• 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

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
They should not. Neither should they count FOR the batsmen, unless they were stranded with the last wicket down but even that can mean anything and taking it as some opportunity lost to score more runs by said batsman without taking a look at the context is extremely inaccurate...
 

Bun

Banned
but that is the only occassion when you can think the batsman has been robbed of an opportunity to bat on.. In other instances, teams only declare because that is the way they think they can get a win and generally, batsmen are well aware of the point of time around which the declaration would come. So it changes his mindset entirely, as well as fields being spread out etc. etc. There is just no definitive way to simply classify "not outs" as a category where a batsman was not allowed the opportunity to score more.. That is just not true.
It works the other way also.

Not to take anything away from his absolutely gargantuan 400, but had he not been captain, or had he possessed a captain like dravid, I am not sure he'd been allowed to bat on till he got there. Certainly I recollect Ponting or someone saying he'd never allow a player or himself to have batted that long. (Test was drawn wasn't it?)

Take case of Tendulkar's 194 in Multan. He could've well batted on for another hour and we still woudl've won the match.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
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.
I agree. I think you can use a good list of not very controversial reasons based on stats why Sachin is better - especially post Lara-retirement. I do however think Lara was the 'better' batsman and more dangerous/capable of winning matches or contributing a match-winning performance than Sachin. Maybe it's watching them both against Australia but I genuinely thought even with our best attacks Lara could still take the game away if he just got into his stride.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
so you did post stats? so where is the problem what I said. And yes, I included you in the earlier post along with blokes like bun because that is how you post in Sachin threads. I am happy you are not doing that here, honestly and I have no intention to go down that road again. We both know each others position. So if me apologizing for including you in that post will settle this, then I will. I am sorry I named you in that post. My mistake. :)
I don't have a problem with that or even posting stats if they are relevant ,but i just found you preaching the moral high ground on this issue pretty ironic and that's what i conveyed in that message too:p

And you were making it a pissing contest ,by making that post at the same time.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
It works the other way also.

Not to take anything away from his absolutely gargantuan 400, but had he not been captain, or had he possessed a captain like dravid, I am not sure he'd been allowed to bat on till he got there. Certainly I recollect Ponting or someone saying he'd never allow a player or himself to have batted that long. (Test was drawn wasn't it?)

Take case of Tendulkar's 194 in Multan. He could've well batted on for another hour and we still woudl've won the match.
Nah.. I can clearly see you have no idea about the game you are talking about.


And as for Multan, I believe we have had enough debates on it here.. You can read my posts from the official threads if you wanna, the point is, he knew very well when the declaration was coming and it was his call on how to bat till then. :) India would have won the match had he batted on? That is extremely subjective because till Sachin got Moin out with the last ball of the day on day 4, we certainly didn't look like winning the game at all.. All those are "what if" questions which can be answered in either direction but generally when a declaration is on the anvil, the batsmen know pretty damn well when it is coming and can adjust and bat accordingly.. This applies for all batsmen.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
That's not the point either. Saying you rate one player over another for whatever reasons is fine and dandy but extending that to suggest there's no point to any further debate is another thing entirely. The objective angle (sports stats) are flawed and incomplete. The subjective angle is, well, subjective. Anyone claiming a definitive position is in lala land.
Agreed.

Quoted for reference in future Bradman threads though.:ph34r:
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I don't have a problem with that or even posting stats if they are relevant ,but i just found you preaching the moral high ground on this issue pretty ironic and that's what i conveyed in that message too:p

And you were making it a pissing contest ,by making that post at the same time.
well, given that I don't always post statsguru extracts to present my arguments, I think I pretty well do own the high ground to preach on that. :p
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
They should not. Neither should they count FOR the batsmen, unless they were stranded with the last wicket down but even that can mean anything and taking it as some opportunity lost to score more runs by said batsman without taking a look at the context is extremely inaccurate...
right. they should be just taken as is ie. the stats and averages with the not out. nobody is being unfairly penalised or advantaged.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
That's not the point either. Saying you rate one player over another for whatever reasons is fine and dandy but extending that to suggest there's no point to any further debate is another thing entirely.
That wasn't my implication at all. You've got your posters mixed up. Some people seem to be under the impression that Tendulkar's longevity is used as the definitive and standalone factor for rating him ahead of Lara, and that is the impression that is sought to be corrected. If someone does hold that opinion, it would be as fallacious as someone claiming that longevity is a non-issue. The debate is a non-starter when either side holds on to an extreme view-point.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
He changed his game pretty early on in his international career though ,not in the middle of it.
I don't understand why all this "Sachin changed his game" argument came from. He was NEVER that aggressive as a test batsman. He always had innings when he decided to be aggressive but those were exceptions. He was almost always a circumspect and solid batsman with breath taking stroke play shining through intermittently. Almost all of his aggressive knocks have been calculated than just inspired. His natural game is how he plays to this day, exciting stroke play interspersed with solid defence. A bit of an ideal cross between the Dravid school and the Sehwag school, if you will.
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
Nah.. I can clearly see you have no idea about the game you are talking about.


