****OFFICIAL**** Lara vs Tendulkar Debate Thread

[silentstriker]

Well. Sachin averages 55 and Lara averages 52.
Murali averages 23 and Warne averages 26.
Sachin made it to Bradman's XI and Benaud's XI. Wisden named Murali the best bowler ever.

Is that enough to say Sachin and Murali are the hands down winners over Lara and Warne respectively?

Anyways, this is where Botham - Imran stand after 88 matches.

Batting

Botham 88 140 4 4809 208 35.36 14 21
Imran 88 125 25 3807 136 38.07 6 18

Bowling

Botham 88 19838 9900 366 8/34 27.04 27 4
Imran 88 19458 8258 362 8/58 22.81 23 6

If Imran had superior averages, success against west indies and a world cup medal as skipper, Botham had better aggregates in both runs and wickets. He can also boast of being the only cricketer in history to have scored more than 10 centuries (14) and taken more than 10 fivefers (27). Lets leave his 100 + catches alone! And, how many test victories did Imran fashion in comparision to Botham?

Imran can be preferred to Botham. But Botham has an equally strong case to be called the best all-runder of 1970s - 1980s.

Maybe, we should start a Botham - Imran thread.

My original intention was to say that once the thin line between the very good and the great is crossed, then it is anyone's call. Lara/Sachin. Warne/Murali and Imran/Botham are in that genius league. It will be a never ending argument!

Imran average 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat in his last years. And he was no slouch with either before.

 

[Goughy]

Imran average 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat in his last years. And he was no slouch with either before.

He scored 1 century in his first 45 tests and only passed 50 5 other times (but this is for another thread)

 

[bagapath]

Imran average 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat in his last years. And he was no slouch with either before.

After 50 test matches

Batting

Botham 50 75 3 2625 149* 36.45 10 10
Imran 50 75 12 2008 123 31.87 2 7

Bowling

Botham 50 11724 5244 229 8/34 22.89 19 4
Imran 50 12551 5316 232 8/58 22.91 16 4

Come on dude!!!!

 

[bagapath]

i want to move the botham - imran debate to the otehr thread stated by silentstriker. for this thread i will sign off by saying its impossible to separate lara and sachin interms of stats and class. i will go for lara. but it is just a personal choice.

 

[aussie]

I did not dig this thread to rekindle the debate.

But i recently noticed looking at the England series the other day. That that attack Tendulkar faced was probably the best in his career againts England (home or away).

Which is interesting when you look at Lara & Tendulkar's record here in England especially. Tendulkar has never faced a good England attack here, while Lara has twice (2000 & 2004) although he didn't do much.

A thought we can ponder on...

 

[Zinzan]

Well. Sachin averages 55 and Lara averages 52.
Murali averages 23 and Warne averages 26.
Sachin made it to Bradman's XI and Benaud's XI. Wisden named Murali the best bowler ever.

Is that enough to say Sachin and Murali are the hands down winners over Lara and Warne respectively?

Short answer no. Its just a matter of personal taste and opinion when players are that evenly matched. These are Mercedes vs Jaguar debates, not Toyota vs Porsche, they ain't that one-sided.

Well. Sachin averages 55 and Lara averages 52.
Murali averages 23 and Warne averages 26.

Of course you'd expect Tendulkar to have a higher average playing half of his tests in the subcontinent. Surely your aware that all things considered even subcontinent batsman average 5-7 more than non-sub batsman. The same way that sub fast bowlers average considerably worse (or higher) than non-sub. And of course exactly the same applies to sub spinners vs non-sub explaining Murali's better average.

C'mon, Baga your a knowledgeable lad, you know this

 

[G.I.Joe]

Short answer no. Its just a matter of personal taste and opinion when players are that evenly matched. These are Mercedes vs Jaguar debates, not Toyota vs Porsche, they ain't that one-sided.



Of course you'd expect Tendulkar to have a higher average playing half of his tests in the subcontinent. Surely your aware that all things considered even subcontinent batsman average 5-7 more than non-sub batsman. The same way that sub fast bowlers average considerably worse (or higher) than non-sub. And of course exactly the same applies to sub spinners vs non-sub explaining Murali's better average.

