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

[Spark]

The point about the sample size is fair though. In many cases the difference between those numbers are so small as to be somewhat insignificant (especially given the low number of innings), and Lara has one truly godlike series vs. us to back him up.

Obviously that counts massively in his favour in its own right though.

 

[centurymaker]

The point about the sample size is fair though. In many cases the difference between those numbers are so small as to be somewhat insignificant (especially given the low number of innings), and Lara has one truly godlike series vs. us to back him up.

Obviously that counts massively in his favour in its own right though.

Lara never scored big against SA and PAK (donald/wasim), while tendulkar did (3 100s).

Plus if you include ambrose etc to the list, tendulkar's combined avg goes up to 40 as well.


02/03 marks the beginning of the batsmen friendly period.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...9;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

169 innings 31 100s, avg 57.5 (this includes his mediocre teen years)

 

[Spark]

That's absolutely not fair to Lara though as their careers aren't synchronous.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think it is fair to either batsman to strip down to statsguru nitpicking.. I have seen enough of both to understand they were a cut above the rest in my time of watching cricket.. If you consider both formats of the game, I think Sachin comes in ahead with a clear albeit not exactly a comfortable margin..


But talking tests alone (applying CW's unstated law of Tests only if not specified otherwise), I still think Lara is the slightly better batsman of the two. Both of them are equally good against mediocre bowlers and great bowlers.. Both of them are equally good on good pitches for batting and bad ones. The difference would perhaps be in their style of play alone, with Lara prone to being more flamboyant while Sachin is prone to being more cautious. Both methods have their own advantages and risks and it is really silly to try argue one is better than the other, esp. because Lara had to do the one man show a lot more than Sachin (again, nothing to do with either man's talent but just the circumstances).. Lara was more likely to wrest the momentum away and help out the batsman at the other end that way, Sachin was more likely to look secure and solid and help out the batsman at the other end that way..

The reason I rate Lara higher than Sachin is that I believe in test matches especially the ability to carry on for the really big knocks matters when you are in good form.. That is the only area where I feel Lara pulls ever so slightly ahead of Sachin as a test batsman as every other factor between them, to me, evens out at the end. That, and the fact that Lara was the lone ranger for his side and I feel such batsmen carry a bigger load than others. But that is not Sachin's fault and it is not fair to pull Sachin down because his peer batsmen were good..

Again, I would like to refrain to get into stats mudslinging now to bring up scorecards and show how many times Sachin was the only one to have done well. Well, he is an ATG and that is what you would expect him to dominate scorecards no matter how good/bad his peers were in the said matches.. I am simply thinking of instances when I looked at the team sheet and felt "Oh God, get Sachin/Lara out, this team is done." It happened plenty with Lara but not so many times with Sachin. Those are my reasons.

 

[centurymaker]

That's absolutely not fair to Lara though as their careers aren't synchronous.

But aren't we looking at how they did against great bowlers? Why exclude a guy(ambrose) who is in the Top tier along with Mcgrath-Marshall.

 

[hang on]

good point, centurymaker.

 

[centurymaker]

I don't think it is fair to either batsman to strip down to statsguru nitpicking.. I have seen enough of both to understand they were a cut above the rest in my time of watching cricket.. If you consider both formats of the game, I think Sachin comes in ahead with a clear albeit not exactly a comfortable margin..


But talking tests alone (applying CW's unstated law of Tests only if not specified otherwise), I still think Lara is the slightly better batsman of the two. Both of them are equally good against mediocre bowlers and great bowlers.. Both of them are equally good on good pitches for batting and bad ones. The difference would perhaps be in their style of play alone, with Lara prone to being more flamboyant while Sachin is prone to being more cautious. Both methods have their own advantages and risks and it is really silly to try argue one is better than the other, esp. because Lara had to do the one man show a lot more than Sachin (again, nothing to do with either man's talent but just the circumstances).. Lara was more likely to wrest the momentum away and help out the batsman at the other end that way, Sachin was more likely to look secure and solid and help out the batsman at the other end that way..

