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

[bagapath]

correct. this thread is only about lara and tendulkar. bradman was simply incomparable. even the great sobers or wg would be far below the don in greatness.

 

[honestbharani]

It is not Tendulkar's fault he debuted at 16 while Lara did only at 20-21, if you take out those 16-20 years, Tendulkar's stats are even better.

But that is not the point.

Nobody asked Lara to retire. He realised he didnt have enough in his tank to continue after 2007.

Lara's last year was pretty mediocre to be honest. He was actually dire for most part of it, till the series in Pakistan happened, and Lara made lots of runs against pathetic attack on flatbeds. The Pakistani attack comprised of luminaries like Umar Gul, Shahid Nazir, Kaneria and Abdul Razzak as 3rd seamer option lol! You had Mohammad Hafeez and Shoiab malik as second and third spinners and one get the idea how good that bowling attack was.

Again, you are proving you have NFI about Lara and his retirement. I get this funny feeling that cricket = Tendulkar to you, so the only thing I would ask you to do is please don't come into every thread to denigrate every other great to have played the game.


You thnk Tendulkar is the greatest thing since sliced bread, fine and dandy.. But quite a few KNOW cricket is more than just one player and they may have other opinions which are perfectly valid.

 

[honestbharani]

And I wonder how can anyone make such a claim when the debate over Lara being the best of his Generation is not settled yet.

for me counts for anything, Sanz?

 

[honestbharani]

His record against India for example? Why was that relatively poor for a man who feasted on good attacks?

I am not undermining Lara's career or achievements, but let's not kid ourselves by resorting to silly stuff like Lara was at his peak when he retired blah blah. Fact is he was not, he was well on the way down, and more than anyone he understood it. Still he was head and shoulders above other WI batsmen.

NOt at all. Try reading up his interviews during his retirement period. And the fact he belted McWarne for 226 IN Australia, juz before the WC, which Sachin has never done. In fact, I don't even think he has scored 150+ against McWarne when he did play them.

 

[honestbharani]

And that he was an utterflop in that ICL.

THAT is your argument for Sachin > Lara? The ICL when he was injured and half fit????????

 

[honestbharani]

So that begs the counter question. If he was good enough, why did he retire in the first place? Especially knowing without him WI would be a much poorer team and with no real "successor" to take his place??

Please spare us this "unconcerned about records" stuff. He was obsessed with landmarks like any other sportsman would be. There is nothing wrong in that and actually that is a great motivator for anyone to scale greater heights.

You've already admitted you're a blind fan, so there is no point in really trying to justify your fanship. Actually there is no need to. I'd respect you more if you just say you like Lara because you just like him instead of resorting to silly reasoning like this. There is nothing wrong in preferring one player to another. But please don't try to bring in stats/flawed stats/selectivity/rubbish etc to justify that.

NO more flawed than the same gibberish you bring up to say Sachin > Lara. Why don't you try practicing what you preach for starters?

 

[honestbharani]

Wow that's news, could you please link to me to some credible sources implying the same?

cricinfo?



Again, cricket is a LOT more than just Sachin.

 

[honestbharani]

Well age is one factor for starters. Tendulkar's prolific form is some sort of an abberation as there are few if none who have found a second wind after 130 test matches and 17-18 years in test cricket.

yeah, it has never happened before. No batsman has ever got into a loss of form for a few years and gotten back to his normal self or better.. EVER.

 

[honestbharani]

Well you are right it doesn't but if the debate is between a guy who played for 21 years(and still playing) and another guy who played for 15 years and the former is still playing with the same consistency that he did 10 years ago then yes longevity does matter. It definitely adds to Tendulkar's legacy because Tendulkar Vs. Lara debate has been going on for a decade and the more Tendulkar continues to play at the highest level the mode he will be cementing his legacy as the better batsman of his generation.

Not for me, no... IF Longevity and playing past your supposed peak were the only criteria there would again be SO many batsmen who I would put above these guys playing today.


You have done it at the highest level for enough years and that is what matters to me. Sachin is playing great at 37, good on him but so did Lara and dare I say, against better bowling attacks!!!


and FTR, Lara's career lasted 17 years and Sachin has been going for 21.. But again, if that is the criteria I am sure we can dig up quite a few who were even better at this age than Sachin and show that as proof that they are >>> than Sachin.

 

[honestbharani]

Well you are right it doesn't but if the debate is between a guy who played for 21 years(and still playing) and another guy who played for 15 years and the former is still playing with the same consistency that he did 10 years ago then yes longevity does matter. It definitely adds to Tendulkar's legacy because Tendulkar Vs. Lara debate has been going on for a decade and the more Tendulkar continues to play at the highest level the mode he will be cementing his legacy as the better batsman of his generation.

That is in your opinion, Sanz and maybe quite a few others. But equally, there are quite a few and more than few, I would think for whom 17 years Vs 21 years is not really a big difference at this level. As both have shown what they have got at the highest level for enough years, it is credible that both will be compared as being exactly the same in terms of longevity.

