-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
****OFFICIAL**** Lara vs Tendulkar Debate Thread
- Thread starter aussie
- Start date
Borges
International Regular
Yeah, to me this debate is settled - I think Tendulkar is the greater batsman of the two.
Though I'm one of those romantics. If Tendulkar was batting in my backyard and Lara was playing some distance away, I would travel and pay good money to watch Lara. Lara simply had far more class, he gave more joy, he sent one's pulse racing, his batting was not a mere exercise in the dreary accumulation of runs, but a celebration of cricket.
There are other examples aplenty - for example, Murali is the greater bowler, but Warne is the one I would love to watch.
I am sorry. I meant specifically against McGrath/Donald/Akram led attacks. Since IMO they are the greatest fast bowlers of Sachin-Lara era who bowled to both Lara and Sachin in Test match cricket. Obviously Lara never faced Ambrose in Test match cricket. This is just a personal choice of the common great fast bowlers that they both faced. Your choice could be different. And it might also be that our definitions of successes are also different.
I am not much of a stats-man or numbers-man, most of my opinions are based on what I have seen or what I remember seeing. For example, I do remember seeing Tendulkar going after McGrath in Adelaide in 99-00, but remember him treating McGrath with a lot of respect in 2001 series. I remember Lara being involved in intense head-on battles with Donald in 98-99 series. I remember Lasith Malinga taking me back to the 80s in a awesome display of aggressive fast bowling against the Kiwis in 200x (this was the series involving controversial run-out of Murali). Just memory stuff of great fast bowling and batsmen against them.
Nevertheless, I am giving the stats below. Honestly I am just relieved that they back up my memory. To my eyes, they seem to back my view that Lara was slightly better (and also slightly more consistent) against these bowlers. Albeit, the difference (especially against Donald and Akram) is very slight between the two.
Against McGrath, Lara seems clearly ahead of Sachin to me.
Lara scored 2041 runs in 46 innings at an average of 46.38 and a SR of 59.85
Sachin scored 662 runs in 18 innings at an average of 36.77 and a SR of 55.02
Against Donald, Lara seems to be slightly ahead of Sachin to me.
Lara scored 681 runs in 20 innings, at an average of 34.and a SR of 48.12
Sachin scored 658 runs in 20 innings at an average of 32.9 and a SR of 46.01
Against Wasim, Sachin seems to be slightly ahead of Lara to me.
Lara scored 394 runs at an average of 30.30 and a SR of 61.1
Sachin scored 395 runs in 12 innings at an average of 32.9 and SR of 46.3
Against all 3 combined (Wasim/McGrath/Donald),
Lara has scored 3116 runs in 79 innings at an average of 40.46 and a SR of 56.97, while
Sachin has scored 1715 runs in 50 innings at an average of 34.3 and a SR of 49.2.
Lara seems ahead to me.
As far as consistency is concerned, against all the above bowlers,
Sachin crossed fifty 14 times in 50 innings (which means he scores 50+ every 3.79 innings), while
Lara crossed fifty 21 times in 79 innings (which means he scores 50+ every 3.76 innings).
Not much difference there, though Lara is slightly ahead.
To be honest, I found neither of them stellar against these bowlers (considering the amount of talent they were blessed with). Lara salvaged it somewhat with some spectacular series against McGrath.
In Test matches I generally found most stroke-players (like Lara, Tendulkar) to be less successful against great pacemen than tough grinders (like Steve Waugh, Gooch etc.) There might be a few exceptions like Viv Richards and Ponting.
Style-wise, I found Lara to be much more of a risk taker, while Sachin was more steady. Lara would more readily go even after great bowling right from get-go (offering bowlers more hope and more chances in the process), while Sachin generally frustrates and tires the great bowlers before launching his attack. But I generally observed that although Sachin was more steady, he rarely scored big, and at the end of the day scored pretty much the same number of runs as Lara.
Again, I am not putting these numbers out to show Sachin in less light or something like that. Since I mainly followed those matches where there were these great fast bowlers, just from my memory, I don't recall Lara or Tendulkar spectacularly successful against them (most of the time).
Between the two, I recall Lara being more dominant and also more successful than Sachin as the above stats show.
And this is just my personal choice, one can freely ask why just include McGrath/Donald and why not also include Gillespie/Pollock etc.
Last edited:
robelinda
International Vice-Captain
Debris
International 12th Man
One fight per thread, Borges. I am sure there is a rule about that somewhere.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
tbh, not buying this idea that because Sachin's played longer and scored a massive piles of runs that he's automatically the better player. That Viv averaged around 30 after his 30th birthday doesn't stop a lot of people from saying he was one of the best ever.
Some people do judge players at their peaks or from specific situations (which bowlers they scored runs against, or didn't as the case may be) depending on what they value in a player. It's not a settled debate at all, especially if your terms of reference aren't entirely or even partially in data. Now you might argue that the data are the only objective measures and, whilst true (when they're as simplistic as 'runs scored' and 'wickets taken', hard not to be), that in no way makes them automatically good measures or even better than watching the game. It's plenty debateable.
Some people do judge players at their peaks or from specific situations (which bowlers they scored runs against, or didn't as the case may be) depending on what they value in a player. It's not a settled debate at all, especially if your terms of reference aren't entirely or even partially in data. Now you might argue that the data are the only objective measures and, whilst true (when they're as simplistic as 'runs scored' and 'wickets taken', hard not to be), that in no way makes them automatically good measures or even better than watching the game. It's plenty debateable.
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lara scored lots of runs against McGrath-led attacks though, tbf to him.
It should also be said, I recall watching that first dismissal in that clip and still rate it such a quality ball.
Edit: For a bloke who a lot of people say was not a fast bowler, gee McGrath got a lot of very good to great players out with short balls.
Just saying.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am worried about this thread being open.. Reasonable debate but already we are seeing bun post as if his word is the final one on this subject.. Soon we are going to have centurymaker and Cevno enter and turn this into a pissing contest.. 
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Maintaining a higher avg for much LONGER is not better?
I'd take a batsman who is going to avg 55 for my team for 22+ years over a batsman who is going to avg 50 for 15 years.
Even if the avgs were equal I'd still take the guy who was going to perform for much longer- more valueable player.
It's not like tendulkar's batting wasn't awe inspiring in his peak years.
More than half of those innings of tendulkar against pak came when he was just 16 so I don't know how you can use them as a fair indicator of how good he was against PAK.
In the only two full series tendulkar played against Mcgrath he avg'd 46 and 50 (aus in 1999, ind in 2001).
And had he not been unlucky with decisions in the 1999 series, he would've done much better. Looked gun. There's a reason why he was given the man of the series award.
1st Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Feb 27-Mar 1, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
He looked so so good in this relatively low scoring match in mumbai 2001- scored 76 and 65.
He got out due to a freak dismissal in the 2nd innings. had he not got out, india might've been able to get back in the game
YouTube - Ricky Ponting's Amazing Catch of Sachin Tendulkar
Lara did alot better against Aus at home, which is mainly because of that epic series he had in 1999 in which he scored 3 or so hundreds.
Btw why did you only look at their stats against 3 bowlers?
is it because tendulkar did well against the other guys? got you!
All in all, i think that the sample sizes are so small that 3/4 innings here and there change the avgs dramatically and therefore you can't really judge them like that.
sorry HB
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
wow......gun post.......you have certainly changed my mind on this topic
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Till 2002
avg of 50
157 innings 18 100s
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
03-06
avg of 60
75 innings 16 100s
Last edited: