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

[abmk]

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.

But I did not use any such logic. I said what I did about the no of runs based on what I saw and remember that - Sachin scored more runs vs Donald. ( in particular the runs he scored in the 2 centuries stand out in my memory )

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.

I am not really arguing about the strike rates . Lara was more aggressive vs Donald, and in general in tests.

Again, this piece of stat is more relevant and revealing :

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

Both had about the same average in those innings.

 

[honestbharani]

But I did not use any such logic. I said what I did about the no of runs based on what I saw and remember that - Sachin scored more runs vs Donald. ( in particular the runs he scored in the 2 centuries stand out in my memory )



I am not really arguing about the strike rates . Lara was more aggressive vs Donald, and in general in tests.

Again, this piece of stat is more relevant and revealing :

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

Both had about the same average in those innings.

Wasim and Waqar or even Warne were never at their peaks against Sachin either.. Honestly, this is just swings and roundabouts of the same point.

 

[abmk]

Wasim and Waqar or even Warne were never at their peaks against Sachin either.. Honestly, this is just swings and roundabouts of the same point.

waqar yes, I never even talked about him in this argument anyways . wasim was still pretty good in 99.

Warne, really ?

BTW it was coolkuna was persisting with using only batting vs Donald/Mcgrath/Wasim/Ambrose as a measure of play against pace bowling, not me. I don't agree with it either.

Hell to me facing a Morkel ( let alone Steyn ! ) in SA in 2010 is by SOME distance tougher than facing waqar in 99

 

[ankitj]

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.

If scoring quick fire 40 and 50 impress you so much, then I am guessing you rate Sehwag higher than Tendulkar.

Just to be clear, No one here really has a problem with rating Lara higher. Most of us just find your reasons unjustified and even factually incorrect. To me, Lara's ability to play Godly match winning scores is certainly a good reason to rate him higher than Tendulkar. But his overall career performance against McGrath, Donald and Akram is not a winner over Tendulkar. Facts don't show that.

 

[honestbharani]

waqar yes, I never even talked about him in this argument anyways . wasim was still pretty good in 99.

Warne, really ?

BTW it was coolkuna was persisting with using only batting vs Donald/Mcgrath/Wasim/Ambrose as a measure of play against pace bowling, not me. I don't agree with it either.

Hell to me facing a Morkel ( let alone Steyn ! ) in SA in 2010 is by SOME distance tougher than facing a waqar in 99

yeah, but he mentions that is how HE sees it and he can see why others can see differently. It is obvious you guys are not gonna change each others views, so can't we just agree to disagree and leave this? I think we have ALL made our points and the new reader is more than welcome to read our posts and form him opinion, although I suspect most guys would already have an opinion on this question before they open this thread and it won't change no matter how convincingly the arguments have been presented from either side.


For mine, I just do not think statsguru-ing either man's career to find "clutching at straws" weaknesses is doing justice to either of them. They were that good and it comes down to your own preference, end of. I don't think I will be too concerned if you took Lara away from my All time XI and gave me Sachin instead and I don't think anyone will feel bad if it happened the opposite way. That, more than anything else, should settle this argument than any stats-picking..

 

[abmk]

yeah, but he mentions that is how HE sees it and he can see why others can see differently. It is obvious you guys are not gonna change each others views, so can't we just agree to disagree and leave this? I think we have ALL made our points and the new reader is more than welcome to read our posts and form him opinion, although I suspect most guys would already have an opinion on this question before they open this thread and it won't change no matter how convincingly the arguments have been presented from either side.


For mine, I just do not think statsguru-ing either man's career to find "clutching at straws" weaknesses is doing justice to either of them. They were that good and it comes down to your own preference, end of. I don't think I will be too concerned if you took Lara away from my All time XI and gave me Sachin instead and I don't think anyone will feel bad if it happened the opposite way. That, more than anything else, should settle this argument than any stats-picking..

I was mainly pointing out to the flaws in his arguments and views about who did better vs Donald. I said what I did based on what I've seen ( and backed it up using stats which I think were a more accurate reflection )

I didn't really go into detail regarding Sachin vs Lara as a whole .

 

[coolkuna]

If scoring quick fire 40 and 50 impress you so much, then I am guessing you rate Sehwag higher than Tendulkar.

