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

[MrIncredible]

It was that big IMO. Having watched the series in little spells, where Mcgrath hit Lara on the helmet in Barbados & almost had him caught by Warne at the end - in Antigua where early on was almost caught in the gully by S Waugh - or in Trinidad where McGrath first innings bowling performace he really tested Lara.

I always felt McGrath held his own in that series. Unlike Lara batting vs Murali in 2001, where Murali really had no answer to Lara.



This argument is old & i dont believe Lara was out of form from 96-2000. He just was worked out technically by AUS, PAK, SA. The only period Lara was truly out of form was the 2000 tour to ENG when he came back after a period out of the game & had some eye problem, thus forcing him to bat with shades.

Then for majority of 2002, because of that dislocated shoulder problem.



I cant see how 95 was even. McGrath found Lara outside off-stump weakness in that series, he scored no centuries.

2003 needs to be discounted, McGrath was in no sort of form in those 2 test he played.

2005, as i said although Lara got bad decisions in those first 2 tests. He wasn never on top McGrath & company it was 96/97 & 2000/01 all over again TBH.

95 Lara averaged 44 and was highest run scorer (for the WI). So what if he didnt hit a century, he was well on his way to one in the 1st test b4 Waugh claimed a catch that clearly hit the ground.

 

[MrIncredible]

Except Pigeon didn't exposed any technical flaw in Tendulkar's game.




Lara at his peak never scored a hundred vs PAK/SA in their own back-yards when Wasim/Waqar - Donald/Pollock where playing.

So?? Y is this significant. he only played one away series vs both teams. And even with out a century he still did better vs Donald and slightly less vs ww. U keep harpin on this away thing but its not like Tendy set the world a light away to either attack and sucked as# at home.

 

[MrIncredible]

Thats the difference in the arguement i made way back when i started this thread:






Tendy at his peak from 1990-2002 (QPR Oval test), before Pedro Collins gave him alot of toruble in WI 02 & his tennis elbow woes never had any major technical flaw.

Him getting caught at slips is a standard dismissal for most batsmen TBF. McGrath at his metronomical best just got him out like that a few times. There never was a situation anytime AUS played IND, where no specific field settings for a plan was set againts Tendy.





My bad on this point. I been going at this argument for so long , this is the argument i put forward on page 1 for Lara v Tendy record vs PAK/SA when Wasim/Waqar - Donald/Pollock.


Tendulkar averages 24 more in PAK, on his 1st tour to Pakistan at just 16 facing Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir, Tendulkar averaged 36.Lara in 2 tours to Pakistan in 90/91 & 97 averaged 24.50 & 21.50. This is signigicant that a young tendulkar could average 36 vs these great bowlers & in 97 Lara barely averaged 21 vs Wasim/Waqar

Lara

vs Australia

'92-93 av 58.25 (A)
'95 av 44.00 (H)
96 av 32.88 (A)
'99 av 91.00 (H)
'00 av 32.10 (A)
'05 av 56.37 (A)

vs Pakistan

'93 av 43.00 (H)
97 av 21.50 (A)

vs South Africa

'98 av 31.00 (A)
'01 av 40.00 (H)

6 out of 10 series of 40+. 4 @ home and 2 away.


Tendulkar

vs Aust.

'91 av 46.00 (A)
'00 av 46.00 (A)
'01 av 50.66 (H)
'04 av 17.5 (H)

vs Pak.

'90 av 35.83 (A)
'98 av 42.75 (H)
* Also played a single test in the Asian test championship and av. 4.5 vs Pakistan

vs South Africa

'92 av 33.66 (A)
'96 av 27.66 (H)
'96 av 40.16 (A)
'00 av 36.50 (H)

5 out of 10 test series with 40+ average. 2 @ Home 3 away

I left out one-off tests that either player played against the above attacks

And b4 u start on that home away thing again dont discount Lara averaging 43 in 93. That was vs pre injury Waqar bowling on fast WI wickets, who was at the peak o fhis powers

 

[aussie]

95 Lara averaged 44 and was highest run scorer (for the WI). So what if he didnt hit a century, he was well on his way to one in the 1st test b4 Waugh claimed a catch that clearly hit the ground.