 

[honestbharani]

Everything about cricket these days is Tendulkar this or Tendulkar that, its getting pretty tedious... Yes, he is a great batsman, and PROBABLY the best of his generation, but his level of talent really doesn't warrant such an extensive discourse. As far as I'm concerned for modern cricket (specifically, batsmen) there is not yet any Bradman, or Jordan, or Ali, or Pele - or any other sportsman who clearly outshines the rest of their competition. Tendulkar is statistically and, in my opinion, from observation, far too close to other batsman - let's face it, once you accept their different styles there is really nothing much seperating Tendulkar from Ponting, Lara, Kallis and Dravid etc. For Tendulkar to be considered in the ranks of the aforementioned 'greats', for me he would need to push up his average to at least 60 before his career ends - and barring a miracle we all know this ain't gonna happen. I would compare the situation in cricket at the moment with something like the NBA - there are great players like Kobe and Lebron who are better than most, however they don't come off as true legends of the sport like Jordan was. The fact that there isn't any one batsman who really stands out from the rest doesn't suprise me either - these freakishly good players do not come along very often at all. People often say along the lines of "no-one will ever break Tendulkar's records". I disagree, I think modern cricket is yet to produce a Bradmanesque player, and it might not for some time. However, I am certain batting records in cricket like total number of runs and centuries, which are held currently by Tendulkar, will be beaten - and perhaps sooner than we think.

lol.. good first post. But get used to this. Sir Alex doesn't post about cricket, he only posts about Sachin.

 

[Cruxdude]

Oh man. You do get pissed

 

[Teja.]

 

[honestbharani]

Oh man. You do get pissed

EVen an ARDENT Sachin fan like me will get pissed reading Sir Alex's post. As I said, Sachin is great and will continue to be great. There is no real need to take the piss with other batsmen just because a few in the world think this batsman or that is "slightly" better than Sachin. I know for a fact there are quite a few here who think Ponting is better than both Sachin and Lara but do I have to go around posting the same crap in every thread they say so? IF they mention something odd about Sachin or Lara's career then yes, but for me Mohammed's last post about why he prefers Lara over Sachin makes perfect sense and that should end this, right?


Seriously, I can see why fans get irate about Sachin here at CW. Just too much fanboyism around, more than for any other player. I swear, if a Shane Watson fan started doing the same stuff as SA, he would probably be banned.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Shane Watson fans deserve to get banned for just their choice of idol.

 

[vcs]

NOt at all. Try reading up his interviews during his retirement period. And the fact he belted McWarne for 226 IN Australia, juz before the WC, which Sachin has never done. In fact, I don't even think he has scored 150+ against McWarne when he did play them.

I agree with the point you're trying to make (Lara's form prior to retirement was very good) but the McWarne thing can't really be pinned on Tendulkar. He only got two series vs. them (2 and a half if you count 2004 when he was coming back from injury) and managed to score a couple of hundreds and 4 fifties. McGrath and Warne didn't always show up, Sachin always did.. McGrath didn't tour in '98, neither played in '03-04 and both were retired by '07-08.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with the point you're trying to make (Lara's form prior to retirement was very good) but the McWarne thing can't really be pinned on Tendulkar. He only got two series vs. them (2 and a half if you count 2004 when he was coming back from injury) and managed to score a couple of hundreds and 4 fifties. McGrath and Warne didn't always show up, Sachin always did.. McGrath didn't tour in '98, neither played in '03-04 and both were retired by '07-08.

But that proves the other argument as null.. the one about longevity. Lara played McWarne MUCH more than Sachin and still did well.. shouldn't we be giving brownie points for him for that?


You know, mate, I fully understand and appreciate opinions of posters like you and Sanz who have seen enough of both and then conclude that Sachin is better by whatever margin you feel it is. It is when I see nonsense being sprouted out about Lara and the longevity argument that I end up posting like the one you have quoted.. It juz irks me. Sorry.

 

[bagapath]

But that proves the other argument as null.. the one about longevity. Lara played McWarne MUCH more than Sachin and still did well.. shouldn't we be giving brownie points for him for that?

Sure you should. Sachin averaged 48.5 against mcgrath and warne after two full series. and it came down to 42 point something after just one more game in 04-05. I am not, and will never use, the injury excuse to explain this drop. Lara's success over that pair for a longer period should definitely count in his favor.

Though i have voted for lara in this debate in the past, my only grouse against him is his (comparative) lack of success overseas. he averages above 50 only in sri lanka outside west indies. sachin has managed to do that in england, australia and in srilanka outside india. he also averages 49. something in new zealand. this factor combined with lara's under 35 average in india (no centuries) should count against him whenever sachin's career finishes and the comparisons make even more sense than now. (sachin's lowest is 39.something in SA and he has scored 3 centuries there)

 

[Jono]

Key point though, Lara was a whinging bitch at times. Must count against him a bit

 

[honestbharani]

Key point though, Lara was a whinging bitch at times. Must count against him a bit

lol.. he was also the most sporting guy I have seen on the cricket field.