World's Greatest Cricket Legend

[Zinzan]

By the definition of the word, everyone is a legend. You, me, warne, Tendulkar,Bradman, etc.
The only difference is outreach and influence, ie, popularity numbers(remember- popular means awareness in the public...not the conventional sense of the word where popular = liked. Hitler is quiete popular too......only that he isnt well liked, ie, famous but rather, he is infamous).
You or me may be restricted to a few hundred people currently or a few thousand people in our lifetime.......
International personalities have far more......No doubt Warne is a legend and a huge legend at that........but doesnt compare with Tendulkar...nobody does in cricket.
In cricket playing nations barring the subcontinent, Warne is about as legendary as Tendulkar- for practically everyone in WI, AUS,ENG,NZ know of him and there is no reason to believe that Warne is known to more people in RSA/ZIM than Tendulkar....
When counting IN India, Tendulkar runs away by a few lightyears....You wont find a dude from a far off distant village having heard of Warne- but they've heard of Tendulkar.
If you throw in non-cricketing nations, again, Tendulkar is far ahead...... so overall, Warne, even though he is a great legend, doesnt stack up to Tendulkar.

So your argument has swung to the "most popular" cricketer now has it?? Right ...of course. India has a population of over 1 billion people, More than twice as many as the entire rest of the cricketing nations put together. Well done Sherlock, for pointing out that more Indians know of Tendulkar than bradman.

I wasn't aware that "most well known cricketer" means exactly the same as "Worlds greatest cricket legend".

 

[C_C]

Where did i EVER say that Bradman isnt a legend ?
he is ofcourse a legend- one of the greatest legends in cricket.......but his legend doesnt stand up to Tendulkar's legend.
And i realise that there are lots of kids in this website and i suppose its a regular tactic to assign racism/regionalism etc. without any clear proof when one cannot counter another's points, but do try better than that line.

So your argument has swung to the "most popular" cricketer now has it?? Right ...of course. India has a population of over 1 billion people, More than twice as many as the entire rest of the cricketing nations put together. Well done Sherlock, for pointing out that more Indians know of Tendulkar than bradman.

My argument hasnt swung to the 'most popular'.
By posing the question " who is the greatest legend", the initiator of this thread automatically swung the question to 'most popular'.
As i've explained numerous times in this thread, legend equates to popularity of certain emotions elicited in public at the mention of that person or event ( emotions such as awe, inspiration, respect, disgust, hatred, etc.)....That isnt a definition i conjured outta my hat, that is the definition of the word 'legend' according to the English language.Which boils down to numbers....number of people...again i say, as demonstrated with previous examples- what makes one legend greater than another is the popularity of that legend. How many have heard of Shaka Zulu here ? What about Suleyman the great ? Not many.....does that mean they are any less accomplished than some of their more famous rivals ? no. Does that mean that they arnt as big a legend as the others ? Yes.
Try to differentiate between legend and accomplishment(s) and do try to think logically.

I wasn't aware that "most well known cricketer" means exactly the same as "Worlds greatest cricket legend".

I hope that now you are aware of that...and if not, do counter it with reason and point out the flaw in my logic regarding the definition of the word 'legend' and my subsequent inference.

 

[Monty]

Gilly

 

[Scallywag]

As i've explained numerous times in this thread, legend equates to popularity of certain emotions elicited in public at the mention of that person or event ( emotions such as awe, inspiration, respect, disgust, hatred, etc.)....That isnt a definition i conjured outta my hat, that is the definition of the word 'legend' according to the English language.Which boils down to numbers....number of people....

leg·end ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljnd)
n.

An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
A body or collection of such stories.
A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.

An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
An explanatory caption accompanying an illustration.
An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.
******************************************************************************************************


I dont think the meaning of legend has anything to do with numbers.

And popular does not mean the most numbers but people tend to like someone who is popular, you can be known by millions and not be popular.

 

[tassietiger]

It would be grossly unfair to say anyone other than Bradman. Greatest legend currently playing though, Lara would be streets ahead in my eyes. I suppose I've never really had a good look of how much the Indians adore him, but having watched Lara bat on a few occasions (one of them involving a one day century), he is an out and out superstar.