The reason I rate Lara higher than Sachin is that I believe in test matches especially the ability to carry on for the really big knocks matters when you are in good form.. That is the only area where I feel Lara pulls ever so slightly ahead of Sachin as a test batsman as every other factor between them, to me, evens out at the end. That, and the fact that Lara was the lone ranger for his side and I feel such batsmen carry a bigger load than others. But that is not Sachin's fault and it is not fair to pull Sachin down because his peer batsmen were good..

Again, I would like to refrain to get into stats mudslinging now to bring up scorecards and show how many times Sachin was the only one to have done well. Well, he is an ATG and that is what you would expect him to dominate scorecards no matter how good/bad his peers were in the said matches.. I am simply thinking of instances when I looked at the team sheet and felt "Oh God, get Sachin/Lara out, this team is done." It happened plenty with Lara but not so many times with Sachin. Those are my reasons.

Good post.

 

[hang on]

I don't think it is fair to either batsman to strip down to statsguru nitpicking.. I have seen enough of both to understand they were a cut above the rest in my time of watching cricket.. If you consider both formats of the game, I think Sachin comes in ahead with a clear albeit not exactly a comfortable margin..


But talking tests alone (applying CW's unstated law of Tests only if not specified otherwise), I still think Lara is the slightly better batsman of the two. Both of them are equally good against mediocre bowlers and great bowlers.. Both of them are equally good on good pitches for batting and bad ones. The difference would perhaps be in their style of play alone, with Lara prone to being more flamboyant while Sachin is prone to being more cautious. Both methods have their own advantages and risks and it is really silly to try argue one is better than the other, esp. because Lara had to do the one man show a lot more than Sachin (again, nothing to do with either man's talent but just the circumstances).. Lara was more likely to wrest the momentum away and help out the batsman at the other end that way, Sachin was more likely to look secure and solid and help out the batsman at the other end that way..

The reason I rate Lara higher than Sachin is that I believe in test matches especially the ability to carry on for the really big knocks matters when you are in good form.. That is the only area where I feel Lara pulls ever so slightly ahead of Sachin as a test batsman as every other factor between them, to me, evens out at the end. That, and the fact that Lara was the lone ranger for his side and I feel such batsmen carry a bigger load than others. But that is not Sachin's fault and it is not fair to pull Sachin down because his peer batsmen were good..

Again, I would like to refrain to get into stats mudslinging now to bring up scorecards and show how many times Sachin was the only one to have done well. Well, he is an ATG and that is what you would expect him to dominate scorecards no matter how good/bad his peers were in the said matches.. I am simply thinking of instances when I looked at the team sheet and felt "Oh God, get Sachin/Lara out, this team is done." It happened plenty with Lara but not so many times with Sachin. Those are my reasons.

good points there. and a very balanced post. just one quibbly point, the lone ranger argument in favour of lara is militated against by the fact that he had two world class bowlers - one of whom is an all time great - for at least half his career. tendulkar, though he had a decent to excellent batting lineup around him for the second half of his career, rarely had the luxury of a good bowling lineup.

 

[honestbharani]

I would count the mid to late 90s Indian attack in India as > Windies attack of the same time.. Mostly it was C & C plus some change.. And Walsh though very very good, I don't think he comes into many people's rating of "great"..


As I said, I have seen enough of both guys to understand that most of these points really even out between them, esp. in tests. In ODIs, Sachin was better and I think smarter, because he figured out his best position and stayed there. Moving around too much hurt Lara waaaaay too much in ODIs as he was just as good in ODIs as he was in tests as a batsman alone.

 

[centurymaker]

good points there. and a very balanced post. just one quibbly point, the lone ranger argument in favour of lara is militated against by the fact that he had two world class bowlers - one of whom is an all time great - for at least half his career. tendulkar, though he had a decent to excellent batting lineup around him for the second half of his career, rarely had the luxury of a good bowling lineup.

Plus lara wasn't really consistent, was up and down.
He struggled more than tendulkar when the conditions weren't in his favour and did better when they were (150+ scores/ 200s etc)

 

[hang on]

I would count the mid to late 90s Indian attack in India as > Windies attack of the same time.. Mostly it was C & C plus some change.. And Walsh though very very good, I don't think he comes into many people's rating of "great"..

i would imagine that u would be in the minority in your rating of the two attacks! c ancd c , with the presence at different points of bowlers like bishop and rose et al, plus some change is still better than srinath and prasad and some small change (barring kumble in india).

but i respect your rating of lara and tendulkar.

