bbc as usual

upto their old old tricks. Sachin is just another 'Indian cricketer' and not one of the 'cricket greats' as per this one. They also found a suitable rank for him.

29th

http://bbc.in/1hxLnza

this how they portray Sachin,
there surely would have been no such controversy if Sachin was an English or Australian cricketer.
& these *unts wonder, how is a game invented by them not getting more popular.  

Pretty fair article I thought.

there is no doubt he was an exceptional player...tho it seems ages since he made a test ton of consequence or indeed of no consequence

his only fault is that he was well past his peak when he retired. He is compared against a Bradman who played one-dimensional cricket against the same opposition and on the same types of pitches repeatedly over-and-over again. Tendulkar OTH played amongst a galaxy of fixers, Azhar, Jadeja, Cronje, Pakists to a last man and often he was the only symbol representing cricket as a sport that differentiated it from the fixers and the Aus-Eng racist lobby who looked down on everyone else. Fixing and racism were the only visible features of cricket when the little guy stood all alone amidst the rut and reinforced cricket as a sport.

So why didn't Tendulkar report the fixers and cheats in the Indian team?

whirr....whirr....watch out for those choppers Bucky...and btw what do you think of the caste system...a form of apartheid based on religion

I don't think Bucky actually read the article.

Lara belongs to a weak West Indies board, so he is constantly propped up as being better than Sachin. Because he is regarded as little threat to the Aus-Eng hegemony. But Lara was a selfish player who made his triple tons at the cost of test-victory and also he never contributed to winning matches. He had style and grace but that never translated into anything much for WI cricket. Sachin on other hand single-handedly bore Indian cricket on his shoulders for more than a decade. He had a stronger board than the WICB but he had the responsibility of meeting expectations of millions of fans every single time he was out on the field, so he comes in his own category. How can he be compared to anybody when they did not come even close to achieving what was expected of Sachin in every series he played.

I think it's more a form of discrimination within a religion.

Sort of an RC version of the poor getting SFA and Pell scoring the $30mil Rome appartment.

taipan wrote:I don't think Bucky actually read the article.

I read the article which cleverly props up Dravid as being more decisive and playing more match-winning innings than Sachin, now that is another way of setting up one Indian against another and thus keeping Sachin in competition with Indian greats. What the article is saying is that the unidimensional Bradman who played against just one single opposition is 90%+ average so he is head & shoulders above anyone. So take Dravid and insert that he has played more match-winning innings, so he is better than Sachin. And thus Sachin is just another Indian great and 29th cricket great. lol.

tho supposedly outlawed it is still practised ...dalits are treated like RD

horace wrote:tho supposedly outlawed it is still practised ...dalits are treated like RD

but still better than aborigines.

pretty rich to see a wind-up aussie like horrie, who comes from a country that has failed to empower a single community by affirmative action or otherwise talk about a complex social template that deals with many different communities and currently treats weaker communities/castes people better than aborigines in Australia can ever aspire for.

ntr bucky

oh dear

buckSH wrote:

taipan wrote:I don't think Bucky actually read the article.

I read the article which cleverly props up Dravid as being more decisive and playing more match-winning innings than Sachin, now that is another way of setting up one Indian against another and thus keeping Sachin in competition with Indian greats. What the article is saying is that the unidimensional Bradman who played against just one single opposition is 90%+ average so he is head & shoulders above anyone. So take Dravid and insert that he has played more match-winning innings, so he is better than Sachin. And thus Sachin is just another Indian great and 29th cricket great. lol.

True, they should have said Graeme Smith has played more match winning innings than SRT.

gazoooksssss.....you know it is a bad day when Australia bat woefully and I am in agreement with Taips  

Both scenarios are becoming more regular.

The Dwarf at 29 ATG ?!!
That's a bit overly generous.
Yeah sure, he was an okay batsman who overstayed his welcome by hanging in there till hitting 40 years of age and until an inordinately weak opposition turned up at a ground of his choosing, so that he could "amass" more cheap runs . . . but 29th ranking ?!

Nah - to be fair, I'd place him somewhere between 35 and 40.

Blimey, even Dougie Jardine rates above him for sheer courage, audacity and flair. . . . with only the latter trait being ever exhibited by the Dwarf.

I'm just disappointed they didn't call him 'the little rice eater'.

Merlin wrote:The Dwarf at 29 ATG ?!!
That's a bit overly generous.
Yeah sure, he was an okay batsman who overstayed his welcome by hanging in there till hitting 40 years of age and until an inordinately weak opposition turned up at a ground of his choosing, so that he could "amass" more cheap runs  . . . but 29th ranking ?!

Nah - to be fair, I'd place him somewhere between 35 and 40.

Blimey, even Dougie Jardine rates above him for sheer courage, audacity and flair. . . . with only the latter trait being ever exhibited by the Dwarf.

Come on Merlin don't be a hater, he was a great player.

Brass Monkey wrote:I'm just disappointed they didn't call him 'the little rice eater'.

I know Bucky has dropped his game a bit lately but that is a bit harsh

His words, not mine.

Brass Monkey wrote:His words, not mine.

Whose words?

Black Hawk's or The Dwarf's ?

Buckeroo. He used to say that we're all racists that call Indians 'rice eaters'.