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

[centurymaker]

If I'd been at CW when this thread started I'd have said Lara for this one without much hesitation. I think that realistically the stats are too similar to be of much relevance in making that judgment and my reasons would have been that Lara carried a weak line up for a long time and that his best innings, as opposed to his highest, were nothing short of remarkable.

But looking at it in 2011 I'd go for Tendulkar. What has changed my mind is his longevity, a factor which I see some have rubbished. Any thread with a title like this is a measure of greatness and I just don't see how longevity isn't a factor in that - for a bloke in the 21st century to be batting as well as ever more than 20 years on is incredible, and slightly more so than that 153* of Lara's, which would have been my tipping factor back in the day.

Good post

 

[coolkuna]

To be honest, we can never find the conclusion of who of the two scored more against Donald, unless someone reviews all their innings and makes a Player Vs Player stat. To my mind Lara was much more aggressive against Donald. Just looking at this video from minute 7:00 onwards, never really saw Tendulkar go after Donald like that. Lara scored just 39 in that innings of which at least 4 4's and 1 6 came off Donald - as the commentator says "got some stick from Biran Lara"). And also this innings (he really went after Donald again). These are just 2 examples. Of course, Tendulkar could have scored more boundaries off Donald over the course of his 169 than any one innings of Lara. That is not the point here. Unless one posts Player Vs Player stats of all their innings, we would never know.

 

[ankitj]

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.

The bolded part is unsubstantiated.

And Tendulkar in general doesn't have stellar series. He is super consistent but never goes through a phase where he looks impossible to dismiss. Never has scored a century in both innings and has on very rare occasions (can think of only one) has he scored centuries in consecutive tests. This is not something specific to good pace bowlers alone.

 

[hang on]

If I'd been at CW when this thread started I'd have said Lara for this one without much hesitation. I think that realistically the stats are too similar to be of much relevance in making that judgment and my reasons would have been that Lara carried a weak line up for a long time and that his best innings, as opposed to his highest, were nothing short of remarkable.

But looking at it in 2011 I'd go for Tendulkar. What has changed my mind is his longevity, a factor which I see some have rubbished. Any thread with a title like this is a measure of greatness and I just don't see how longevity isn't a factor in that - for a bloke in the 21st century to be batting as well as ever more than 20 years on is incredible, and slightly more so than that 153* of Lara's, which would have been my tipping factor back in the day.

interesting post. and a good one!

i would have lara the better batsman in the earlymid 90s. tendulkar in the mid late 90s and early 2000s. lara in the mid 00s. and now tendulkar. if tendulkar were to, for whatever reason, play for another 3 years, and play atrociously, and his overall stats were to come plummetting down to the early 50s, i would, most probably give it to lara.

and it's not only based on stats, in case one were wondering. it is based on a combination of having watched them a lot over their whole careers.

 

[ankitj]

Yes Donald most certainly did. Along the same lines Donald did have the edge over Tendulkar in the 97 series (especially with the incoming delivery). Again, at the end of the day, Donald got Lara 6 times in 20 innings and Tendulkar 5 times in 20 innings. Not much difference there. As I said, both looked and fared far less than great against Donald.

If at the end of the day Lara scored more runs than Tendulkar in the same number of innings that they played against Donald, the likelihood of him scoring more runs just against Donald is higher IMO.

What about the stand-out/stellar performances then? You are pointing out such stand-out/stellar performances against McGrath when Lara has them, but falling on total runs against Donald when Tendulkar has stand out performances.

 

[abmk]

What about the stand-out/stellar performances then? You are pointing out such stand-out/stellar performances against McGrath when Lara has them, but falling on total runs against Donald when Tendulkar has stand out performances.

Exactly, plus from what I remember Sachin did do better against a peak Donald , like I said the circumstances matter

Ref post

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2599936-post1213.html

Lara did better against Mcgrath overall though.

