Poll - Bradman v Tendulkar

[vcs]

There was an article in cricinfo around 2006, when Dravid was at his peak, that said that barely anyone took notice when his average passed Tendulkar's around that time. Was so good for the first half of the decade.

 

[Adamc]

AWTJono. I agree and I'm sure most people do that Bradman is the logical answer, but it's more than a little disingenuous to say 'answer honestly...but if you vote for Tendulkar I'll disregard your cricketing opinions and consider you unintelligent/a troll/a multi' etc. Some of those epithets may well apply to some people, but that sort of aggressive posting is hardly going to encourage people to answer honestly.

 

[vcs]

Technically isn't the sun revolving around the earth just as the earth is revolving around the sun????

Technically, no. Because circular revolution is an accelerated motion.

You have raised one of the fundamental problems in physics.

 

[Borges]

Ah! Yet another brand new Bradman vs. Tendulkar thread, I see. Just the thing I was looking forward to; brightens up my day no end, you know.

Ahhh...This will not end well

No thread on Cricket Web (or any other board) having anything remotely to do with Bradman vs. Tendulkar will end well, or for that matter do anything well. With fanatics going overboard on both the port and the starboard side, making huge splashes with their baggage of heavy, impassioned, and inflammatory verbiage.

Surprisingly, this one started quite well though, with this contribution from Athlai:

You use the word "is" and therein lies the problem.

It's almost impossible to compare a player of today with a player none of us have ever seen. It's also impossible to compare the game of Bradman's era to the game in Tendulkar's. I honestly think if Tendulkar was chucked in a time machine as he is right now and made to play in Bradman's era there is a good chance he could be a statistical anamoly akin to Bradman, and if the reverse happened I could see Bradman not standing out to the same extent if at all. However that isn't really how it works, your only as good as the time you played in.

Is Tendulkar of the current era better than Bradman in Bradman's day? Maybe, but we have honestly no way of comparing.

That said if Tendulkar was born in Bradman's time I'd say with a great deal of certainity he would have not had the same levels of success as the Don.

Don't see why this thread has to be taken any more seriously than the other one. Or why we always have to have one.

Why on earth would anyone be taking this seriously?

Warning: If any more Bradman vs. Tendulkar threads make their appearance, before adequate time for convalescence and recovery from the current ones have elapsed, I''ll copy and paste Athlai's contribution on every page. Till the mods feel so horribly sick that they ban me for eternity.

 

[Daemon]

Warning: If any more Bradman vs. Tendulkar threads make their appearance, before adequate time for convalescence and recovery from the current ones have elapsed, I''ll copy and paste Athlai's contribution on every page. Till the mods feel so horribly sick that they ban me for eternity.

Wow thats some scary **** bro.

 

[smash84]

You have raised one of the fundamental problems in physics.

Thanks VCS...

@Ankit.....in your face

 

[Ikki]

Nah. Move the **** on.

Some people think Tendulkar is better than Bradman. I don't. I don't think he's close. Leave those that do be, instead of making a whole thread and then "threatening" people to not make multis, as if this poll is the be all and end all of life.

We're not beating up women and children here. We're asking people to vote what they truly believe. I asked people from refraining to make this a contest where somehow they think the result of the poll actually makes one better than the other - that is why I don't want socks. I want to know who really believes what.

If you (not you specifically but posters at large) truly believe Tendulkar is better then have the wherewithal to vote. I think it's telling that people who actually do think Tendulkar is better may 'fear' making that known. I think if you are going to vote that way, then wear it as a badge.

AWTJono. I agree and I'm sure most people do that Bradman is the logical answer, but it's more than a little disingenuous to say 'answer honestly...but if you vote for Tendulkar I'll disregard your cricketing opinions and consider you unintelligent/a troll/a multi' etc. Some of those epithets may well apply to some people, but that sort of aggressive posting is hardly going to encourage people to answer honestly.

I find the above to be such a cop-out. And I think it is ironic that you would consider this thread disingenuous when you are arguing that people would refrain from stating their opinion, merely because they know it is going to be frowned upon. In the end, who cares what I or those disagreeing with you think if you actually hold such an opinion? The irony is if such a person cared what most people thought, or what others thought about them, then they wouldn't think Tendulkar is better in the first place. There is a reason this thread is public, because I am positive if it was private the voting would be closer - and that makes it all the more disengenous not to vote IMO if you actually do think Tendulkar is better.

 

[ankitj]

You have raised one of the fundamental problems in physics.

Oh yes. Have you read the book "Fabric of Cosmos" by Brian Greene? He has the full opening chapter devoted to the bucket argument. Fabulous read.

Happy to hijack this ****ty thread with a discussion on Physics

 

[ankitj]

Thanks VCS...

@Ankit.....in your face

In my face, what? I was right about what I said

 

[Jono]

We're not beating up women and children here. We're asking people to vote what they truly believe. I asked people from refraining to make this a contest where somehow they think the result of the poll actually makes one better than the other - that is why I don't want socks. I want to know who really believes what.

