-
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
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It is irrelevant to how you rate Lara, but surely you must take it into consideration in your rating of Sachin?
Teja.
Global Moderator
Tempted to sig.
Aside from that, I don't really have to think about this tbh. Would probably take Ponting over Lara as well.
Last edited:
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not a stats-only guy either, far from it. But I just think Tendulkar's resurgence has certainly added to his own legacy, even if you don't think it puts him ahead of Lara, at least it should bring him very close.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Ftr, I'm not a complete face-value stat guy but I will never understand the ideology of differentiating between players on their peaks/the entire x-factor argument.
Sehwag is more likely to put the opposition out of the game in one day but Sutcliffe is more likely to score more runs. I'll take Sutcliffe, thanks.
Sehwag is more likely to put the opposition out of the game in one day but Sutcliffe is more likely to score more runs. I'll take Sutcliffe, thanks.
Last edited:
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
lara had aged before he retired.. He had a poor world cup in 2007 and was 38, so it was time to go.
The fact that tendulkar's been able to come out of a bad patch and perform like he used does matter! If it didn't, then he should just retired after the 2003 world cup at his peak.
@ Top_cat
So the best batsman has to be Ponting then as he had a better peak than anyone else. He went crazy for 5 years 02-06 and was as aggressive/dangerous as anybody. Totally unprecendented!!
But large majority wouldn't rate players like that, they would look at how long a player managed to sustain top level performance.
tendulkar 1997-04 and 08-11.
Lara 1993-95, 03-06 and those epic 99 and 01 series.
Ponting 2002-08
kallis 2001-07 and 10-11
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Alternatively- (being more lenient)
tendulkar 1993-04 and 08-11.
Lara 1993-97, 03-06 and those epic 99 and 01 series.
Ponting 1999-08
kallis 1999-07 and 10-11
Massive LOL at SLUTcliff
gold!!
tendulkar 1993-04 and 08-11.
Lara 1993-97, 03-06 and those epic 99 and 01 series.
Ponting 1999-08
kallis 1999-07 and 10-11
Massive LOL at SLUTcliff
gold!!
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
TBH if I were building a team from scratch, I'd take Sehwag first over either of them.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
The irony of stating that longevity doesn't count is that if Tendulkar or Ponting had retired when he was averaging 59 or 60, they would have been hailed as the second best batsman ever. Its not like Tendulkar has been averaging 40 since Lara retired. I can understand Lara's claim to being the better batsman, and personally I'm torn between the two. But Tendulkar's longevity simply isn't a non-factor in arriving at the conclusion that Lara is better, just as it isn't the only factor for concluding that Tendulkar is the better of the two.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Stop trying to act all grown up. We know you're 12.
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
How about a Tendulkar at the start of his career? Thats like getting a top class batsmen who will bat well for 20+ years.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I am not disputing who is better. Obviously 20 years would push it Tendy's way, but if you're talking about a 'type' of player I'm looking for, I'd put Sehwag ahead of any batsmen. Basically if I could pick any batsmen of the last 20 years and had to choose two batsmen and bowlers to start a brand new minnow team , I'd pick Sehwag and Hayden as batsmen and McGrath and Ambrose as the bowlers. And I bet I'd win a lot more overseas matches than India did in the 90s
.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
I am not disputing who is better. Obviously 20 years would push it Tendy's way, but if you're talking about a 'type' of player I'm looking for, I'd put Sehwag ahead of any batsmen. Basically if I could pick any batsmen of the last 20 years and had to choose two batsmen and bowlers to start a brand new minnow team , I'd pick Sehwag and Hayden as batsmen and McGrath and Ambrose as the bowlers. And I bet I'd win a lot more overseas matches than India did in the 90s
smash84
The Tiger King
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Hence the '
'.Agreed. But sample sizes are always going to be small when you use any such filtration system. Several people often use "performances against Australia in mid-late 90s" or "performances against the Windies in 80s" to rate players. Sample sizes even in those cases were extremely small. Nevertheless, 50 innings for Tendulkar (and 80 innings for Lara) is a decent sized sample, considering the filtration. Even if Tendulkar had scored 300* in his next innings or his next series against any of these bowlers (McGrath/Donald/Akram) , he would still not average as high as Lara did against them. On a side note though, it seems interesting that Tendulkar does not have a single not-out in any of his 50 innings against these bowlers.
Great batsmen make avail of whatever few opportunities that they get. How many Test series against genuinely great pace attacks did Vivian Richards play in his career? As far as I have seen, very few. Couple of series in Aus in the 70s and a few series against Pak in the 80s. Not very many. Certainly less than 50 innings over-all. This doesn't mean that the other attacks he faced in his career were dud. They were good attacks too. But these attacks were better than good. He failed more often against them than he succeeded. And yet, he made use of a couple of these series with God-like performance against Pak in 80-81 or even 88-89 where he totally stood out even amongst his illustrous peers. Same thing with AB's away-performance against the Windies in the early 80s. Lara did the same in the 98-99 and 02-03 series against McGrath.
The "God-like" series that Lara had against McGrath is actually the main point here. That wasn't the only one. Lara was absolutely phenomenal even in the 2002-03 series against Aus. It is the complete absence of such a stand-out, stellar series (for Tendulkar) against this cream-level of fast bowlers of his era that puts Lara higher in my opinion. Having at least one such stand-out, stellar series against such attacks where even good batsmen struggle carries tremendous weight (in my eyes). Again this is just my opinion or my taste if you will. Not trying to convince anyone else here, that is impossible.
This doesn't mean other factors like longevity or consistency against less-than-great pace attacks etc, need to be thrown out of the window. It isn't binary here. Other factors matter too. It really depends on who gives how much weightage to what. Especially at this level of batsmanship. It isn't as if Lara was successful for only 3 years or that he fared far worse than Tendulkar against other attacks (when these bowlers were absent). There is no absolute right/wrong about it. It is subjective. To me, having such a stand-out series against a great attack is vital.
I am not using these stats as a basis to judge Lara as better/greater than Tendulkar. Not at all. I don't have to. I am totally relying on what I remember seeing. Although I did not follow Tendulkar or Lara's career in great detail (not a big fan of batsmen, am a huge fan of watching quality fast bowling irrespective of the team), but I have seen plenty and plenty of batting against quality fast bowling (including both these guys).
I found both of them to be more vulnerable against quality pace. Between the two, I generally observed Lara to be relatively more dominant and more consistent (runs-wise) against these great fast bowling attacks - or rather what I define as great fast bowling attacks - that they both came up against. His peaks, against these attacks, were IMO far more towering than Tendulkar's. And ultimately that is what matters to me.
If anything, it is the other way around with the stats. I am just using these stats to confirm for myself that my observation that Lara did indeed perform better than Tendulkar (at least what I consider as "better") against McGrath/Donald/Akram led attacks (or those attacks that I saw to be genuinely challenging attacks that they both faced) isn't untrue.
Yes, to be fair, Wasim has to be removed from the list since Tendulkar was 16 years old in his first series (against Wasim) and Lara also had his debut Test where he made 44 and 5 against Wasim. But removing Wasim really does not change things much. If anything, it further accentuates the gap between the two as Lara was clearly better (again, better in my opinion) than Tendulkar against both McGrath and Donald. Adding Wasim actually brings them a bit closer.
Last edited: