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

[subshakerz]

i cant choose between them. but benaud rated tendulkar above lara. bradman preferred him, too. warne also thinks sachin was better than lara. ESPN legends panel chose sachin above lara. CMJ has got him much higher on his top 100 list compared to brian.

'Lara the greatest among his peers' | Cricket Features | Global | Cricinfo.com

Trust me, there's as many or more pundits who consider Lara better.

 

[bagapath]

'Lara the greatest among his peers' | Cricket Features | Global | Cricinfo.com

Trust me, there's as many or more pundits who consider Lara better.

i want to know who they are and read what they said. its not about trusting you. i would like to know their reasons.

 

[Cruxdude]

Lara's prime was wasted in a sub-standard team with poor management. If you want to bring in mitigating circumstances I can bring in as many for Lara as you can for Tendulkar.

I don't think he was giving any excuses, he is just lamenting that Tendulkar's prime was spent playing 40 ODI's a year when he could have been playing more tests.

I also don't understand from where you get the notion that India = Flat track. Spin is also supposedly tough to play and when the ball does turn it is not a flat track. Recently we have been having some roads in places like Mohali but generalization is not right.

 

[Pigeon]

Right, because even if West Indies had declated when he hit 300 you think there would have been a result? Theres no guarantee West Indies could have won. And lets not forget that Tendulkar doesnt even have a first class triple century.

Looking back at the scoresheets you could argue Lara had demoralised England so much that it caused them to fail in the first innings. And even if West Indies did they would still have lost the series 3-1. Big deal.

Tendulkar has got to bat on plenty of flat tracks in India. But, oh no! Lara is not allowed to smash runs on a flat track.

Ask Ponting.

 

[Pigeon]

'Lara the greatest among his peers' | Cricket Features | Global | Cricinfo.com

Trust me, there's as many or more pundits who consider Lara better.

John Wright - No comments

Ian Chappell - Brian Lara (only if someone put a gun to his head). Now we all know Ian is a known baiter of Tendulkar. And though I hugely respect his observations, I indeed feel he was in a bit hurry to write Tendulkar off (Remember post WC 07, and his "look in the mirror" talk?). And 2006-07 was a dark period for Tendulkar, remember.

Tony Greig - I am surprised a tad bit. But then, I respect his opinion, Lara.

Ravi Shastri - No prizes for guessing. Tendulkar.

So that makes it 2-1 in a slightly biased forum (Sanjay Manjrekar is a vocal critic of Tendulkar, and never spares a chance to have a dig at him)

Hardly "unanimous" or "the last word"

 

[The Sean]

Shastri voted for Lara the way I read it.

"But between Tendulkar and Lara, you would have to give it to Lara"

 

[Pigeon]

Shastri voted for Lara the way I read it.

"But between Tendulkar and Lara, you would have to give it to Lara"

My bad then.

 

[subshakerz]

It's pretty hard to choose between great batsmen when they both don't have any glaring weaknesses in their records or techniques. What I do notice is that although they are at the same level they contrast pretty well also.

Would you choose a technically proficient right-hander who is more consistent and harder to get out when he gets to the crease? Or a stylish left-hander who is slightly less consistent and more vulnerable when he first gets to the crease, yet is capable of near superhuman feats of batsmenship and plays better when under pressure?

Your choice between the batsmen depends on what you prioritize in batting. If you care more about consistency and obduracy, they you would choose Tendulkar. If you prefer the ability to perform when under the fire or to produce special innings, like I do, then Lara is your man.

 

[subshakerz]

John Wright - No comments

Ian Chappell - Brian Lara (only if someone put a gun to his head). Now we all know Ian is a known baiter of Tendulkar. And though I hugely respect his observations, I indeed feel he was in a bit hurry to write Tendulkar off (Remember post WC 07, and his "look in the mirror" talk?). And 2006-07 was a dark period for Tendulkar, remember.

Tony Greig - I am surprised a tad bit. But then, I respect his opinion, Lara.

Ravi Shastri - No prizes for guessing. Tendulkar.

So that makes it 2-1 in a slightly biased forum (Sanjay Manjrekar is a vocal critic of Tendulkar, and never spares a chance to have a dig at him)

Hardly "unanimous" or "the last word"

3-0 in favor of Lara. Yes, its not the last word, just demonstrating that there is as much support in favor of Lara among the cricket establishment as there is for Tendulkar.

And yeah, I too was surprised by Greig, he's always been a rabid Tendulkar supporter.

 

[slippyslip]

I don't think he was giving any excuses, he is just lamenting that Tendulkar's prime was spent playing 40 ODI's a year when he could have been playing more tests.

