zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
I think most would.Not many on here would appreciate that irony fred
I think most would.Not many on here would appreciate that irony fred
I don't think that's really the point the article was trying to make.Whenever I read an article that tries to put Tendulkar on the same level as The Don I die a little inside.
It's to do with longevity, sheer weight of international runs etc, and not about whether he's the second best batsman ever. I think it's fair enough to say that Tendulkar's career has been unbelievable, in ways that someone like Greg Chappell's career wasn't, even though Greg Chappell was arguably at least as good a player.How can it be impossible to do the Sachin when he arguably isn't the second best batsmen?
other batsmen have played for just as long and for as many runs (albeit first class runs) but do they get any recognition?It's to do with longevity, sheer weight of international runs etc, and not about whether he's the second best batsman ever. I think it's fair enough to say that Tendulkar's career has been unbelievable, in ways that someone like Greg Chappell's career wasn't, even though Greg Chappell was arguably at least as good a player.
What a woeful article.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.
-http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/has-modern-master-tendulkar-eclipsed-the-don/story-e6frg7t6-1225940394482
I don't think that's really the point the article was trying to make.
It's to do with longevity, sheer weight of international runs etc, and not about whether he's the second best batsman ever. I think it's fair enough to say that Tendulkar's career has been unbelievable, in ways that someone like Greg Chappell's career wasn't, even though Greg Chappell was arguably at least as good a player.
Errr no.Endless Debate.
SRT=DB=VV=?=?=?
Errr no.
Bradman > Grace >>> Others
AWTA.. His ODI record just adds so much to his legend too..I don't think that's really the point the article was trying to make.
It's to do with longevity, sheer weight of international runs etc, and not about whether he's the second best batsman ever. I think it's fair enough to say that Tendulkar's career has been unbelievable, in ways that someone like Greg Chappell's career wasn't, even though Greg Chappell was arguably at least as good a player.
Should it matter whether I did or not? Sorry I'm not falling over myself kissing the very poo that Sachin excretesIt seems you have seen all of them play.
Just because one can't comprehend how good he could have been doesn't mean he was playing against the church choir down the road. If you downplay the achievements of the don because he wasn't modern, then what about the other greats of his era? Are they reduced to playing french cricket during their lunchtime break?I've never taken much interest in previous eras. In the modern era Sachin has been so godly that The Don's statistics just boggle my mind. Would make sense if the challenges involved in their respective eras are so vastly different that put in perspective, their achievements and skill can credibly be compared. Just defies belief otherwise!
Tendulkar has not been miles above his competitors though. Just 18 months ago I would have happily put Ponting ahead of him.I've never taken much interest in previous eras. In the modern era Sachin has been so godly that The Don's statistics just boggle my mind. Would make sense if the challenges involved in their respective eras are so vastly different that put in perspective, their achievements and skill can credibly be compared. Just defies belief otherwise!
Calm down mate.Should it matter whether I did or not? Sorry I'm not falling over myself kissing the very poo that Sachin excretes
I just get annoyed when it seems 'you have to see' the players with your eyes to judge them and if the aren't modern, how can they have been any good.Calm down mate.
Reckons Zaremba's on the money here. There is more than one criteria/requirement to be possibly considered a legend, and Sachin is most definitely a legend. I have no issue accepting that he deserves recognition for his unique achievements in the modern game, and that he has set a modern standard that will take some matching in years to come. I don't think it's necessary for him to be better than Bradman to be appreciated in his own right as a genius.
They haven't done what Sachin is done. Fact.other batsmen have played for just as long and for as many runs (albeit first class runs) but do they get any recognition?
I count FC runs > ODI runsThey haven't done what Sachin is done. Fact.
He's not better than Bradman obviously, but the fact is he has achieved something that no one else has achieved.
He has played for 20+ years, made more runs than anyone else in the two major international forms, and is still going.
That is more of an achievement than scoring FC runs.
Cause for celebration I reckon.
Graeme Hick's first class runs are more important than Bevan's ODI runs?I count FC runs > ODI runs