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

[Pigeon]

Only 2 of those attacks were great attacks. The rest were ok to good.
Y do u Tendy fans take it so personal when someone compares him to other greats of his time??

What then this thread is called "Lara vs Tendulkar". Why do you get finicky about Tendulkar fans?

Een the 92 attack was the best of it's time barring the Windies.

 

[MrIncredible]

Not true. He did quite well against full-strength Aussie attacks in Australia in 99 and India in 2001.

I know that i was rebutting the statement that Tendy never failed vs full strength oz attacks

 

[MrIncredible]

What then this thread is called "Lara vs Tendulkar". Why do you get finicky about Tendulkar fans?

Een the 92 attack was the best of it's time barring the Windies.

Umm Pakistan? South Africa?

Ps Lara also made runs vs Oz away in the 92/93 series.

 

[Pigeon]

Umm Pakistan? South Africa?

Ps Lara also made runs vs Oz away in the 92/93 series.

Age mate. Age.

As regards Pakistan, you indeed have a point.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh yes, absolutely.

However as Hayden said, had Lara been an Australian, he'd never broken that record (perhaps would have remained n.o at 300 or something) because Australians never tend to bat more than maximum 5 sessions. It helped Lara himself was the captain in that match.

That's pretty rich coming from Hayden who broke the record himself with his 380.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar faced enough of Warne to more than prove a point.

When Tendulkar faced Warne and destroyed him, Warne was not at his best. Check his record v all countries except England during those 2-3 years. It is mediocre.

 

[MrIncredible]

Lara wouldn't have made it to the ground with the sort of injuries TEndulkar was sporting

Tendy isnt the first nor would he be the last to play with an injury. it happens in all sports. Lara should have never played the 02 season (recovering from dislocated shoulder) but he did and his batting suffered as such. But Lara chose to play so whatever he did that year gets counted even though i know that he was well below par

 

[Pigeon]

That's pretty rich coming from Hayden who broke the record himself with his 380.

Helped that he scored at a significantly faster rate than Lara.

 

[Pigeon]

When Tendulkar faced Warne and destroyed him, Warne was not at his best. Check his record v all countries except England during those 2-3 years. It is mediocre.

Warne got injured afterwards.

Moreoever, except for perhaps the miniscule sample of 2 tests in 2004, virtually every other series, tendulkar owned Warne, right from 92 to 2001.

 

[MrIncredible]

Vs Zimbabwe

 

[Pigeon]

Tendy isnt the first nor would he be the last to play with an injury. it happens in all sports. Lara should have never played the 02 season (recovering from dislocated shoulder) but he did and his batting suffered as such. But Lara chose to play so whatever he did that year gets counted even though i know that he was well below par

He made a brilliant 136 ffs. It is not as if he chickened away.

Remember Lara's chickening out due to mysterious illnessess?

 

[Pigeon]

Vs Zimbabwe

Not a terrible attack, although not great attack either. Yeah, Hayden was a tad hypocritical there, but what he said was true.

 

[Pratters]

Warne got injured afterwards.

Moreoever, except for perhaps the miniscule sample of 2 tests in 2004, virtually every other series, tendulkar owned Warne, right from 92 to 2001.

Warne wasn't ready in 1992.

I am talking about 1998-99.

Warne's record in 97 and 99 are mediocre to say the least. He only excelled versus England for a period. He had a great 1997 series v England which enhanced his figures but except that, Warne wasn't at his best during this period. A lot is made of how Tendulkar smashed Warne in 1998 and it was superb the way he did it but it wasn't like Warne was at his best. Tendulkar at his peak v Warne at his peak never happened.

season 1999/00 10 20 439.3 118 1256 41 5/110 8/155 30.63 2.85 64.3 1 0 view innings
season 1997/98 9 17 524.5 124 1433 49 6/34 11/109 29.24 2.73 64.2 3 1 view innings

 

[aussie]

ANd Nadal is 13-7 vs Federer if u all knew ne thing about Tennis. And Tendy has failed vs full strength Oz attacks.

Haa..no he hasn't we went through this before. 99, 92/93 07/08 where good/great AUS attacks. Only time he failed vs AUS was 2004 when he played injured, when he probably shouldn't have played. But he did because IND needed him in a crucial series.