C'mon, Baga your a knowledgeable lad, you know this

Come on, those are unfounded cliches. It is definitely true as far as FC cricket in India is concerned, but that has more to do with the absolute lack of quality quicks in the Indian domestic scene than the pitches (granted, which do tend to be flatter for FC cricket than for tests). Test cricket in India is a completely different cup of tea. If memory serves correctly, Sachin and Dravid average more than Lara away, which says a lot considering that 'away' for Lara includes Indian pitches, while it does not for the former two. India is not that bad a place for a bowler too, if you're a really good one. McGrath averages 18 or so here, and Kapil actually averages less in India than outside.

 

[Slifer]

I would say that SRT and Lara to this point are more or less equal. Up until a few years ago i would have rated Srt above Lara but not ne more.

 

[aussie]

Come on, those are unfounded cliches. It is definitely true as far as FC cricket in India is concerned, but that has more to do with the absolute lack of quality quicks in the Indian domestic scene than the pitches (granted, which do tend to be flatter for FC cricket than for tests). Test cricket in India is a completely different cup of tea. If memory serves correctly, Sachin and Dravid average more than Lara away, which says a lot considering that 'away' for Lara includes Indian pitches, while it does not for the former two. India is not that bad a place for a bowler too, if you're a really good one. McGrath averages 18 or so here, and Kapil actually averages less in India than outside.

True, but you still need solid back-up. Even McGrath would have struggled in India 98 & 2008 given the inept back-up available.

 

[haroon510]

i still rate Brain Lara higher..

 

[morgieb]

Lara > Tendulkar. Lara's a match-winner, plus played for a **** side.

 

[Uppercut]

Lara averages one more than Tendulkar when you take Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out, incidentally. I'm firmly in the "they can't be split" camp, but personally would take Lara.

 

[Jono]

Why should Zimbabwe from the 90s be removed?

 

[Top_Cat]

Sachin = Michaelangelo
Lara = Mapplethorpe

 

[Uppercut]

Why should Zimbabwe from the 90s be removed?

Just for simplicity. Tendulkar's record against Zimbabwe in the 90s wasn't especially good so it wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

 

[bagapath]

Short answer no. Its just a matter of personal taste and opinion when players are that evenly matched. These are Mercedes vs Jaguar debates, not Toyota vs Porsche, they ain't that one-sided.



Of course you'd expect Tendulkar to have a higher average playing half of his tests in the subcontinent. Surely your aware that all things considered even subcontinent batsman average 5-7 more than non-sub batsman. The same way that sub fast bowlers average considerably worse (or higher) than non-sub. And of course exactly the same applies to sub spinners vs non-sub explaining Murali's better average.

C'mon, Baga your a knowledgeable lad, you know this

well, this is what happens when you remove matches in the subcontinent and the matches against zimbabwe and bangladesh.

BC Lara 113 200 6 10028 400* 51.69 27 43 15
SR Tendulkar 59 101 8 4777 241* 51.36 15 22 9

if you remove matches played in windies (home advantage?) from lara's stats his numbers are.

BC Lara 50 91 1 3984 277 44.26 11 18 7

if you want to ignore the second stat i still cant choose between lara and tendulkar.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I'd choose Lara every day of the week. I've got no statistical basis for it and I don't plan to try - I just like him as a batsman more and would be happier with him batting for me.

 

[Jono]

I would say that SRT and Lara to this point are more or less equal. Up until a few years ago i would have rated Srt above Lara but not ne more.

So the more Sachin achieves, and the fact Lara has retired, has worked against Sachin and in favour of Lara?

Seems a bit fickle. Sort of like detracting from Hayden and Dravid's achievements because time is catching up to them, except in Sachin's case, it was injuries + time.

 

[illmatic]

lara in test
sachin in oddi


but i would rather watch lara at his best in a test match than sachin at his best in oddi..

 

[Jigga988]

I would go with Lara, firstly because I love to watch the guy bat, more so than Sachin. But probobly more so because he had to deal with a lot of rubbish, however, I admit this was in the back end of his career, but in the back end of career is when his average struggled most, at least I think anyway....

Lara had to cope with leading a team of no hopers, as well as getting criticised by the WICB as well as mix ups with sponsors and all types of rubbish like that... basically Lara had all of WI resting on his shoulders, which was a lot of pressure when you have no help, not even backing from the board... thus making his achievments in cricket even more spectacular.