RATE HIM: Sachin Tendulkar

[Burgey]

I'd give Sachin a 7.5 on looks, 8 when he has a goatee.

Ah the goatee - I'd forgotten he ever had one. Prefer "youthful looking Sachin" tbh.

God, that reads really, really badly

 

[Jono]

That's getting kinda OTT isn't it?

Like he was condoning what was said in the other thread? He didn't even mention it and was plainly having a lend having read the posts on this thread. We're not getting to the point where someone makes a post like Laurrz's and we insinuate they're racist are we?

"Guess I should watch out how I answer such polls" is suggesting that those that complained did so solely because he voted 1 to Sachin, and even if he didn't read sideshow's other posts, I think its quite obvious from the angry reactions from posters of Indian descent that they were offended over something more than a simple poll.

Considering the length of the time it took to get rid of him, I think 'we' have the right to be disgusted due to anyone even remotely defending him. At least I feel that way.

My last post on this, because I don't want to take this off topic, but any defence of sideshow considering his behaviour of the last few months will receive a reply from me.

EDIT: For the record, I never intended to insinuate that Laurz was racist, so apologies if it came off that way.

 

[DaRick]

"Guess I should watch out how I answer such polls" is suggesting that those that complained did so solely because he voted 1 to Sachin, and even if he didn't read sideshow's other posts, I think its quite obvious from the angry reactions from posters of Indian descent that they were offended over something more than a simple poll.

Considering the length of the time it took to get rid of him, I think 'we' have the right to be disgusted due to anyone even remotely defending him. At least I feel that way.

My last post on this, because I don't want to take this off topic, but any defence of sideshow considering his behaviour of the last few months will receive a reply from me.

EDIT: For the record, I never intended to insinuate that Laurz was racist, so apologies if it came off that way.

Yeah, I read those comments. He appears to mistake xenophobia for nationalism. Nationalism is fine to a certain extent (if anything, the vast majority of CW forumers are nationalists to some degree), but xenophobia (and by extension his comments) is not.

Is his a permanent ban, or what?

(Sorry for going OT, BTW)

 

[SJS]

5/10.

I am seriously intrigued. I am not ridiculing your judgement but would love to know why ?

 

[silentstriker]

Of course, you probably should take into account ODI's, if not T20's. Based on that, Ganguly's rating would be higher, for instance.

I don't take those into account.

 

[DaRick]

I don't take those into account.

Why not? I mean, ODI's do count as real cricket. Granted, I'd give a very good ODI batsman less than I'd give a very good Test batsman, but not including them would probably be unfair on the Michael Bevan's of this world.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If we really must give marks out of 10 Tendulkar's a 10. Bradman, Richards, Lara and Pollock are also 10's. The way I look at it 10/10 doesn't mean they're perfect, nor does it mean they're equal. They just have the touch of extra genius that sets them apart.

 

[Jono]

Why not? I mean, ODI's do count as real cricket. Granted, I'd give a very good ODI batsman less than I'd give a very good Test batsman, but not including them would probably be unfair on the Michael Bevan's of this world.

Opening up a can of worms. SS hates all forms of limited overs cricket. He'd probably rank 20/20 accomplishments over ODIs atm

 

[silentstriker]

Why not? I mean, ODI's do count as real cricket.

Not for me. I don't rate the format, and I don't enjoy it.

Opening up a can of worms. SS hates all forms of limited overs cricket. He'd probably rank 20/20 accomplishments over ODIs atm

Yea, probably. They are both relatively useless though, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Dasa]

If we really must give marks out of 10 Tendulkar's a 10. Bradman, Richards, Lara and Pollock are also 10's. The way I look at it 10/10 doesn't mean they're perfect, nor does it mean they're equal. They just have the touch of extra genius that sets them apart.

Agreed.

 

[DaRick]

Not for me. I don't rate the format, and I don't enjoy it.

Eh, fair enough, I guess. I obviously feel differently.

 

[Ikki]

I don't understand how Tendulkar can be an 8 and Sobers a 9. Not sure I heard a point of view regarding that, that I'd agree with.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't understand how Tendulkar can be an 8 and Sobers a 9. Not sure I heard a point of view regarding that, that I'd agree with.

What would you rate Sobers as? Everyone who has watched him put him as one of the best, if not the best batsmen they ever saw.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

8/10

 

[Ikki]

What would you rate Sobers as? Everyone who has watched him put him as one of the best, if not the best batsmen they ever saw.

What did he do that Tendulkar didn't?

 

[BhupinderSingh]

What would you rate Sobers as? Everyone who has watched him put him as one of the best, if not the best batsmen they ever saw.

I'm not sure about others but Sobers would get 8/10 from me in batting,5/10 in bowling & 8/10 overall.
Why would I not give him 10/10?...........Because only Bradman deserves that.
Why would I not give him 9/10?...........Because took his average to 57 by bashing 2 of the most weakest bowling lineups of his time(both were not world class).

Why only 5/10 in bowling?................Because of his average,strike rate and for taking only 31 wickets(Even Sami & Agarkar have more than 2WPM) @ an average of 50 (which is about same as that of Sami & Agarkar).

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I'm not sure about others but Sobers would get 8/10 from me in batting,5/10 in bowling & 8/10 overall.
Why would I not give him 10/10?...........Because only Bradman deserves that.
Why would I not give him 9/10?...........Because took his average to 57 by bashing 2 of the most weakest bowling lineups of his time(both were not world class).

Why only 5/10 in bowling?................Because of his average,strike rate and for taking only 31 wickets(Even Sami & Agarkar have more than 2WPM) @ an average of 50 (which is about same as that of Sami & Agarkar).

Add to that a caeer average of around 35 & strike rate of over 90.

 

[haroon510]

Bradman is weeping in his grave. Here are few videos of his batting :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXz-o1ldFcM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK_l5PqfA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFdMKbvkbg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PBEXOsaAaU&feature=related

Please do watch and do rate him else he would continue to weep in his grave.

well not good enough i need to see his strike rate inorder for me to rate him.. i like attacking and aggrassive cricket and that is one of the reason i rate dravid and kallis 2/10..if bradman was making all those runs with the same strike rate as dravid and kallis then i don't think he should be rated over 2 or 3 but again i need to see his strike rate..

 

[pasag]

well not good enough i need to see his strike rate inorder for me to rate him.. i like attacking and aggrassive cricket and that is one of the reason i rate dravid and kallis 2/10..if bradman was making all those runs with the same strike rate as dravid and kallis then i don't think he should be rated over 2 or 3 but again i need to see his strike rate..

He scored 300 in a day! What more do you need?!

 

[Burgey]

"Guess I should watch out how I answer such polls" is suggesting that those that complained did so solely because he voted 1 to Sachin, and even if he didn't read sideshow's other posts, I think its quite obvious from the angry reactions from posters of Indian descent that they were offended over something more than a simple poll.

Considering the length of the time it took to get rid of him, I think 'we' have the right to be disgusted due to anyone even remotely defending him. At least I feel that way.

My last post on this, because I don't want to take this off topic, but any defence of sideshow considering his behaviour of the last few months will receive a reply from me.

EDIT: For the record, I never intended to insinuate that Laurz was racist, so apologies if it came off that way.

Fair 'nuff .