Thats very possible. But the fact is McGrath in 95 was the first bowler to exposed the technical flaws in Lara game & plan to get Lara out consistently - which the other bowlers also exploited as well. Which was one of key factor in AUS winning that series - since if the remember Lara was superb in ODI series, dominating Warne especially.

So?? Y is this significant. he only played one away series vs both teams.

Its significant because of my point 6:

. Lara failed to score a century vs Donald-Pollock or Wasim-Waqar etc. Tendulkar did so againts both.

But also did say:

But it can be argued here that Tendulkar's record in SA vs a good/great attack, he had more of a chance to prove himself over their vs Donald-Pollock at the peak of their powers than Lara did, but you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant.

So yes although Lara only had one series vs SA away in 98, he didn't score a hundred vs them in 2001 either. Tendy should be given props here since he scored Hundreds vs Donald/Pollock at his first attempt.





Firstly here my argument has been about their runs againts good/great attacks AWAY FROM HOME as i said in point 3:

Tendulkar is far more versatile than Lara overall and this is indicated by the fact that while their home averages are about the same (with Lara having a slight advantage), Tendulkar has a better away average.

Lara

vs Australia

'92-93 av 58.25 (A)
'95 av 44.00 (H)
96 av 32.88 (A)
'99 av 91.00 (H)
'00 av 32.10 (A)
'05 av 56.37 (A)

Yes and as we discussed before. Lara has always come out second best in AUS vs McWarne. Only time he ever dominanted in AUS was in 92/93. 05/06 was just like ENG 04 - struggled in the series before scoring a dead rubber hundreds - although they where great innings of course.

So in AUS vs good/great attacks (which would cover every tour to AUS). Lara averages 41. It has improved thanks when i made this thread since, that 226 in O5 really helped, since it was under 40 up until then.

vs Pakistan

'93 av 43.00 (H)
97 av 21.50 (A)

vs South Africa

'98 av 31.00 (A)
'01 av 40.00 (H)

Right as we discussed before. Failed away from home vs these guys & never scored a hundred againts them.

Tendulkar

vs Aust.

'91 av 46.00 (A)
'00 av 46.00 (A)
'01 av 50.66 (H)
'04 av 17.5 (H)

Again this series performance needs to be discounted because Tendy had his tennis-elbow injury. You need to accept this.

Plus you need to include AUS 07/08 for Tendy as well. Lee/Clark would constitute a "good" attack in AUS just like McDermott/Hughes in 92/93.

So Tendy vs AUS in AUS - he averages 54 (if you exclude runs vs AUS in 03/04).

vs Pak.

'90 av 35.83 (A)
'98 av 42.75 (H)
* Also played a single test in the Asian test championship and av. 4.5 vs Pakistan

You see the significance of what Tendy 89/90 performance vs PAK compared to Lara in 97?.

Tendy as kid, who hadn't peaked yet averaged more againts a top PAK attack, compared to Lara at his peak in 97.

Oh on that Asian test championship test, well that delivery Akhtar bowled him with was have smoked any batsman. It was just as superb as the delivery Waqar bowled Lara with in 97 as well.

And even with out a century he still did better vs Donald and slightly less vs ww. U keep harpin on this away thing but its not like Tendy set the world a light away to either attack and sucked as# at home.

vs South Africa

'92 av 33.66 (A)
'96 av 27.66 (H)
'96 av 40.16 (A)
'00 av 36.50 (H)

To me this a statistical anomality that Tendy averaged below par vs SA @ home, but still managed to score hundreds againts Donald & co in SA. I dont think you can characterize it as he "sucked" or was worked out by them. You yourself agreed Donald/Pollock had the better of Lara in 98. Fact is he got hundreds vs Donald/Pollock at their peaks & Lara didn't.

And b4 u start on that home away thing again dont discount Lara averaging 43 in 93. That was vs pre injury Waqar bowling on fast WI wickets, who was at the peak o fhis powers.

I would never do that. As i said in point 3, my argument as always been about runs away from home.