 

[Pigeon]

Warne wasn't ready in 1992.

I am talking about 1998-99.

Warne's record in 97 and 99 are mediocre to say the least. He only excelled versus England for a period. He had a great 1997 series v England which enhanced his figures but except that, Warne wasn't at his best during this period. A lot is made of how Tendulkar smashed Warne in 1998 and it was superb the way he did it but it wasn't like Warne was at his best. Tendulkar at his peak v Warne at his peak never happened.

season 1999/00 10 20 439.3 118 1256 41 5/110 8/155 30.63 2.85 64.3 1 0 view innings
season 1997/98 9 17 524.5 124 1433 49 6/34 11/109 29.24 2.73 64.2 3 1 view innings

Warne was destroyed by Tendulkar that it affected his performances afterwards.

Plus, it is a credit to Tendulkar that he was ready in 1992 at a much younger age

 

[aussie]

Warne wasn't ready in 1992.

I am talking about 1998-99.

Warne's record in 97 and 99 are mediocre to say the least. He only excelled versus England for a period. He had a great 1997 series v England which enhanced his figures but except that, Warne wasn't at his best during this period. A lot is made of how Tendulkar smashed Warne in 1998 and it was superb the way he did it but it wasn't like Warne was at his best. Tendulkar at his peak v Warne at his peak never happened.

season 1999/00 10 20 439.3 118 1256 41 5/110 8/155 30.63 2.85 64.3 1 0 view innings
season 1997/98 9 17 524.5 124 1433 49 6/34 11/109 29.24 2.73 64.2 3 1 view innings

Warne actually got injured after the 98 series in IND. The main reason why Warne was smoked in 98 was because with McGrath & Gillespie absent, Warne had to be both attacking & defensive bolwer - similar to Ashes 05. So given IND batting strenght vs spin @ Home, after the 1st innings in Chennai, with no back-up strenght he really had no hope.

 

[Pratters]

Warne actually got injured after the 98 series in IND. The main reason why Warne was smoked in 98 was because with McGrath & Gillespie absent, Warne had to be both attacking & defensive bolwer - similar to Ashes 05. So given IND batting strenght vs spin @ Home, after the 1st innings in Chennai, with no back-up strenght he really had no hope.

Injured or not, he wasn't at his best in 1998. It is still creditable that Tendulkar destroyed him the way he did and the short boundaries in India hard a part to play in it but Warne wasn't really bowling at his best in the series. Tendulkar could never destroy Warne like he did in 1998 if Warne was playing with his A game on.

 

[MrIncredible]

Haa..no he hasn't we went through this before. 99, 92/93 07/08 where good/great AUS attacks. Only time he failed vs AUS was 2004 when he played injured, when he probably shouldn't have played. But he did because IND needed him in a crucial series.

Not u again. If u add it all up (incl the 04 series) Lara still averages more vs good/great Oz attacks. Dont know y tendulkar gets a pass for playing while being injured and Warne, Lara and everyone else dont.

 

[aussie]

It should be remembered that Moin Khan missed a simple stumping chance of Tendulkar in that innings when he was on 90. So both Lara and Tendulkar were given lives, but lara made his count.

True that.

 

[subshakerz]

What is a match winning innings?

Only 4th innings 100s count as matchwinning?

Many a time, Tendulkar set up Indian wins in the first innings itself with a splendid hundred and left enough stuff for Kumble & Co. to enforce a victory. It is not Tendulkar's fault that he had for most of the period a terrible bowling attack, except for Kumble, to do the job.

I think the whole term "matchwinning batsman" is a bit misleading. With a few exceptions, its bowlers in tests who win matches, not batsmen. I think the correct way to frame it is if someone is a "pressure" batsman.

For me, Lara would more likely to score runs when they are needed, regardless of if the team wins or not. Sri Lanka 2001 is a good example of this, and there are many more. If the team is 50-4 on a first day pitch, I would back Lara to perservere over Tendulkar. If the team needs to grind out a draw, I would back Lara to stay at the crease over Tendulkar. If the match is in the balance, I would back Lara to gain the momentum over Tendulkar.

Not that Tendulkar hasn't performed under pressure, its just that he hasn't as often as Lara. He seemed to make most of his runs either in lost causes or when the team is already in the supremacy.