But again only using these 2 pacers for evaluating how good they were against pace, even quality pace bowling is a bit dumb IMO

 

[hang on]

he, on average, scored many more runs than Tendulkar against quality pace

that is exactly the point, coolkuna. he didn't! i have brought up the stats earlier in the thread. feel free to look at them. let alone many more. he scored less. and fewer 100s too!

 

[hang on]

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

tendulkar vs. quality pace.

 

[coolkuna]

The bolded part is unsubstantiated.

And Tendulkar in general doesn't have stellar series. He is super consistent but never goes through a phase where he looks impossible to dismiss. Never has scored a century in both innings and has on very rare occasions (can think of only one) has he scored centuries in consecutive tests. This is not something specific to good pace bowlers alone.

I don't want to repeat myself again and again . This is just my opinion. Not the Universal Truth. When I say quality pace, I just mean "McGrath/Donald/Akram/Ambrose" led attacks. Not that Pollock or Gillespie aren't great bowlers. I rate them a smidge below McGrath/Donald/Akram/Ambrose. To me these are the best of Tendulkar-Lara era, and Lara certainly has performed better against them (esp. McGrath and Donald) than Tendulkar as I said previously. Again, the selection of bowlers is whom I rate as the best of their era. Just a personal preference. Not choosing bowlers to specifically let Tendulkar down or any such thing.

 

[hang on]

and, carrying on the fun, here's lara "against" the real fastmen:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

including pollock and mcgrath:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;player_involve=10280;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1935;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2101;player_involve=2228;player_involve=5649;player_involve=5966;player_involve=7041;template=results;type=batting

lara against quality pace.

again. not the gospel but a selection of the players i consider to be quality pacemen of the lara and tendulkar era. i repeat, only my opinion and not an attempt to choose only 2 or three bowlers to make tendulkar look better. since i have repeated this ad nauseum, i don't want to do so again.

just my opinion. not universal truth.

 

[ankitj]

In the 3 tests in 99 against Akram led Pakistan, Tendulkar was not dismissed by Akram even once. It was Saqlain who was getting him out again and again. That's the problem with such statistics.

 

[abmk]

I don't want to repeat myself again and again . This is just my opinion. Not the Universal Truth. When I say quality pace, I just mean "McGrath/Donald/Akram/Ambrose" led attacks. Not that Pollock or Gillespie aren't great bowlers. I rate them a smidge below McGrath/Donald/Akram/Ambrose. To me these are the best of Tendulkar-Lara era, and Lara certainly has performed better against them (esp. McGrath and Donald) than Tendulkar as I said previously. Again, the selection of bowlers is whom I rate as the best of their era. Just a personal preference. Not choosing bowlers to specifically let Tendulkar down or any such thing.

still don't see how the hell lara performed better vs donald, in particular a peak Donald. I already dissected those fallacious arguments of yours !

 

[coolkuna]

I clearly said (and am saying again and again - please read my earlier posts too), that I am not relying on stats to decide between Lara and Tendulkar against McGrath/Donald. I don't have to. It is from having seen both bat against these pacemen. However I have to put stats just to show that Lara being slightly better than Tendulkar against Donald isn't as stupid/absurd statement as many are making it to be. And if bowler dismissal summary goes, I don't recall Akram dismissing Lara that often too (2 times in 13 innings). The argument can work both ways.

 

[centurymaker]

The bolded part is unsubstantiated.

And Tendulkar in general doesn't have stellar series. He is super consistent but never goes through a phase where he looks impossible to dismiss. Never has scored a century in both innings and has on very rare occasions (can think of only one) has he scored centuries in consecutive tests. This is not something specific to good pace bowlers alone.

from memory he has never scored more than 2 100s in a series

 

[hang on]

In the 3 tests in 99 against Akram led Pakistan, Tendulkar was not dismissed by Akram even once. It was Saqlain who was getting him out again and again. That's the problem with such statistics.

quite right. but once some one uses such statistics to buttress their claims, it is only fair to also use such stats to counter such claims! or, of course, one could use arguments of the commentator said he took some stick or he hooked and pulled unlike the other chap.

again, just a personal opinion.

