tell me where in my above post I'm wrong then. I did make the clear distinction between educated cricket fans like the ones on this forum and those fans who really didn't understand cricket history outside their own echo chamber. I mean you guys just said that exact thing yourself that they didn't have access to stats, and relied only what the India media said about him.

 

[stephen]

From about 1993 onwards Waugh was every bit as good as Tendulkar in tests. He was picked way before he was international standard.

 

[sunilz]

Before getting all prickly...tell me where in my above post I'm wrong then. I did make the clear distinction between educated cricket fans like the ones on this forum and those fans who really didn't understand cricket history outside their own echo chamber. I mean you guys just said that exact thing yourself that they didn't have access to stats, and relied only what the India media said about him.

You consider yourself educated and consider Kallis, Sangakkara and Steve waugh in the league of Tendulkar when on this forum itself Tendulkar has been rated in top 5 test batsmen and top 3 ODI batsman voting list.

An average kiwi fan is more annoying and deluded than Indian fans. The only reason we don't talk about them because they are so few.

 

[sunilz]

From about 1993 onwards Waugh was every bit as good as Tendulkar in tests. He was picked way before he was international standard.

Name me 5 great cricket experts or players who rate steve waugh above Sachin. Show me AT XI of atleast 5 cricket experts who include steve waugh in their ATXI.
I won't even talk about ODI

 

[Zinzan]

You consider yourself educated and consider Kallis, Sangakkara and Steve waugh in the league of Tendulkar when on this forum itself Tendulkar has been rated in top 5 test batsmen and top 3 ODI batsman voting list.

An average kiwi fan is more annoying and deluded than Indian fans. The only reason we don't talk about them because they are so few.

Oh I see, so because CW rated him 5th in tests and 3rd in ODIs, then I have to as well? Great, so following your own logic, you presumably agree with those and rate Viv, Hobbs & Sobers as better Test bats?

 

[stephen]

Just talk him up & argue for his batting skills then, not because many of his fans (and you can't deny this) think he was better than Bradman. And I don't mean educated fans on this forum, but we've all read these absurd arguments elsewhere online in which people genuinely argue he was better than The Don. Just because many were deluded, does not make him any better.

If Bradman hadn't missed out on the WWII years (around 1/3 of his career) and played at his standard he would have had over 10k runs. Given his relative lack of tests compared to modern players and his absurd average it would have been absolutely impossible for anyone to argue against his superiority.

 

[sunilz]

Oh I see, so because CW rated him 5th in tests and 3rd in ODIs, then I have to as well? Great, so following your own logic, you presumably agree with those and rate Viv, Hobbs & Sobers as better Test bats?

Nah u are free to rate Guptill above Ganguly, Dhawan and Rohit. You are also free to rate NZ AT XI as good as INDIA AT XI.

One thing u can't disagree that NZ has never won any bilateral test or ODI series in INDIA. And they will never win too.

 

[sunilz]

If Bradman hadn't missed out on the WWII years (around 1/3 of his career) and played at his standard he would have had over 10k runs. Given his relative lack of tests compared to modern players and his absurd average it would have been absolutely impossible for anyone to argue against his superiority.

Who are bigger fan fanatic , Tendulkar or Bradman ?

Question for u : How many bowlers did Bradman face who had ICC TEST bowling peak rating of more than 850 forget 900. ?

 

[Zinzan]

If Bradman hadn't missed out on the WWII years (around 1/3 of his career) and played at his standard he would have had over 10k runs. Given his relative lack of tests compared to modern players and his absurd average it would have been absolutely impossible for anyone to argue against his superiority.

It's impossible for anyone to argue against The Don regardless of the fact his career was cut short by 7-8 years. Statistically speaking the guy was arguably the greatest sportsman of all time, if you consider he was nearly twice as good as his nearest opponent.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah u are free to rate Guptill above Ganguly, Dhawan and Rohit. You are also free to rate NZ AT XI as good as INDIA AT XI.

One thing u can't disagree that NZ has never won any bilateral test or ODI series in INDIA. .

And? Who was arguing otherwise? New Zealand has 4.5 million people and Rugby (not cricket) is our national game, and we're the greatest rugby team of all-time by a margin. There's no logical reason at all to think we should even get close to competing with the likes of India & Australia (in which cricket is the national game), England, Pakistan & South Africa, so it's mighty satisfying when we do win against all odds once in a while.

And they will never win too .

This. I'm not so sure about considering we've gone close before, especially in ODIs, there's been a couple of 3-2 scorelines to India if my memory serves. But I'm happy to agree it's probably unlikely.

 

[sunilz]

And? Who was arguing otherwise? New Zealand has 4.5 million people and Rugby (not cricket) is our national game, and we're the greatest rugby team of all-time by a margin. There's no logical reason at all to think we should even get close to competing with the likes of India & Australia (in which cricket is the national game), England, Pakistan & South Africa, so it's mighty satisfying when we do win against all odds once in a while.



This. I'm not so sure about considering we've gone close before, especially in ODIs, there's been a couple of 3-2 scorelines to India if my memory serves. But I'm happy to agree it's probably unlikely.

So u think that NZ ATXI can be as good as Indian ATXI despite them never winning any ODI series in India.
Good try bringing population execuse.

 

[ankitj]

Before getting all prickly...tell me where in my above post I'm wrong then. I did make the clear distinction between educated cricket fans like the ones on this forum and those fans who really didn't understand cricket history outside their own echo chamber. I mean you guys just said that exact thing yourself that they didn't have access to stats, and relied only what the India media said about him.

1. It has nothing to do with the topic. At best what is relevant is whether pressure of crazy fans counts when evaluating a player.
2. You are not particularly qualified to diss "delusional" and "ignorant" fans given your posting history. Typically those who are qualified don't have the need to get off by dissing "others"

 

[Zinzan]

So u think that NZ ATXI can be as good as Indian ATXI despite them never winning any ODI series in India.
Good try bringing population execuse.

Sorry mate, but are you a bit slow?

Can you seriously not understand the difference between acknowledging that India have a better ODI history than New Zealand (which I did above) , and the quite separate exercise of comparing the best all-time XI line-ups from each side. When you do the latter, it's almost impossible not to acknowledge that India have the better batsmen in their all time XI and NZ has the better bowlers. Unless you're suggesting that India have ever had ODI bowlers as good as Hadlee, Bond (for certain), and arguably Chatfield and Vettori. That isn't the same thing as claiming NZ have a better ODI history, nor denying India have had better depth and more excellent players.

 

[stephen]

Name me 5 great cricket experts or players who rate steve waugh above Sachin. Show me AT XI of atleast 5 cricket experts who include steve waugh in their ATXI.
I won't even talk about ODI

I never said that Waugh was as good as Tendulkar, only that there wasn't much between them between 1993 and 2004.

What makes Tendulkar exceptional is how good he was across formats and how long he was good for. Not many people have maintained that level of performance for that long. It's remarkable and nobody is downplaying his greatness. Only saying that the number of rabid fans he had has nothing to do with that greatness.

I mean you can always spin that any player had some unique circumstances that enhance their greatness. Ponting was the best player in the world's best ever team. Lara was a line gun for much of his career. Sobers was heavily relied upon for his bowling. Kallis batted on tricky South African pitches.

There's always some unique circumstance around every player because every player is unique and has a career at a specific point in history.

Let's not pretend Tendulkar was unique in having external pressures.