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

[Bun]

Lol, stat clutching at it's best.

However I envy your patience to type out an essay. I wish I had half that.

 

[Cevno]

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.

Really?

It's not like he has been lumbering along and scoring a lot of runs at a average in the 30's that is just boosting the number of runs stat.

By the same logic you could say that when Sachin was having his little slump in the early 2000's and missed tests due to Elbow injury, Lara's really good form was irrelevant too?

 

[coolkuna]

Regarding why I did not use Ambrose to boost Tendulkar. Inclusion of Ambrose doesn't matter at all statistically. Even including Ambrose and removing Wasim, Tendulkar's average against (McGrath/Donald/Ambrose) still stays well below 40 (1609 runs at an average of 37.4 in 44 innings), and still well behind Lara (2722 runs at 42.53 in 66 innings).

Irrespective of the above stat, I am totally going by what I have seen of both Lara and Tendulkar against quality pace. I am not going by paper scorecards here. I saw the entire 1997 series where Tendulkar faced Ambrose. I believe this was the only Test series when they faced each other. The series was a huge let-down. It was one of the most boring series that I was fooled in to following (because of the names of the fast bowlers involved). On paper, it might have looked like the Indians were put up against a great fast bowling attack with Ambrose, Watsh etc. under tough conditions on away wickets. But there was absolutely nothing in those wickets for fast bowlers. Pitches were deader than dead. They were more life-less than subcontinental wickets. Barbados was the only wicket that offered some salvation (for fast bowling fans). Weather was bad too.

It is not surprising that 4 of the 5 Tests in that series ended in dull draws. It is also not surprising that several other Indian batsmen (Navjot Sidhu, Ajay Jadeja) made merry in that series.

Again, I am not saying this to diss Tendulkar's (or Dravid's or Sidhu's) acheivements in that series. This doesn't mean that their knocks in that series came up against attacks of Kenya or Holland. Let us not jump between extremes here. From what I have seen, the 1997 series of Ambrose against Tendulkar did not appear to be a great example of Tendulkar having a stellar series against great fast bowling in tough conditions (to my eyes at least). His 92 at Barbados was a great knock though, as was Dravid's 70+. In fact, IMO Tendulkar's 100 against England at Edgbaston in 1996 came under tougher conditions despite the lack of big fast bowling names than any of his knocks against Ambrose. Similarly, Sidhu's 116 at Jamaica against almost exactly the same West Indian bowlers about 10 years earlier, was a much tougher knock IMO than his double century against Ambrose in the 1997 series.

You can freely include Ambrose, doesn't really change the over-all picture IMO.

It is sad to see some posters emotionally reacting, much like those that comment on youtube videos as if everyone who doesn't worship Tendulkar as they do have an agenda against him. Although I am aware of most Tendulkar fans being hyper-sensitive and pretty radical in their worship of their idol, I was hoping there would be less of such immature people in this forum.

Nice forum though, don't get me wrong. ignore list is a very handy feature.

I have nothing against Tendulkar, and rating Lara above Tendulkar doesn't mean that in my mind Tendulkar is a Devon Malcolm or a Courtney Walsh with the bat. What both of them acheived is for everyone to see. However, when it comes to this level of comparison, IMO, it really becomes subjective.

To me, Tendulkar is behind Lara. And both of them behind Vivian Richards, Barry Richards and Greg Chappell (from the batsmen that I have seen). Again, this is just my opinion based on what I have seen. It isn't the absolute truth. I don't think an absolute truth exists at this level of comparison.

 

[Cevno]

Coolkuna ,first of all those stats imply nothing as those averages are against the teams when these bowlers played not against individual bowlers.
So say if Sachin got out to Hansie Cronje it would show nothing about his ability to play Donald or if he got out to Razzaq it would show nothing about his ability to play Wasim or Waqar.
Then the stats against the Pakistani bowlers are affected by him playing early days against them.

Also wonder why you only chose these 3 bowlers and not some other bowlers? I am pretty sure i can select another set of bowlers and show the opposite if you want.

 

[Spark]

Regarding why I did not use Ambrose to boost Tendulkar. Inclusion of Ambrose doesn't matter at all statistically. Even including Ambrose and removing Wasim, Tendulkar's average against (McGrath/Donald/Ambrose) still stays well below 40 (1609 runs at an average of 37.4 in 44 innings), and still well behind Lara (2722 runs at 42.53 in 66 innings).

Irrespective of the above stat, I am totally going by what I have seen of both Lara and Tendulkar against quality pace. I am not going by paper scorecards here. I saw the entire 1997 series where Tendulkar faced Ambrose. I believe this was the only Test series when they faced each other. The series was a huge let-down. It was one of the most boring series that I was fooled in to following (because of the names of the fast bowlers involved). On paper, it might have looked like the Indians were put up against a great fast bowling attack with Ambrose, Watsh etc. under tough conditions on away wickets. But there was absolutely nothing in those wickets for fast bowlers. Pitches were deader than dead. They were more life-less than subcontinental wickets. Barbados was the only wicket that offered some salvation (for fast bowling fans). Weather was bad too.

It is not surprising that 4 of the 5 Tests in that series ended in dull draws. It is also not surprising that several other Indian batsmen (Navjot Sidhu, Ajay Jadeja) made merry in that series.

Again, I am not saying this to diss Tendulkar's (or Dravid's or Sidhu's) acheivements in that series. This doesn't mean that their knocks in that series came up against attacks of Kenya or Holland. Let us not jump between extremes here. From what I have seen, the 1997 series of Ambrose against Tendulkar did not appear to be a great example of Tendulkar having a stellar series against great fast bowling in tough conditions (to my eyes at least). His 92 at Barbados was a great knock though, as was Dravid's 70+. In fact, IMO Tendulkar's 100 against England at Edgbaston in 1996 came under tougher conditions despite the lack of big fast bowling names than any of his knocks against Ambrose. Similarly, Sidhu's 116 at Jamaica against almost exactly the same West Indian bowlers about 10 years earlier, was a much tougher knock IMO than his double century against Ambrose in the 1997 series.

You can freely include Ambrose, doesn't really change the over-all picture IMO.

It is sad to see some posters emotionally reacting, much like those that comment on youtube videos as if everyone who doesn't worship Tendulkar as they do have an agenda against him. Although I am aware of most Tendulkar fans being hyper-sensitive and pretty radical in their worship of their idol, I was hoping there would be less of such immature people in this forum.

Nice forum though, don't get me wrong. ignore list is a very handy feature.

I have nothing against Tendulkar, and rating Lara above Tendulkar doesn't mean that in my mind Tendulkar is a Devon Malcolm or a Courtney Walsh with the bat. What both of them acheived is for everyone to see. However, when it comes to this level of comparison, IMO, it really becomes subjective.

To me, Tendulkar is behind Lara. And both of them behind Vivian Richards, Barry Richards and Greg Chappell (from the batsmen that I have seen). Again, this is just my opinion based on what I have seen. It isn't the absolute truth. I don't think an absolute truth exists at this level of comparison.

Quality post. Bolded line elicited a chuckle too.

 

[hang on]

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.

i don't at all think it's fair to remove his debut series. if he was good enough to play, he was good enough to have his runs counted in any analysis.

that said, based on what i have watched, i have found lara to be far less impressive against great pace than tendulkar. my memory might be failing me but donald had him for breakfast in 99.....i don't think he's scored a 100 against donald or younis or even akhtar. tendulkar has played some superb knocks against pace, in particular against donald. his performances against lee at his best (in 08), and ambrose are also not too shabby.

 

[Cevno]

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.

This.

Tendulkar was clearly ahead of the competition in the 1990's by a pretty decent margin ,despite starting so young-

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Since then he has only added to his legacy despite a bit of blip in his form early in the 2000's when some not so great batsman were boosting their averages too.
And since 1st Jan 2000 is just only behind Kallis in terms of averages of players who have played 25+ matches -

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He has had 2 great careers rolled into one. To say that longevity does not matter in this case is bizzare.