 

[Richard]

Haven't read a single post of this thread but cricket's greatest legend is Harold Dennis Bird if you ask me.
And not just because he's the best Umpire there's ever been.

 

[Shoaib]

I think its useless to argue with C_C as he would defend his point at any cost with wholy crap and weak justifications.Its now proven through the poll that Don Bradman is the the World's Greatest Cricket Legend and no more arguemnts r required in that regard.

 

[honestbharani]

leg·end ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljnd)
n.

An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
A body or collection of such stories.
A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.

An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
An explanatory caption accompanying an illustration.
An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.
******************************************************************************************************


I dont think the meaning of legend has anything to do with numbers.

And popular does not mean the most numbers but people tend to like someone who is popular, you can be known by millions and not be popular.

To be fair, the only other way you can be known by millions if you are not popular is if you are notorious and I don't think you can Tendulkar notorious. He is definitely popular amongst the no. of people that know him. That said, I still think Bradman's legend is bigger.

 

[Slifer]

just a comment

You both seem to be saying basically the same thing here. Many people are mistaking the merits of the player in question with their status as legends (whether correct or not). Bradman was the best, but Tendulkar is much more well-known.

Well no wonder he comes from a country of billions and a continent of even more billions. so u r probably rite tendulkar is probably the most well-known cricketer but he is not the most revered atleast not in the West Indies.

ps what if the Don was indian and SRT was australian do u think that would make a diff??

 

[Slifer]

I guess people have different definitions of legends. For me, its a person who is looked up to and held in the highest regard by everyone. Everyone who has heard of Bradman holds him in the highest regard. This to me is much more integral to being a "legend" than whether someone is known of in Mongolia. To me, that's just being popular, and in this modern day and age, well marketed, as opposed to being a legend. I think it becomes a balance of the two, something like legend status can't be seen in absolutes.

It's like saying that David Beckham is the world's greatest soccer (football) legend.

I totally agree with ur assesment on this matter

 

[C_C]

Its now proven through the poll that Don Bradman is the the World's Greatest Cricket Legend and no more arguemnts r required in that regard.

Yes, a poll conducted in a single website, voted for by a few dozen people is a depiction of the world and its opinions.

I dont think the meaning of legend has anything to do with numbers.

You think wrong.
The definition says "An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical. "

Notice the usage of the word 'popularly'...which means HOW MANY PEOPLE.

I noticed that nobody has countered my argument and pointed out why i am wrong in this case.... bradman should be the greatest legend in cricket alongside Sobers....... because in a pefect world, the greatest legend would be of the one who deserves it the most. But this isnt a perfect world and Bradman's legend doesnt touch Tendulkar's.

 

[marc71178]

Again, how is the word 'legend' defined in English ?

1.
1. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
2. A body or collection of such stories.
3. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
2. One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.
3.
1. An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
2. An explanatory caption accompanying an illustration.
3. An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.


No mention of the most popular there.

 

[marc71178]

Besides, like i said, you are far likelier to find people in non-cricketing countries who've heard and are in awe of tendulkar than Bradman.

They'll have heard of him because of advertising etc.

If Bradman were around now, they'd have equally heard of him just as much if not more.

 

[marc71178]

By posing the question " who is the greatest legend", the initiator of this thread automatically swung the question to 'most popular'.

No, he did not - you are the one who has changed it.

On the Beckham analogy, I expect next you'll be claiming Baichung Bhutia as the most legendary footballer of all time.

 

[marc71178]

ps what if the Don was indian and SRT was australian do u think that would make a diff??

Yes, then C_C would champion Bradman.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My argument hasnt swung to the 'most popular'.
By posing the question " who is the greatest legend", the initiator of this thread automatically swung the question to 'most popular'.

He merely nicked the title from a telly show as he or rather I explained (I'll stop referring to myself in the third person now, it makes one sound a tw@t ) in my first post!

I think popularity can be, tho isn't necessarily, an emphemeral thing. One could say The Crazy Frog is popular, but is it legendary? I'd say not. I would say that legendary status implies an endurance to a fame or notoriety. Tendulkar may have the most brand recognition currently but I don't think that alone can be argued as making him the greatest legend. Someone else has already made the point about Beckham being the most recognised footballer just now, but in terms of being a legend he isn't fit to lace George Best's drinks.