6 out of 10 series of 40+. 4 @ home and 2 away.

5 out of 10 test series with 40+ average. 2 @ Home 3 away.

The correct synopsis would be.

Tendy 40+ away from home vs good/great attacks:

vs AUS - 91/92, 99/00, 2007/08

vs SA - 96/97

vs WI - 96/97

vs SRI - 97

Plus the fact as i said he got hundreds vs Wasim/Waqar which Lara didn't.


Lara 40+ away from home vs good/great attacks:

vs AUS - 92/93, 05/06 (but as i said he by no means was dominant in this series)

vs SRI - 00/01

 

[aussie]

And an even bigger point to Ponting tbf.

Word. Ponting has handled captaincy pressure excellently after a stagnant start in 2004.

 

[honestbharani]

Thats very possible. But the fact is McGrath in 95 was the first bowler to exposed the technical flaws in Lara game & plan to get Lara out consistently - which the other bowlers also exploited as well. Which was one of key factor in AUS winning that series - since if the remember Lara was superb in ODI series, dominating Warne especially.





Its significant because of my point 6:



But also did say:



So yes although Lara only had one series vs SA away in 98, he didn't score a hundred vs them in 2001 either. Tendy should be given props here since he scored Hundreds vs Donald/Pollock at his first attempt.





Firstly here my argument has been about their runs againts good/great attacks AWAY FROM HOME as i said in point 3:





Yes and as we discussed before. Lara has always come out second best in AUS vs McWarne. Only time he ever dominanted in AUS was in 92/93. 05/06 was just like ENG 04 - struggled in the series before scoring a dead rubber hundreds - although they where great innings of course.

So in AUS vs good/great attacks (which would cover every tour to AUS). Lara averages 41. It has improved thanks when i made this thread since, that 226 in O5 really helped, since it was under 40 up until then.



Right as we discussed before. Failed away from home vs these guys & never scored a hundred againts them.






Again this series performance needs to be discounted because Tendy had his tennis-elbow injury. You need to accept this.

Plus you need to include AUS 07/08 for Tendy as well. Lee/Clark would constitute a "good" attack in AUS just like McDermott/Hughes in 92/93.

So Tendy vs AUS in AUS - he averages 54 (if you exclude runs vs AUS in 03/04).



You see the significance of what Tendy 89/90 performance vs PAK compared to Lara in 97?.

Tendy as kid, who hadn't peaked yet averaged more againts a top PAK attack, compared to Lara at his peak in 97.

Oh on that Asian test championship test, well that delivery Akhtar bowled him with was have smoked any batsman. It was just as superb as the delivery Waqar bowled Lara with in 97 as well.




To me this a statistical anomality that Tendy averaged below par vs SA @ home, but still managed to score hundreds againts Donald & co in SA. I dont think you can characterize it as he "sucked" or was worked out by them. You yourself agreed Donald/Pollock had the better of Lara in 98. Fact is he got hundreds vs Donald/Pollock at their peaks & Lara didn't.





I would never do that. As i said in point 3, my argument as always been about runs away from home.




The correct synopsis would be.

Tendy 40+ away from home vs good/great attacks:

vs AUS - 91/92, 99/00, 2007/08

vs SA - 96/97

vs WI - 96/97

vs SRI - 97

Plus the fact as i said he got hundreds vs Wasim/Waqar which Lara didn't.


Lara 40+ away from home vs good/great attacks:

vs AUS - 92/93, 05/06 (but as i said he by no means was dominant in this series)

vs SRI - 00/01

u have no idea what you are talking about regards to Lara Vs Australia... That is all I can see.

 

[SJS]

And an even bigger point to Ponting tbf.

You are still in "this"?

 

[aussie]

u have no idea what you are talking about regards to Lara Vs Australia... That is all I can see.

Well state why, no ideological premises. I am always open to ridiculement/correction & a solid cricket debate.

 

[slippyslip]

Well state why, no ideological premises. I am always open to ridiculement/correction & a solid cricket debate.

Cherry picking stats. Tendulkar only ever faced a fit and full strenght Australian bowling attack in Australia once.

