Read this right here all of it throughly, and if you want to respond to it, please respond to most of the points rather than just one point.
I understand that but see I just said it before and people avoid it over and over again, how can you delegate that Bradman was the greatest when you personally have never seen his game. The problem is that your getting all your info from other people's perception on the Don not your own perception on him. I am not saying he is NOT the greatest, I am saying that you cannot say he is the greatest because everyone here does not know how good he truly was. If he played in today's society like I said before he would not be as big of a player in my eyes. I know that is a big statement but that's my personal opinion on that matter and unless you have an ability to show what would happen if the Don played in today's society and he average nearly 100, you won't change that view on me.
Okay, now yes because of him there are only allowed two players behind the square on the leg side. However, cricketers today are probably influenced by Bradman in a way but the style that cricketers play today in my perspective is almost identical to Tendulkar's ways. Cricketers are trying to imitate him because he has been so successful as a cricketer. And also, I think he has become that Perfect Image, I mean he is in my eyes the greatest cricketer off the field. A respectful character who is thought about as a great personality in a place where is so hated like in....Pakistan (the team I follow).
To say that Sobers is the ONLY player to get close to his level in class and awe is a difficult statement to make. Now first off, you must explain the context of the word class, because if your saying on a techinical cricket standpoint. Sobers was more talented as a tests batsmen I would agree to that but, Tendulkar has everything as a batsmen. This is also confusing, because if you say that Sobers is the only player to get close to Bradman's class and awe then you must take back what Benaud said about Bradman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereotype
Someone who rates Sachin as number 2 to the Don
If Sachin is rated 2nd to Bradman in Benaud's eyes then that means that Tendulkar should at least have more class and awe than Sobers in Benaud's eyes. If you were to say no to that statement than you are clearly contridicting yourself, either you take Benaud's opinion to the fullest or you don't take his opinion at all. Now your trying to prove Bradman has had a larger impact so I guess you need to keep his opinion because he has seen him play.
Now back to who has a greater impact, Tendulkar is definitely the largest impact player in Southern East Asia. You also, have to think about something Bradman like I said has only played in England and Australia. He may be the largest impact player in England and Australia. However, Bradman is not the largest impact player in the rest of the world because he never got the opportunity to show his abilities to the rest of the world. How can you say that a player has affected the WORLD of cricket if they never saw him play. What I am trying to say is that if West Indies never got the opportunity to see Bradman bat then how can their batting be similar to his. They never got the chance to imitate how Bradman bats and develop those skills that he had.