I also don't understand from where you get the notion that India = Flat track. Spin is also supposedly tough to play and when the ball does turn it is not a flat track. Recently we have been having some roads in places like Mohali but generalization is not right.

Tendulkar is a great player of spin. No one denies that.

I still remember Ganguly crying like a little child over the 2nd test pitch against Australia in 2004 when they lost the series.

It had some green on it. GREEN. In India! And he smashed his toys in a fit a bit like how my 3 and a half year old nephew does.

Actually, thats an unfair comparison to make. I shouldnt compare my nephew to someone like Ganguly.

 

[Cruxdude]

Tendulkar is a great player of spin. No one denies that.

I still remember Ganguly crying like a little child over the 2nd test pitch against Australia in 2004 when they lost the series.

It had some green on it. GREEN. In India! And he smashed his toys in a fit a bit like how my 3 and a half year old nephew does.

Actually, thats an unfair comparison to make. I shouldnt compare my nephew to someone like Ganguly.

I thought we were talking about Tendulkar and flat tracks in India.

 

[Cruxdude]

Tendulkar is a great player of spin. No one denies that.

Also, Tendulkar being a great player of spin shouldn't make the runs he scores at home any lesser in stature. So trying to run down his record at home saying they were flat tracks won't work.

 

[Pratters]

What next?

Ponting's runs in Australia don't count as he is a great player of pace bowling.

McGrath's wickets v tail enders don't count.


On a serious note, I can't decide between Lara and Tendulkar. For the 90s, I rate Lara higher but only once Tendulkar's career is over, I will be able to compare them career wise.

 

[Cruxdude]

On a serious note, I can't decide between Lara and Tendulkar. For the 90s, I rate Lara higher but only once Tendulkar's career is over, I will be able to compare them career wise.

I don't agree with the view that in the 90's Lara was better.

Records from 1990-1999 without Zimbabwe (Bangladesh wasn't a test side then)


Sachin 1990-1999 66 matches 5523 runs 59.38 average 22 centuries
Lara 1990-1999 65 matches 5573 runs 51.60 average 13 centuries

Sachin averages more against Aus, Eng, NZ, SA, SL
Lara averages more against Pakistan by 0.3

actually both have pretty poor averages against Pakistan 30 and 30.3.

In away series

Tendulkar averages more against Australia by 5, SA again by 5 (though both have poor averages)
Lara averages more against Eng (Sachin averages 74, Lara 85) and New Zealand by 3.

90's were Tendulkar's.

 

[Pratters]

Lara played the more match winning test match innings which lacked from Tendulkar's repertoire. He didn't make the big double hundreds either. While Tendulkar was more consistent, Lara achieved greater feats and for that, I rate Lara higher.

 

[aussie]

Lara played the more match winning test match innings which lacked from Tendulkar's repertoire. He didn't make the big double hundreds either. While Tendulkar was more consistent, Lara achieved greater feats and for that, I rate Lara higher.

Actually thanks to his recent hundred vs ENG @ Chennai, Tendy did add this to his rep.

 

[Pratters]

Actually thanks to his recent hundred vs ENG @ Chennai, Tendy did add this to his rep.

I am talking about the 90s, not the entire career of Tendulkar.

 

[Cruxdude]

Lara played the more match winning test match innings which lacked from Tendulkar's repertoire. He didn't make the big double hundreds either. While Tendulkar was more consistent, Lara achieved greater feats and for that, I rate Lara higher.

Hmm Lara played in more test matches that were won. Credit goes to him and their bowlers. It is your opinion and you are right to have it. But, I believe it is more a case of the 153* (Incredibly great innings though that is) that one particular innings over shadowing everything else. Otherwise their record in matches won doesn't differ much.

Tendulkar 16 wins 59.05 4 centuries highest: 165
Lara 23 wins 58.13 5 senturies highest: 213

I still stand by my words that Tendulkar of the 90's was an incredible machine.

 

[MrIncredible]

I will always give the edge to Lara.

1. Lara averages more vs the great attacks that both players played against (WW, Donald/Pollock, and Mcwarne) dont believe me then just try statsguru at cricinfo.

2. Tendy has never dominated ne very good/great attacks the way Lara has (Aust 99, SL 01, RSA 03)
3. Lara has reached depths Tendy has only recently experienced but Lara has also touched heights Tendy can only dream of ( 7 500+ series, 9 doubles (none vs Zim or Bang), 99 series vs Oz, 01 series vs SL, 400* etc )
4. Tendy is a better traveller but lets not pretend like it is cake walk making runs on some of the wickets we have in the WI (Sabina, Kensington, QPO).

 

[MrIncredible]

Actually thanks to his recent hundred vs ENG @ Chennai, Tendy did add this to his rep.

Doesnt remotely compare to Lara's 153* tbh