His first tour Bruce Reid broke down early in the 3rd test after absolutely smashing India to bits in the 2nd. He did not play the 1st. He blew them away including Tendulkar for 15 in the 1st innings. This was only a few months after Lara's heroics in the West Indies where West Indies managed to draw 2-2, largely to Lara. If anything shows up the difference between Tendulkar and Lara it was those 2 series.

2003/2004 Warne was banned and McGrath was injured the whole series and Lee was rushed back into the side way too early. That series had one of the worst Australian attacks since the 1980's. All India had to do with fend off Gillespie and feast on chumps like Brad Williams.

2007/2008 was a side without McGrath or Warne.

Only time he faced a full strength Australia was 99/00 where India got thumped 3-0. He averaged a respectable 46 but no not outs to fatten his average. This was when Tendulkar was pretty much at his peak.

Tendulkar was very lucky that he toured Australia when the Australian were having fitness troubles. Lara was never that lucky. The stats filter on cricinfo will have give you stats - you have to manually read and go through to judge the qyuality of the bowling/batter

And anyway, Tendulkar only averages 40 in Pakistan which is a good indication that he has never been able to handle pressure. I couldnt think of anything with more pressure than being India's number 1 batsman touring Pakistan.

Where Lara will always have the edge on Tendulkar is that he was a better batsman under pressure. He literally carried West Indian batting for a decade. While it is not Tendulkar's fault that India were never under pressure as often as a weak West Indian team, they were under pressure often enough.

And cricinfo doesnt discern between scoring a big score in a drawn, dead test on a flat wicket and being not out.

And cricinfo doesnt have a filter for "pressure" matches. Yes, its an arbitrary and subjective "stat". But then again thats the difference between humans and computers.

 

[aussie]

Cherry picking stats. Tendulkar only ever faced a fit and full strenght Australian bowling attack in Australia once.

2007/2008 was a side without McGrath or Warne.

He faced McGrath & Warne once. The attacks of 92/93 with McDermott/Hughes/Reid & 07/08 with Lee/Clark where very good attacks in AUS.

His first tour Bruce Reid broke down early in the 3rd test after absolutely smashing India to bits in the 2nd. He did not play the 1st. He blew them away including Tendulkar for 15 in the 1st innings. This was only a few months after Lara's heroics in the West Indies where West Indies managed to draw 2-2, largely to Lara. If anything shows up the difference between Tendulkar and Lara it was those 2 series..

I think you are slightly off with your time span here. But anyway what difference does those two series show in your opinion between Lara & Tendulkar?

2003/2004 Warne was banned and McGrath was injured the whole series and Lee was rushed back into the side way too early. That series had one of the worst Australian attacks since the 1980's. All India had to do with fend off Gillespie and feast on chumps like Brad Williams.

Yes i know. I didn't mention this series when looking at Tendys record in AUS vs good/great attacks.

Only time he faced a full strength Australia was 99/00 where India got thumped 3-0. He averaged a respectable 46 but no not outs to fatten his average. This was when Tendulkar was pretty much at his peak.

Haa, no way. Tendy was the only IND batsman for the whole tour who looked capable of standing up to AUS. Until Laxman scored the 167 in SCG. Averaging 46 is very good & Tendy was never not out during that series.

Tendulkar was very lucky that he toured Australia when the Australian were having fitness troubles. Lara was never that lucky. The stats filter on cricinfo will have give you stats - you have to manually and.

That only happened one time in 2003/04. Even if McWarne where playing then, Tendy was way out of form. So the hypoteticals outcomes here, dont need to be discussed.

And anyway, Tendulkar only averages 40 in Pakistan which is a good indication that he has never been able to handle pressure. I couldnt think of anything with more pressure than being India's number 1 batsman touring Pakistan.

Since when averaging 40 is only respectable. 40 is minimum benchmark for batsman to be judged as quality, whether is career record of series averages.

Where Lara will always have the edge on Tendulkar is that he was a better batsman under pressure. He literally carried West Indian batting for a decade. While it is not Tendulkar's fault that India were never under pressure as often as a weak West Indian team, they were under pressure often enough.