He has almost reinvented his game after going from a stroke player ,to more of a accumulator now and has excelled at both types of batting styles when his body told him too. Can't remember anyone in history of the game who changed his game at such a level to suit his body and still mantained the high level of excellence .

Even though since people remember the recent avatar more ,he may have lost some Flamboyance points or points based on looking good etc.. when in fact in his prime at the ground he was as good as any batsman there has been in the last 2/3 decades to watch in terms of any aspect of his batting.

 

[GotSpin]

I agree somewhat Cevno, but I think the general point being made is that just because Tendulkar has continued to make runs since Lara's retirement, while admirable, doesn't automatically make him the superior batsmen.

 

[Cruxdude]

Coolkuna, while your stand that Lara is better than Sachin is a perfectly alright opinion but the statistics you came out with are surely not a measure of how these player fared against the top bowlers. Sachin for example got out only 12 times out of the 50 innings to the bowlers mentioned (Yes I counted and yes I am ashamed I spent time doing that. Also Cronje has indeed taken out Sachin more times than Donald). Tell you thought he played the faster bowlers better, that is fine but these stats tell absolutely nothing. I for one rate Sachin higher.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You're not getting it, Got_Spin. It isn't the only factor why some people consider Tendulkar to be the superior batsman.

 

[Bun]

What ahppens when you include Steyn too in that list?

 

[Bun]

I agree somewhat Cevno, but I think the general point being made is that just because Tendulkar has continued to make runs since Lara's retirement, while admirable, doesn't automatically make him the superior batsmen.

Tendulkar started playing before Lara...

And still continues to play years after Lara retired...

and stays no.1

if that doesn't count for something, I dunno what does.

 

[Cevno]

What ahppens when you include Steyn too in that list?

It also shows the times when he has been dismissed by Tsotsobe and Harris or scored runs against them?

These type of stats are useless after an extent.

 

[hang on]

What ahppens when you include Steyn too in that list?

didn't think to do so. will definitely enhance tendulkar's stats against pure pace. but i suppose one should also include harmison (he was rapid in the mid noughties), which would also enhance lara's stats, by virtue of that gargantuan and amazing 400 no.

 

[Spark]

Tendulkar started playing before Lara...

And still continues to play years after Lara retired...

and stays no.1

if that doesn't count for something, I dunno what does.

The reason using longevity like this is flawed is because often when a player starts/finishes his career is for reasons most definitely to do with things other than their quality as pure players. Certainly applies to Lara.

 

[hang on]

It also shows the times when he has been dismissed by Tsotsobe and Harris or scored runs against them?

These type of stats are useless after an extent.

quite. but still fun to look at!

here are tendulkar's stats "against" the real fast men (apologies if anyone has been left out):

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

now, also including mcgrath and pollock, who even though not that fast, were superb:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[jorel'sspawn]

The reason using longevity like this is flawed is because often when a player starts/finishes his career is for reasons most definitely to do with things other than their quality as pure players. Certainly applies to Lara.

Except in this case it a factor because it is true. Sachin has extended his career because he is doing well.

 

[Cevno]

I agree somewhat Cevno, but I think the general point being made is that just because Tendulkar has continued to make runs since Lara's retirement, while admirable, doesn't automatically make him the superior batsmen.

It isn't the only factor certainly by any means.

But certainly is a contributing factor. To deny that would be like saying the period in early 2000's where Sachin was having his problems with tennis elbow and injuries and missed tests and had a drop in form before reinventing his game should not count as well because Lara was scoring runs galore in that period.

Though when in fact that period whether it did or did not affect Tendulkar's status ,it certainly boosted Lara's and hence boosted his status compared to Sachin Indirectly.
The same applies to this period.