 

[honestbharani]

i would imagine that u would be in the minority in your rating of the two attacks! c ancd c , with the presence at different points of bowlers like bishop and rose et al, plus some change is still better than srinath and prasad and some small change (barring kumble in india).

but i respect your rating of lara and tendulkar.

I said Indian bowling attack in India.. Outside we were (and maybe still are ) rank..

 

[honestbharani]

Plus lara wasn't really consistent, was up and down.
He struggled more than tendulkar when the conditions weren't in his favour and did better when they were (150+ scores/ 200s etc)

lol.. the conditions argument is pretty silly to be honest.. It is not like Sachin scored 100s on minefields either.

As I said, I have seen them play and I don't really see any big dramatic reason to rate one above the other at all. Some rate Lara higher because they rate the flayamboyant shot making higher than ability to just survive.. Some rate Sachin higher because of his longevity and his (comparitively more) consistency in getting off to starts, basically...


And off the top of my head, Lara averaged great in two distinct phases of his career and the only time he was inconsistent was his 1998 to 2001 run (just before the SL series).. He has been very consistent otherwise, as Ian Chappell pointed out in that cricinfo round table.

 

[centurymaker]

lol.. the conditions argument is pretty silly to be honest.. It is not like Sachin scored 100s on minefields either.

As I said, I have seen them play and I don't really see any big dramatic reason to rate one above the other at all. Some rate Lara higher because they rate the flayamboyant shot making higher than ability to just survive.. Some rate Sachin higher because of his longevity and his (comparitively more) consistency in getting off to starts, basically...

When did I say that?- nobody can score 100s consistently in bowler friendly conditions.
I said struggled "more"

Plus lara wasn't really consistent, was up and down.
He struggled more than tendulkar when the conditions weren't in his favour and did better when they were (150+ scores/ 200s etc)

Thats mainly because lara's technique wasn't as solid. However, he did better when conditions were in his favour- destroyed attacks.

 

[hang on]

I said Indian bowling attack in India.. Outside we were (and maybe still are ) rank..

so u did. i should learn to read!

 

[MW1304]

Sehwag is just ***y period.

Please keep your disgusting fetishes to yourself.

 

[vcs]

Didn't Lara actually score more runs per innings than Tendulkar?

It's interesting because he has very few not-outs to his name, but still a huge number of centuries and obviously still among the top 3-4 aggregate run-scorers in Test cricket. More runs per innings than the likes of Tendulkar and Kallis who comfortably average higher than him. Obviously, that's not entirely fair if you count an interrupted innings as a completed one for Tendulkar/Kallis as they could have gone on to score more runs before they were actually dismissed. Still I feel Lara's average is not a very good indicator of his quality relative to certain other batsmen.

 

[honestbharani]

When did I say that?- nobody can score 100s consistently in bowler friendly conditions.
I said struggled "more"


Thats mainly because lara's technique wasn't as solid. However, he did better when conditions were in his favour- destroyed attacks.

yeah.. that is what I meant to say as well.. Struggled is a comparative word though. Sehwag doesn't look at home in certain conditions and yet has the ability to look absolutely Godly in similarly difficult conditions. It has more to do with the way they bat than any actual struggle.

 

[Blaze 18]

I can totally understand people going for Tendulkar, he is the other ATG batsman of his era after all; but the fact that Tendulkar has scored a lot of runs since Lara's retirement is irrelevant IMO.

On topic - Lara.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Sachin isn't a better player than Sobers or Viv because he played for longer.

Anyway, all it does is prove my point; that's what you value in a player so obviously you're going to rate him higher because of it. Myself I generally go for Lara, mainly because I reckon he was more (slightly) likely to make a potentially match-winning contribution to a match. It's not just the number of runs but how he went about it; I look at it like an opposition player, think about who I'd be most worried about and come up with Lara. That's my opinion and what I find valuable in a player. It doesn't win or end the debate and neither do Sachin's stats alone.