Debatable at best...will get back to you on this one

 

[Pigeon]

Haa, no way. Tendy was the only IND batsman for the whole tour who looked capable of standing up to AUS. Until Laxman scored the 167 in SCG. Averaging 46 is very good & Tendy was never not out during that series.

Especially given the fact that he was adjudged wrongly out atleast twice in that series.

 

[honestbharani]

Especially given the fact that he was adjudged wrongly out atleast twice in that series.

The shoulder before wicket was actually out, btw...

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, that was plumb. So much bull **** uproar was created over it by the fans.

 

[Pigeon]

The shoulder before wicket was actually out, btw...

It's debatable hugely. But then there were another 2 lbws.

 

[honestbharani]

Well state why, no ideological premises. I am always open to ridiculement/correction & a solid cricket debate.

You are simply refusing to accept the fact there were no real technical weakness of Lara that was ever found out... He averaged 40+ more times against Donald/Pollock and Ws than Sachin did and when you include McWarne the diff. is clear... He got the better of McGrath or at least was even in the 95 series.. And was easily better than him in 99, 2003 and 2005... And even in 2000 it was only the first two tests when McGrath basically had Lara as his bunny. After that it was pretty even.



You keep talking about McGrath not doing well as he was injured.. Lara was carrying a bloody chipped bone in his elbow from 99 till the 2003 WC when it completely healed. And he still got the better of McGrath at his peak with all that... I don't mind conceding that due to whatever reasons, Sachin LOOKED better against Donald/Pollock than Lara but that is offset by the fact that Lara was better against McWarne (just as it was not Lara's fault that he got no more chances against Don/Pollck, same with Sach and McWarne and even the Ws)...


As I said, you have basically no idea of how Lara fared against Australia in that period..

 

[Pigeon]

You are simply refusing to accept the fact there were no real technical weakness of Lara that was ever found out... He averaged 40+ more times against Donald/Pollock and Ws than Sachin did and when you include McWarne the diff. is clear... He got the better of McGrath or at least was even in the 95 series.. And was easily better than him in 99, 2003 and 2005... And even in 2000 it was only the first two tests when McGrath basically had Lara as his bunny. After that it was pretty even.



You keep talking about McGrath not doing well as he was injured.. Lara was carrying a bloody chipped bone in his elbow from 99 till the 2003 WC when it completely healed. And he still got the better of McGrath at his peak with all that... I don't mind conceding that due to whatever reasons, Sachin LOOKED better against Donald/Pollock than Lara but that is offset by the fact that Lara was better against McWarne (just as it was not Lara's fault that he got no more chances against Don/Pollck, same with Sach and McWarne and even the Ws)...


As I said, you have basically no idea of how Lara fared against Australia in that period..

I agree with Honestbahrani here. Lara's weakness was only in his mind. He had some issues with quality fast bowling, but which batsman has not?

 

[aussie]

You are simply refusing to accept the fact there were no real technical weakness of Lara that was ever found out...

Yes there was. Firstly when McGrath came around the wicket, Lara seemingly wasn't sure where his off-stump was & was consistent caught in the gully & slips alot.

Admittedly that shot past gully was a strenght of Lara & it can be argued that when Taylor, Waugh would set the fielder there, Lara would slash hard instead of patiently trying to see of McGrath. Theirfore Mcgrath turned that strenght of his into a weakness - just like how Stephen Fleming in VB Series 2002 used Shane Bond to use Martyn favourite cut shot as weakness againts him.


Secondly in 2004. As Lara was a bit older now, that fancy jumping technique/high-back lift, where he tending to show his leg-stump on delivery contact - was exposed by Flintoff in ENG. I remember him being LBW & bowled behind his legs a few times because of this.

Tendy at peak from (outside of his tennis-elbow affected years). Never had any glaring technical weakness where oppostion bowler sought to exploit. Excpet for the unsual period on WI 2002, when Pedro Collins had the better of him for a few tests.

He averaged 40+ more times against Donald/Pollock and Ws than Sachin did and when you include McWarne the diff. is clear...