It may not affect Lara's rating ,but it certainly boosts Sachin's rating and hence indirectly his direct comparison with anyone not just Lara.
It's not like he has been averaging 40 odd and just carrying on ,he has been at top of the world and even named best player of the year in this period by the ICC.

 

[coolkuna]

Coolkuna ,first of all those stats imply nothing as those averages are against the teams when these bowlers played not against individual bowlers.
So say if Sachin got out to Hansie Cronje it would show nothing about his ability to play Donald or if he got out to Razzaq it would show nothing about his ability to play Wasim or Waqar.
Then the stats against the Pakistani bowlers are affected by him playing early days against them.

Also wonder why you only chose these 3 bowlers and not some other bowlers? I am pretty sure i can select another set of bowlers and show the opposite if you want.

Definitely Cevno. You can choose any set of bowlers you want. It is just a personal choice. Nothing more. I told that before itself. I just chose Donald/McGrath/Wasim led attacks because I believe from what I have seen that this was when Sachin (or Lara or any other batsman) were tested the most. It isn't the mere presence of Donald or McGrath in the opposition doing nothing. These bowlers bowled a lot in these matches against these batsmen. And had success (either getting them out or strangling them and forcing them to take risks against other bowlers).

From what I remember it is not just Tendulkar, even Dravid's, Ganguly's and rest of the Indian/West Indian premier batsmen's performances are significantly affected by the presence/absence of McGrath/Donald. It is hard for me to believe that it is mere coincidence especially considering that both McGrath and Donald bowled so much whenever they were present.

Again, I am totally going from what I have seen and what I value as success against a great fast bowling attack.

One could remove Wasim considering Sachin-Wasim never faced off at each other's peak because of India-Pakistan issues. That is a very valid point.

From what I saw, Donald troubled Tendulkar a lot more than Cronje did whenever they faced off. Statistically Crojne might have gotten Tendulkar's wicket one more time than Donald did. Again, I am going totally by what I have seen.

Statistics might not be always correct. I am not saying they are wrong or that they should not be believed. For example Vivian Richard's relative weakness against spin is known, and yet when he faced off against India, Kapil Dev dismissed him more often than any Indian spinner. He was also more often out to Indian pace bowlers than Indian spinners especially after Kapil made his debut. This doesn't automatically mean that he was troubled more by Indian pace bowlers than by spinners.

I am also not implying that what I have seen is always the truth. Memory could be corrupted too. I would however go by what I have seen rather than just what the scorecards or the stats says. If I have missed anything, then obviously I will rely on stats or reports (I really don't have much of a choice then).

It is a subjective thing. All I am trying to say is, it is not blasphemy to regard Lara as greater than Sachin (or vice-versa). Sadly, that is the way people like Bun seem to behave. I have seen enough of both Sachin and Lara to make my opinion.

 

[shankar]

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.

The problem is using overall stats gives a wrong picture. It's better to look at it individually

Vs Donald
Now both of them average in the low thirties. However in Tendulkar's case this is misleading because he was weirdly getting out to Cronje during this period (he got him as many times as Donald i.e. 5 times). Now if we use the other measure of who reached the higher heights it clearly seems to be Tendulkar. Lara's highest score in 20 innings is 83. Whereas Tendulkar has a couple of hundreds and a 97. The 169 in Cape town and the 97 in Mumbai were utterly brilliant knocks - two of the best ever played against Donald. So I'd say Tendulkar comes out on top by that measure.

Vs McGrath
Lara clearly has the better body of work against McGrath and comes out on top. However Tendulkar's average needs to be put in context.

Tendulkar unfortunately had only 2 proper contests against McGrath - the '99 series in Aus where he was MOS and the '01 series where he averaged closed to 50 and was crucial to India winning that series. There was another meeting in 2004 - but Tendulkar had been suffering from the Tennis elbow problem and literally could only pick up and use his bat only 3 days before the third test match. It was a desperate attempt to save the series. His performances in this series are what bring his average down. It's a huge shame that we couldn't see as many contests of McGrath with Sachin as with Lara.