And as for Multan, I believe we have had enough debates on it here.. You can read my posts from the official threads if you wanna, the point is, he knew very well when the declaration was coming and it was his call on how to bat till then. :) India would have won the match had he batted on? That is extremely subjective because till Sachin got Moin out with the last ball of the day on day 4, we certainly didn't look like winning the game at all.. All those are "what if" questions which can be answered in either direction but generally when a declaration is on the anvil, the batsmen know pretty damn well when it is coming and can adjust and bat accordingly.. This applies for all batsmen.
such a game never happened:ph34r:
 

Bun

Banned
Nah.. I can clearly see you have no idea about the game you are talking about.


And as for Multan, I believe we have had enough debates on it here.. You can read my posts from the official threads if you wanna, the point is, he knew very well when the declaration was coming and it was his call on how to bat till then. :) India would have won the match had he batted on? That is extremely subjective because till Sachin got Moin out with the last ball of the day on day 4, we certainly didn't look like winning the game at all.. All those are "what if" questions which can be answered in either direction but generally when a declaration is on the anvil, the batsmen know pretty damn well when it is coming and can adjust and bat accordingly.. This applies for all batsmen.
No the issue, is Lara did bat way beyond what an average captain would've considered as a safe total on that pitch.

Let's not kid ourselves on that.

I am not suggesting Tendulkar had a realistic chance of getting a 400 there, rather, pointing out the fallacy in excluding notouts because in one case, it was completely out of control of one batsman, and in the latter in his control (Lara's)

FTR, I am "NOT REDUCING" anything from that 400... I watched that game live, and enjoyed every moment of it. It meant to Lara a lot, it meant to Windies as well, after a disappointing series till then.
 

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
I don't understand why all this "Sachin changed his game" argument came from. He was NEVER that aggressive as a test batsman. He always had innings when he decided to be aggressive but those were exceptions. He was almost always a circumspect and solid batsman with breath taking stroke play shining through intermittently. Almost all of his aggressive knocks have been calculated than just inspired. His natural game is how he plays to this day, exciting stroke play interspersed with solid defence. A bit of an ideal cross between the Dravid school and the Sehwag school, if you will.
He wasn't very aggresive but he was still at least among the more aggresive batsman of the time ,than the defensive ones. Pretty sure his strike rate would have dropped in recent times too.

Besides aggresiveness he was a more flamboyant strokemaker and could even go and give the spinners and pacers a charge on many occasions.
Plus his back lift was higher and the power in the shots he played was pretty different to what it is now too.

These days he is more of a accumulator looking to more nudge and place ball into gaps and not actually take the bowlers on outright like in those days.
Due to injuries and his body getting older the old flamboyance and power in his shots has given way to more economical shot making as well.

If you can't visibly see the change in the 2 styles ,then well i can't say much tbh irrespective of the strikerates.
 

abmk

State 12th Man
Nah.. I can clearly see you have no idea about the game you are talking about.


And as for Multan, I believe we have had enough debates on it here.. You can read my posts from the official threads if you wanna, the point is, he knew very well when the declaration was coming and it was his call on how to bat till then. :) India would have won the match had he batted on? That is extremely subjective because till Sachin got Moin out with the last ball of the day on day 4, we certainly didn't look like winning the game at all.. All those are "what if" questions which can be answered in either direction but generally when a declaration is on the anvil, the batsmen know pretty damn well when it is coming and can adjust and bat accordingly.. This applies for all batsmen.
Sachin got Moin out on the last ball of the 3rd day , not the 4th .

Sachin got to 150* off 295 balls and at the end was 194*(348), 44 runs off the last 53 balls. That is NOT slow by any means.

Yuvraj was taking more of the strike in that partnership . Sachin scored 40(46) and yuvraj 59(66) in that partnership . When yuvraj got out, Dravid declared. There were still 18 ( 15 reducing the time for change over ) overs left in the day

Just stating the facts. Interpret as you will !
 
Last edited:

abmk

State 12th Man
I don't understand why all this "Sachin changed his game" argument came from. He was NEVER that aggressive as a test batsman. He always had innings when he decided to be aggressive but those were exceptions. He was almost always a circumspect and solid batsman with breath taking stroke play shining through intermittently. Almost all of his aggressive knocks have been calculated than just inspired. His natural game is how he plays to this day, exciting stroke play interspersed with solid defence. A bit of an ideal cross between the Dravid school and the Sehwag school, if you will.
You cannot be serious - there is quite a bit of difference in the way he played back then and now, nowadays he is more of a nudger and more of an accumulator rather than the attacking player he used to be in the 90s - yes, he was never very aggressive, but turned it on more than he does these days and was more flamboyant those days

