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

[GuyFromLancs]

It always surprised me how little Lara made of his ability in ODIs considering he was naturally the more attacking batsman of the pair.

All in all, they are difficult to seperate. Sometimes I think Tendulkar, then I lean back to Lara. Although Tendulkar is the more complete batsman, able to adapt his game to any circumstances.

 

[L Trumper]

Pre 1998 Lara was better odi batsman than SRT. But after that he dropped down the order to 4 instead of opening and one down which he is damn good at. Why he did that? I never knew.
But coming to SRT after 96WC, 98 is the year where he set himself apart from other great odi batsmen at that time and pulled off quite a distance since then.

 

[Maximus0723]

Rather then looking at from the perspective of he should be at this number he should be at this number, he is better then him, he is better then that, etc.. One should have tiers.

For me, Lara and Sachin fall in same tier, at least right now. If Sachin helps India win WC. He is ahead and in Sobers tier. Obviously, Bradmad is God tier.

 

[Slifer]

Rather then looking at from the perspective of he should be at this number he should be at this number, he is better then him, he is better then that, etc.. One should have tiers.

For me, Lara and Sachin fall in same tier, at least right now. If Sachin helps India win WC. He is ahead and in Sobers tier. Obviously, Bradmad is God tier.

dont see how since the WC is a ODI tournament and has nothing to do with test cricket which is (if im not mistaken) what most people judge great cricketers on.

No doubt in ODIs: SRT, Viv and Bevan (among batsmen) for now are in a tier by themselves

 

[Maximus0723]

dont see how since the WC is a ODI tournament and has nothing to do with test cricket which is (if im not mistaken) what most people judge great cricketers on.

No doubt in ODIs: SRT, Viv and Bevan (among batsmen) for now are in a tier by themselves

False. Most cricket fans in the world(live in India, Pakistan, Aus,USA,Eng) put similar weight on both format--plus or minus 5%. Most Indians would/do put more weight on winning WC then winning test series in Aus.
Smart people and people on CW put more weight on Tests.

So, if Sachin aids India in winning WC he will go ahead of Lara, also due to the fact that Lara never won a WC or came close to it.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Its not fair to distinguish between the 2 greatest batsmen of this era. Add Richards and Ponting in this mix and you would still have a tie.

It then depends on your nationality/ your personal taste/ who you have watched the most/ who you have heard about the most to rank them.

Personally, I cannot rank anybody over Sachin. If God asked me to take any 1 batsman's talent completely, Sachin it would be. But thats also because I have hardly watched any of Richards' innings, watched a few of Lara's innings, and think Ponting is less talented as a batsman as compared to Sachin.

But I'm sure there are other people who have watched Lara much more than Sachin and feel the exact opposite. To rank these great players is ranking the intangibles. Figures dont tell the truth.

Totally agree with you. I have seen enough of these debates to know that they will never resolve anything. In the end, people will believe what they want to based on their preference, patriotic inclinations, other external factors etc.

Personally, I would pick Tendulkar and this goes beyond cricketing reasons and statistics. I think what took Tendulkar to a higher level for me was the way he changed his game this decade, and as a result, increased his longevity and consistency. The fact that he has been able to play over 150 test matches and 400 ODIs is a tremendous acheivement. The fact that he can still score centuries is fantastic. To top it, he has the ability to change his game so drastically to suit the match. He scored a swashbuckling 175 last October, and in the first test against SA, scored a 100 without any cover drives. That's what sets him apart from the rest..the fact that he can change his game at will..

 

[Sir Alex]

dont see how since the WC is a ODI tournament and has nothing to do with test cricket which is (if im not mistaken) what most people judge great cricketers on.

No doubt in ODIs: SRT, Viv and Bevan (among batsmen) for now are in a tier by themselves

Add Dhoni and Hussey too.

 

[Slifer]

False. Most cricket fans in the world(live in India, Pakistan, Aus,USA,Eng) put similar weight on both format--plus or minus 5%. Most Indians would/do put more weight on winning WC then winning test series in Aus.
Smart people and people on CW put more weight on Tests.

So, if Sachin aids India in winning WC he will go ahead of Lara, also due to the fact that Lara never won a WC or came close to it.

That makes no sense whatsoever because Sobers for example never played ODIS and u r considering putting SRT along him even though the former never played ODIs.

Dont see how Lara not being able to aid his team to win a wc means ne thing cricket is a team game and Lara just happened (for much of his career) to be playing for a mediocre team.

Most "smart people" and people on CW as a whole donot put equal footing on Odis as they do tests. i dont know what website youve been frequenting

 

[Maximus0723]

That makes no sense whatsoever because Sobers for example never played ODIS and u r considering putting SRT along him even though the former never played ODIs.