My argument againts Tendy/Lara for the runs they scored vs Donald/Pollock the Ws is the runs they scored againts them away from home. Tendy averaged 40+ Donald/Pollock in their own back-yard & scored a hundreds vs them, even if he wasn't superb vs SA overall - Lara didn't.

Same thing with the Ws, Tendy at his peak vs Ws or Akthar was those 3 tests in 99/2000.Tendy wasn't superb, but he scored a hundred againts them. Even if you want to include home records, Lara at his peak in 92/93 & 97 didn't score a hundred vs Ws, that the point.

He got the better of McGrath or at least was even in the 95 series..

If you want to call 95 even that fair enough, but if anybody got the better of one it was McGrath not Lara. AUS keeping him down i.e not scoring a hundred, after he had spanked them in the ODI series before the tests - was because McGrath found a way to keep him quiet.

And was easily better than him in 99, 2003 and 2005... And even in 2000 it was only the first two tests when McGrath basically had Lara as his bunny. After that it was pretty even.

Ye 99 was Lara, all i ever said is the battle was not one-sided McGrath in many spells held is own. McGrath didn't look incapable of dismissing him, like Murali in SRI 2001.

You need to leave out 2003 sir. Just like how Tendy's runs vs AUS in 2004 shouldn't be considered. As i told you Mcgrath was way injured & was in the worst bowling form of his career.


2000 was all McGrath. Just because McGrath didn't dismiss him after the first two test, didn't mean Lara was better - he still struggled. The plan the Mcgrath developed to bowl to Lara, was utilized by the other bowlers.

2005 again although McGrath personally didn't dismiss him alot - and although he got 2 bad decisions in the first two tests. But the other AUS bowlers kept him quiet until the brilliant dead rubber hundred, he was never dominant in that series.

That series was just like ENG 2004. Struggled in that series before the 400 made his average look huge. Lara averaging 56 in 2005 was big abberation.

You keep talking about McGrath not doing well as he was injured.. Lara was carrying a bloody chipped bone in his elbow from 99 till the 2003 WC when it completely healed.

What chipped bone in his elbow from 99 to 2003??. I hope you aren't making stuff up.

Lara only injury periods where in ENG 2000, where he had an eye problem & was forced to bat with shades during that series.

Then that dislocated shoulder after SRI 01, which affected his batting for the entire 2002, which was further aggravated after in the 2002 Champions trophy. But he was back with in bang in 03 WC opener as your remember - and was fine until retirement.

 

[MrIncredible]

Yes there was. Firstly when McGrath came around the wicket, Lara seemingly wasn't sure where his off-stump was & was consistent caught in the gully & slips alot.

Admittedly that shot past gully was a strenght of Lara & it can be argued that when Taylor, Waugh would set the fielder there, Lara would slash hard instead of patiently trying to see of McGrath. Theirfore Mcgrath turned that strenght of his into a weakness - just like how Stephen Fleming in VB Series 2002 used Shane Bond to use Martyn favourite cut shot as weakness againts him.


Secondly in 2004. As Lara was a bit older now, that fancy jumping technique/high-back lift, where he tending to show his leg-stump on delivery contact - was exposed by Flintoff in ENG. I remember him being LBW & bowled behind his legs a few times because of this.

Tendy at peak from (outside of his tennis-elbow affected years). Never had any glaring technical weakness where oppostion bowler sought to exploit. Excpet for the unsual period on WI 2002, when Pedro Collins had the better of him for a few tests.




My argument againts Tendy/Lara for the runs they scored vs Donald/Pollock the Ws is the runs they scored againts them away from home. Tendy averaged 40+ Donald/Pollock in their own back-yard & scored a hundreds vs them, even if he wasn't superb vs SA overall - Lara didn't.

Same thing with the Ws, Tendy at his peak vs Ws or Akthar was those 3 tests in 99/2000.Tendy wasn't superb, but he scored a hundred againts them. Even if you want to include home records, Lara at his peak in 92/93 & 97 didn't score a hundred vs Ws, that the point.






If you want to call 95 even that fair enough, but if anybody got the better of one it was McGrath not Lara. AUS keeping him down i.e not scoring a hundred, after he had spanked them in the ODI series before the tests - was because McGrath found a way to keep him quiet.