If you (not you specifically but posters at large) truly believe Tendulkar is better then have the wherewithal to vote. I think it's telling that people who actually do think Tendulkar is better may 'fear' making that known. I think if you are going to vote that way, then wear it as a badge.




I find the above to be such a cop-out. And I think it is ironic that you would consider this thread disingenuous when you are arguing that people would refrain from stating their opinion, merely because they know it is going to be frowned upon. In the end, who cares what I or those disagreeing with you think if you actually hold such an opinion? The irony is if such a person cared what most people thought, or what others thought about them, then they wouldn't think Tendulkar is better in the first place. There is a reason this thread is public, because I am positive if it was private the voting would be closer - and that makes it all the more disengenous not to vote IMO if you actually do think Tendulkar is better.

My God, you're on some witch hunt.

Mate, what the hell is wrong with you?

Every single thread that has something to do with Tendulkar is centered around you in someway, and now you're challenging people to make themselves public and vote on the poll.

I honestly think you have a strong angst at Tendulkar and his fans. You can deny it all you like, but you spend 80% of the time here arguing against his record or him or his fans in some way. Now you're trying to force his fans to make themselves public to be mocked? It's friggin' weird.

I'm outta here. Good luck uncovering those evil spies who believe Sachin is better than Bradman.

 

[Top_Cat]

You're either with Bradman or you're with the terrorists.

 

[Athlai]

I guess I should add that my argument also applies to Lara and Ponting etc. I personally favour Sachin in terms of the modern greats but I think all of them apply to the argument in a similar way.

I must say I hate the condescending posts in this thread. Yes Bradman as a pure sportsmen is greater than any other cricketer if compared to his peers by a long long way, but the modern game vs. past eras argument is a very complex one. Even if it still alludes to Bradman by a decent margin the question is still there to be asked.

Unless any bastard is physically able to really show how a modern player would have went then or a player from that time would have went now I'd personally suggest that the rolleyes can **** off.

 

[Dasa]

I guess I should add that my argument also applies to Lara and Ponting etc. I personally favour Sachin in terms of the modern greats but I think all of them apply to the argument in a similar way.

I must say I hate the condescending posts in this thread. Yes Bradman as a pure sportsmen is greater than any other cricketer if compared to his peers by a long long way, but the modern game vs. past eras argument is a very complex one. Even if it still alludes to Bradman by a decent margin the question is still there to be asked.

Unless any bastard is physically able to really show how a modern player would have went then or a player from that time would have went now I'd personally suggest that the rolleyes can **** off.

Awta x100.

 

[Ikki]

You're either with Bradman or you're with the terrorists.

My God, you're on some witch hunt.

Mate, what the hell is wrong with you?

Every single thread that has something to do with Tendulkar is centered around you in someway, and now you're challenging people to make themselves public and vote on the poll.

I honestly think you have a strong angst at Tendulkar and his fans. You can deny it all you like, but you spend 80% of the time here arguing against his record or him or his fans in some way. Now you're trying to force his fans to make themselves public to be mocked? It's friggin' weird.

I'm outta here. Good luck uncovering those evil spies who believe Sachin is better than Bradman.

Mate, you know I think your a top bloke, but the above is just silly.

There is no secret here, there is nothing underhanded. If you think Tendulkar is better, and want to vote...do so. I think it says enough that people argue that others might not vote for Tendulkar because they know of the backlash, because they know how ridiculous that opinion is. No one is going to be mocked. As I said, I don't even care for the reasoning. I would just like to get a sample going here. What am I going to do? Open up a separate thread and insult the members that vote for Tendulkar? Come on.

God forbid I am in a thread arguing about how Bradman is logically better. Or against people who try to say that Tendulkar having 99 100s that makes him Bradman-like in comparison to his contemporaries. Look, some things one can entertain; other things...no. God forbid someone take the guy down a few pegs. I think since you're a big fan of Tendulkar you're taking it too much to heart.

 

[Jono]

I don't care if you take them down a peg or two. I do care however when you're trying to smoke them out. I find that very odd.

You know you didn't need to start this thread considering there was a thread with hundreds of posts about this. Your only motive is to mock individual people.

 

[Blaze 18]

You're either with Bradman or you're with the terrorists.

 

[Ikki]

I don't see how you make that connection. Voting on this poll is voluntary. If you don't want it to be known that you think Tendulkar is better you don't vote. As I said, I won't even question why you're voting that way - in essence I am not even going to call you out on your opinion. Either vote and let people know who you think is better or don't.

Also, where's your vote?

 

[Turbinator]

Ikki, if I vote for Bradman, will you vote for me in the BOTM?




... No but really, I'm serious

 

[Ikki]

What's the BOTM?

 

[vcs]

Oh yes. Have you read the book "Fabric of Cosmos" by Brian Greene? He has the full opening chapter devoted to the bucket argument. Fabulous read.

Happy to hijack this ****ty thread with a discussion on Physics

Yes yes yes!! That's where I read about this problem. Nice coincidence. Very good book BTW.