The major difference is against the spinners I'd say. He used to use his feet against them a LOT more . In fact, I'd say the tendulkar of the 90s was a better player of spin bowling than lara , but due to him regressing quite a bit in the 2000s, I'd put him below Lara overall against the spinners.
 

coolkuna

Cricket Spectator
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.
Well again it is subjective. Lara was removed by Donald 6 times in 20 innings, while Tendulkar was removed by Donald 5 times in 20 innings. Not much difference there. If you remember Donald having Lara for breakfast in the 99 series, then you would also remember Lara also going after Donald a lot in the same series (including hitting him four or five boundaries and six in 2 overs). In one of the innings I vaguely remember Donald was actually taken off the attack after Lara had scored 30 runs from just 2 of his overs. He had his revenge though by coming back and getting Lara's wicket. This was Test match cricket. If actual Player vs Player stats are taken I would be surprised if Lara has scored lesser runs just off Donald's bowling in Test cricket than Tendulkar.

Lara might have lacked a big 100 against Donald, but at the end of the day he scored more runs, at a higher average, and at a better strike-rate than Tendulkar in the matches that Donald played in. He was also slightly more consistent (7 50+ scores in 20 innings compared to Tendulkar's 5 50+ scores in 20 innings against Donald). That is enough (in addition to him smashing Donald all over in Test match cricket much more than Tendulkar did) for me to conclude Lara was slightly better against Donald.

Having said that, neither of them were really stellar to my eyes against Donald. And their records do show that. It really is subjective. Donald himself rates Tendulkar as better.

Lara's was a high-risk attack approach against Donald, while Tendulkar's was a steady approach, so I would not be surprised if Lara looked like a jumping-jack. Yes, looks-wise, Tendulkar looked more solid but at the same time (to my eyes) Lara punished Donald far more than what Tendulkar did.

Regarding Waqar, Lara had a decent series with him in 92-93 (216 runs @ 42.3) when Waqar was at his peak, and they actually had great duels in that series. I do remember him and Phil Simmons going after Waqar on a bowler friendly pitch in Barbados in that series. Waqar went for a lot in that Test match.

In any case Waqar himself rated Lara better than Tendulkar (simply because he never bowled to Sachin in Test cricket at his peak).
YouTube - ‪WAQAR YOUNIS ON SIR VIV, BRIAN LARA AND SACHIN TENDULKAR‬‏

Both had very different approaches when playing pace bowling, especially great pace bowlers. Tendulkar's approach was Gavaskarish (steady, see off the good deliveries and attack the bad ones), while Lara was more Richardsish (more attack than defence).

The difference was Tendulkar was much better stroke-player than Gavaskar, so could score runs easily without taking risks, while Lara was not as good at attacking at Richards, and consequently appeared very vulnerable.

To me, both were pretty average against pace. When I say pace, I mean short-pitched pace bowling at the body. Between the two, Lara was clearly better though. Again, since I define better means scoring more runs against that kind of bowling.

Lara took more risks but that was his attitude rather than a technical limitation. All the below videos are decent examples. The deliveries that Lara hooked-pulled-cut ranged from 140 Kmph to 150+ Kmph. Because of his propensity to attack, he might have gotten into a tangle, especially on a pitch with variable bounce, like he did the in the first video below, but he certainly didn't look "hurried" while playing the pull shots at deliveries clocking 150+ Kph.

YouTube - ‪Brian Lara vs Brett Lee 2nd test 2003 Trinidad‬‏

YouTube - ‪RECORD RUN CHASE BY WESTINDIES VS AUSTRALIA 4TH TEST AT ANTIGUA MAY 2003‬‏
(from 7:00 to 13:32 , the square-cut 6 off Lee to begin the innings was pretty good).


My opinions aren't made in stone. I don't have anything against either Lara or Tendulkar. So if you can find Tendulkar videos where he managed to pull-hook-cut short-pitched bowling of that serious pace in Test cricket more frequently than Lara, please do let me know, I will change my mind. From my memory, I can't recall him doing so. Did see his 169 and 111 videos again could not find any hook-pull-cut shots off Donald's short pitched deliveries. Tendulkar generally played it safe and rarely took on short pitched bowling at that high pace in Test match cricket.

Statistically or visually I generally found Lara to be slightly better (again in the sense of scoring more runs and being more aggressive) than Tendulkar more often than not against quality pace in Test match cricket. This doesn't mean Tendulkar was useless. It is just that his play was much more defensive, while Lara's was more attacking. To some, that might be better, since it is safer. To me, it is about how many runs you score at the end of the day.

Yes, Lara might have looked more vulnerable than Tendulkar because of his attacking approach but if at the end of the day he, on average, scored many more runs than Tendulkar against quality pace, the appearance of vulnerability really becomes moot to me. But from what I have seen of both, they were quite behind Vivian Richards and Barry Richards in this aspect though. Again just my opinion. At the end, while Tendulkar lacked a stand-out, stellar series against any of the great pace bowlers of their era, Lara salvaged it a bit with his performances against McGrath.
 

Top