Ye 99 was Lara, all i ever said is the battle was not one-sided McGrath in many spells held is own. McGrath didn't look incapable of dismissing him, like Murali in SRI 2001.

You need to leave out 2003 sir. Just like how Tendy's runs vs AUS in 2004 shouldn't be considered. As i told you Mcgrath was way injured & was in the worst bowling form of his career.


2000 was all McGrath. Just because McGrath didn't dismiss him after the first two test, didn't mean Lara was better - he still struggled. The plan the Mcgrath developed to bowl to Lara, was utilized by the other bowlers.

2005 again although McGrath personally didn't dismiss him alot - and although he got 2 bad decisions in the first two tests. But the other AUS bowlers kept him quiet until the brilliant dead rubber hundred, he was never dominant in that series.

That series was just like ENG 2004. Struggled in that series before the 400 made his average look huge. Lara averaging 56 in 2005 was big abberation.





What chipped bone in his elbow from 99 to 2003??. I hope you aren't making stuff up.

Lara only injury periods where in ENG 2000, where he had an eye problem & was forced to bat with shades during that series.

Then that dislocated shoulder after SRI 01, which affected his batting for the entire 2002, which was further aggravated after in the 2002 Champions trophy. But he was back with in bang in 03 WC opener as your remember - and was fine until retirement.

Regardless os whether Lara scored a hundred or not they are even vs WW/ Donald and Lara is ahead vs Mcwarne. Also I can sight more than a handful of series where tendy struggled early on only to make runs to cover his blushes:

03 series vs Oz:

1st: 0
2nd: 1 and 37
3rd: 0 and 44
4th: 241* and 60*

And this to boot vs a 2nd string Oz attack.


And on one of ur previous points, if u consider Oz 07 to be a very good attack u may as well add Lara's 03 series away to RSA where RSA still had: Pollock, Ntini (at home), Nel, Kallis.

 

[aussie]

Regardless os whether Lara scored a hundred or not they are even vs WW/ Donald and Lara is ahead vs Mcwarne. Also I can sight more than a handful of series where tendy struggled early on only to make runs to cover his blushes:

Even if you could it would be stats picking. Since those series where he maybe struggled early on before scoring big (during his peak) would most likely been bad shots, good deliveries etc. Unlike Lara who we know for sure would have had those struggled because of being exposed technically. Thats the key difference.

03 series vs Oz:

1st: 0
2nd: 1 and 37
3rd: 0 and 44
4th: 241* and 60*

And this to boot vs a 2nd string Oz attack.

Perfect example of what is just said - stats picking. Tendy was not at his best during this series, since this was the early stages of his tennis elbow woes - added to the fact that was one of the worst AUS attacks since the dark 80s.

I have never considered this series of runs Tendy scored at his peak againts a good/great AUS attacks at home. I have saying this ALLL a long sir, you seem to missing when i say this.

And on one of ur previous points, if u consider Oz 07 to be a very good attack u may as well add Lara's 03 series away to RSA where RSA still had: Pollock, Ntini (at home), Nel, Kallis.

That SA attack only looks good because it was the WI they were up againts. Pollock was passed his best, Ntini nor Nel hadn't peaked yet & Kallis was passed his wicket-taking best as a bowler. Plus overall those pitches where very flat.

Lee/Clark where at their peaks in 07/08 so there really is no comparison. They where jus as good an attack as McDermott/Hughes that both Lara & Tendy faced in the early 90s.

 

[MrIncredible]

U got sumthin against Lara?? Those wicktes in RSA were not esp flat i wached that entire series WI bowling was just that poor. So what if they werent at their peak (thats debatable) Lara made runs vs a very good RSA attack away.

Lets see man for man:

Shaun Pollock
Makaya Ntini (at home)
Andrew Nel
Jacques Kallis

vs Brett Lee
Clark
Johson
Hogg/Tait

looks about even to me

And im not stats picking in lara vs WW/Donald . Fact is he averages more vs Donald and slightly less vs WW and significantly more vs McWarne.