Yes it does. Being in same tier doesn't mean you have to same sort of skill and same of career. more like same sort of impact. This is how MVPs are judged. Let's take baseball for example--in baseball you can have both pitcher and the hitter as MVP--so how do voters compare them both? by measuring their impact.

Sobers was best in the business in test. He also was very good bowler. In test batting, Sachin is close but with being top ODI batsman and WC behind him--they are both in same tier in my opinion.

Most "smart people" and people on CW as a whole donot put equal footing on Odis as they do tests. i dont know what website youve been frequenting

lol make a poll if u disagree.

 

[Slifer]

baseball and cricket are hardly comparable in that regard. As for a poll i dont need a poll to tell me that people favor tests over ODIs thats pretty obvious. Probably only maybe people from the subcon would favor Odis but thats about it.

 

[Sanz]

Discussion between Lara/Tendulkar should be settled now that who is greater, Lara , for all his brilliance, retired 4 years ago while Tendy is still going with pretty much same rate as he did before. To me Tendulkar has moved on a different level than Lara.

 

[Furball]

Discussion between Lara/Tendulkar should be settled now that who is greater, Lara , for all his brilliance, retired 4 years ago while Tendy is still going with pretty much same rate as he did before. To me Tendulkar has moved on a different level than Lara.

Lara was pretty ****ing epic in the last 3 or 4 years of his career.

 

[mohammad16]

Nah he prefers to gobsmack the heavens out of lesser bowlers like Steyn, Morkel etc.

Theres no point arguing here, it is pretty damn well understood and established that Lara continued to dominate in the later stages of his career, he didn't change his approach, Tendulkar did and he has alluded to this himself. All if not the majority of cricket fans will tell you, they would much rather prefer the Tendulkar of the late 90s. You wouldn't find such percentages for Lara.

 

[Dasa]

Hmm, not sure you can generalise so easily about what 'real' cricket fans like to watch or not watch.

 

[honestbharani]

Discussion between Lara/Tendulkar should be settled now that who is greater, Lara , for all his brilliance, retired 4 years ago while Tendy is still going with pretty much same rate as he did before. To me Tendulkar has moved on a different level than Lara.

lol.. Lara was forced to retire at 37 when he was still better than any Windies batsmen and perhaps better than most batsmen in the world... I can see the reasons why Sachin could be considered better than Lara but I don't think that is one of them... And there is no real "settled" to this anyhow because Lara has not gotten any worse since 2007, even though Tendulkar has gotten better. It has always been, and will always be, down to personal preference. Just dont see any definitive or qualititive answer to this Vs question at all...

 

[Sir Alex]

Theres no point arguing here, it is pretty damn well understood and established that Lara continued to dominate in the later stages of his career, he didn't change his approach, Tendulkar did and he has alluded to this himself. All if not the majority of cricket fans will tell you, they would much rather prefer the Tendulkar of the late 90s. You wouldn't find such percentages for Lara.

Lara's SR in the last years and pretty much entire career was around60, Tendulkar in the last 3 years is striking at 57, while averaging well over 60 aswell.

Shahid Afridi too never changed his approach ever. But that doesnt make him an ATG

 

[honestbharani]

Hmm, not sure you can generalise so easily about what 'real' cricket fans like to watch or not watch.

yeah.. and the fact is, a number of Indians would even watch Sachin walk back and forth over some other batsmen actually batting... It is really unexplainable. I guess a lot of it IS down to how good a person he comes across as, apart from all his cricketing achievements. THAT should never be underrated in any discussion regarding Sachin. The guy is a role model for any public figure, leave alone sports.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara's SR in the last years and pretty much entire career was around60, Tendulkar in the last 3 years is striking at 57, while averaging well over 60 aswell.

Shahid Afridi too never changed his approach ever. But that doesnt make him an ATG

That is a silly argument...

 

[Sir Alex]

lol.. Lara was forced to retire at 37 when he was still better than any Windies batsmen and perhaps better than most batsmen in the world... I can see the reasons why Sachin could be considered better than Lara but I don't think that is one of them... And there is no real "settled" to this anyhow because Lara has not gotten any worse since 2007, even though Tendulkar has gotten better. It has always been, and will always be, down to personal preference. Just dont see any definitive or qualititive answer to this Vs question at all...

Curious, how'd you backup that statement?

Lara's last year was pretty mediocre, although I agree he was still better than 99% other WI batsmen

 

[Sir Alex]

That is a silly argument...

Not meaning Lara was not an ATG, but suggesting that the contention is flawed