 

[hang on]

i am using the evidence of mine own eyes plus stats to make the argument that tendulkar actually was the better batsman against quality pace. of course, only personal opinion. as i have mentioned time and again.

 

[coolkuna]

still don't see how the hell lara performed better vs donald, in particular a peak Donald. I already dissected those fallacious arguments of yours !

As I said previously. And the definition of "better" is subjective. If Lara has scored more runs at a higher average and a better SR, it is good enough for me. And he definitely was more severe on Donald as far as I remember. He looked far more vulnerable too and got out several times trying some unnecessary shots.

Reposting again :
-----------------------------
To be honest, we can never find the conclusion of who of the two scored more specifically against Donald, unless someone reviews all their innings and makes a Player Vs Player stat. To my mind Lara was much more aggressive against Donald. Just looking at this video from minute 7:00 onwards, never really saw Tendulkar go after Donald like that. Lara scored just 39 in that innings of which at least 4 4's and 1 6 came off 2 consecutive overs of Donald - as the commentator says "got some stick from Biran Lara"). And also this innings (he really went after Donald again). These are just 2 examples. Of course, Tendulkar could have scored more boundaries off Donald over the course of his 169 than any one innings of Lara. That is not the point here. Unless one posts Player Vs Player stats of all their innings, we would never know.

 

[abmk]

I clearly said (and am saying again and again - please read my earlier posts too), that I am not relying on stats to decide between Lara and Tendulkar against McGrath/Donald. I don't have to. It is from having seen both bat against these pacemen.

My point. If you've seen them bat vs Donald, its fairly obvious Sachin did better vs Donald ( peak Donald in particular ) . Not sure which matches you were watching. I am using what I watched to write +stats to back up .

However I have to put stats just to show that Lara being slightly better than Tendulkar against Donald isn't as stupid/absurd statement as many are making it to be.

As I pointed out the 2001 series b/w SA and WI - Donald was affected by injuries then and close to retiring from tests . At Donald's peak ( 92-2000 ) this is how it went

Donald getting Sachin out 5 times in 20 innings
Donald getting Lara out 6 times in 12 innings

And if bowler dismissal summary goes, I don't recall Akram dismissing Lara that often too (2 times in 13 innings). The argument can work both ways.

I didn't mention akram. Akram dismissed Sachin only once in 12 or 13 innings.

 

[abmk]

As I said previously. And the definition of "better" is subjective. If Lara has scored more runs at a higher average and a better SR, it is good enough for me. And he definitely was more severe on Donald as far as I remember. He looked far more vulnerable too and got out several times trying some unnecessary shots.

That is not the point here. Unless one posts Player Vs Player stats of all their innings, we would never know.

yes, if he did. But from what I saw and remember, he didn't .

Your logic of Lara would probably have scored more runs vs Donald because he scored a mere 23 runs more vs Sachin in the same no of innings vs SA in those tests is one that is pretty fallacious - that is what I was pointing out.

 

[coolkuna]

yes, if he did. But from what I saw and remember, he didn't .

Your logic of Lara would probably have scored more runs vs Donald because he scored a mere 23 runs more vs Sachin in the same no of innings vs SA in those tests is one that is pretty fallacious - that is what I was pointing out.

Yes, going by the same logic, telling that Sachin scored more runs against Donald, when he actually scored less overall runs is equally, if not more, fallicious too.

The video highlights I gave previously really don't show the complete boundaries that Lara hit off Donald in either of the innings in the 98-99 series (although they do give a hint). I am not basing my opinion on these highlights. I am basing on what I saw. I still maintain Lara was more aggressive and more vulnerable than Tendulkar against Donald. Obviously we would never know unless someone posts a complete list of all the runs they scored against Donald in all their encounters, and their strike-rates against Donald.