To return to the original question I can actually see IT Botham winning the Sky vote, especially when one considers the voting audience (British, almost exclusively) & that The Ashes commence during the voting period. 1981 & all that is very much in people's minds just now.

 

[C_C]

No mention of the most popular there.

Do read it again...i've highlighted the part for you:

An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
2. A body or collection of such stories.
3. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.

On the Beckham analogy, I expect next you'll be claiming Baichung Bhutia as the most legendary footballer of all time.

No, because Baichung doesnt elicit the awe and inspiration that Becks ( or other legends) does- not even in India.

They'll have heard of him because of advertising etc.

If Bradman were around now, they'd have equally heard of him just as much if not more.

True....but the mere fact is, he isnt around now as a player... If this or If that...well the FACT is, he wasnt marketed to the extent of modern day players and thus isnt on the same popularity tree.

Yes, then C_C would champion Bradman.

Whats with this personal attacks ? Care to substantiate that or is that yer 14-year old self throwing your toys outta yer pram when you cannot counter an argument that you do not like ?

 

[C_C]

He merely nicked the title from a telly show as he or rather I explained (I'll stop referring to myself in the third person now, it makes one sound a tw@t ) in my first post!

I think popularity can be, tho isn't necessarily, an emphemeral thing. One could say The Crazy Frog is popular, but is it legendary? I'd say not. I would say that legendary status implies an endurance to a fame or notoriety. Tendulkar may have the most brand recognition currently but I don't think that alone can be argued as making him the greatest legend. Someone else has already made the point about Beckham being the most recognised footballer just now, but in terms of being a legend he isn't fit to lace George Best's drinks.

To return to the original question I can actually see IT Botham winning the Sky vote, especially when one considers the voting audience (British, almost exclusively) & that The Ashes commence during the voting period. 1981 & all that is very much in people's minds just now.

True, popular doesnt mean legend. But legend means popular.Legend can be due to several reasons but legend is something that inspires a range of emotions amongst the populace....emotions such as awe, reverence, approval, etc. in a highly romanticised fashion.
When one says 'legend of Hercules', one is talking about how popular the romanticised emotions are amongst the people
But contrast that to the popularity of the tele-tubbies. Do they elicit the emotions consisntent with 'legendary status' ?
Not really...hence they are popular but not legendary.
But Tendulkar, Bradman or any cricketing superstar elicits awe, reverence, approval, etc., ie, romanticised tales and ideas amongst the populace.
That is not in dispute...what i am disputing is, how popular those emotions are amongst the populace...and that depends on the respective outreach and appeal base of the person in question... and in Tendulkar's case, the number of people expressing such emotions are far higher than any other cricketers.
Therefore, Tendulkar's legend is the greatest legend in cricket.

 

[BoyBrumby]

True, popular doesnt mean legend. But legend means popular.Legend can be due to several reasons but legend is something that inspires a range of emotions amongst the populace....emotions such as awe, reverence, approval, etc. in a highly romanticised fashion.
When one says 'legend of Hercules', one is talking about how popular the romanticised emotions are amongst the people
But contrast that to the popularity of the tele-tubbies. Do they elicit the emotions consisntent with 'legendary status' ?
Not really...hence they are popular but not legendary.
But Tendulkar, Bradman or any cricketing superstar elicits awe, reverence, approval, etc., ie, romanticised tales and ideas amongst the populace.
That is not in dispute...what i am disputing is, how popular those emotions are amongst the populace...and that depends on the respective outreach and appeal base of the person in question... and in Tendulkar's case, the number of people expressing such emotions are far higher than any other cricketers.
Therefore, Tendulkar's legend is the greatest legend in cricket.

If that is the case by your own defintion you have to allow then that Beckham is the greatest footballing legend. I've no doubt he elicts all the emotions you describe amongst his many million fans in the far east.

I don't think that most popular or best known legend equates with the greatest legend.

 

[marc71178]

No BB, because quite simply, it doesn't, no matter what C_C tries to tell us.