Just to be clear, No one here really has a problem with rating Lara higher. Most of us just find your reasons unjustified and even factually incorrect. To me, Lara's ability to play Godly match winning scores is certainly a good reason to rate him higher than Tendulkar. But his overall career performance against McGrath, Donald and Akram is not a winner over Tendulkar. Facts don't show that.

Facts do show that (to me at least) that Lara was better against McGrath. Against Donald it is debatable as both have modest records but I rate Lara slightly better. I never said that just scoring of quick 25s and 30s were more impressive. You are just putting words in my mouth. In the given context, where neither batsman has a particularly impressive record, and neither has a clear-cut winning record over the other, I would rather go for the more aggressive batsman, simply because in my mind, it is better acheivement to score quickly when you are scoring the same number of runs at the end of the day. Again, in the given context.

 

[centurymaker]

yeah, but he mentions that is how HE sees it and he can see why others can see differently. It is obvious you guys are not gonna change each others views, so can't we just agree to disagree and leave this? I think we have ALL made our points and the new reader is more than welcome to read our posts and form him opinion, although I suspect most guys would already have an opinion on this question before they open this thread and it won't change no matter how convincingly the arguments have been presented from either side.


For mine, I just do not think statsguru-ing either man's career to find "clutching at straws" weaknesses is doing justice to either of them. They were that good and it comes down to your own preference, end of. I don't think I will be too concerned if you took Lara away from my All time XI and gave me Sachin instead and I don't think anyone will feel bad if it happened the opposite way. That, more than anything else, should settle this argument than any stats-picking..

+1
Who dug up this **** thread?

 

[ankitj]

Not that I take opinion of ex-cricketers as definitive but Donald rates Tendulkar as the best batsman he bowled to

Allan Donald on Sachin Tendulkar | Cricket Features | Twenty Years of Tendulkar | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[coolkuna]

Not that I take opinion of ex-cricketers as definitive but Donald rates Tendulkar as the best batsman he bowled to

Allan Donald on Sachin Tendulkar | Cricket Features | Twenty Years of Tendulkar | ESPN Cricinfo

I already mentioned Donald's view in my very first post on this topic, and several times again. Donald rates Tendulkar as the best, McGrath, Waqar rate Lara as the best. As I said earlier, to each his own.

 

[centurymaker]

Wasim Akram:
"I have bowled to both Tendulkar and Lara and I have found Lara more attacking. Tendulkar has a tighter technique, no doubt, but Lara can single-handedly win the game for his team. I am not saying Tendulkar cannot do it but Lara has maybe done it more often than him. If you are asking me who the best batsman I have bowled to is, then it's not Tendulkar and not Lara as well. It's Martin Crowe... he was an amazing batsman. Regarding Tendulkar and Lara, I would love to have both in my team! Who wouldn't?"

some time later-
“I dont know what to bowl at him. I bowled an inswinger and he drove me through covers of d front foot. Then I bowled an outswinger and he again punched through covers on the backfoot. He is the toughest batsmen i ‘ve bowled to. ”


Muthiah Muralitharan:
"I have played a lot of cricket against Tendulkar compared to what I have played against Lara. While both are difficult to bowl to, I think Lara plays me better than Tendulkar. That Lara is a left-hander is an advantage to him, but the great thing about him is he launches into the attack straightaway. He uses his feet well against me while Tendulkar relies more on the sweep, I feel. I find Lara tougher."

Glenn McGrath:
"I feel from bowling to those two guys that probably Brian was slightly in front of Sachin when they were both at their peak."

some time before that-
"For me, it's Tendulkar. Both are class acts but I am saying this because I have had more success against Lara than I have against Tendulkar. I think I have a fair idea of what Lara likes and doesn't like and I feel I can make his life at the crease very uncomfortable. He is vulnerable outside the off-stump early on and is not as tight as Tendulkar in defense. I would go for Tendulkar as the best in the world."


Waqar Younis:
"Unfortunately, I have not bowled enough to Tendulkar in Test matches but there is no doubt about his class. I have bowled against Lara and I have had some success against him. I think over the years I would say I have been fifty-fifty against both Tendulkar and Lara. I have got them a few times and they have got runs against me as well. I can never forget a 16-year-old Tendulkar batting on after being struck on the nose by a fast bouncer from me. I think Tendulkar is mentally tougher than Lara."


Jason Gillespie:
"In my opinion it's Tendulkar who is ahead of the two. Mentally stronger than Lara, he has a better technique as well. Tendulkar doesn't get worked up like Lara when the opposition has a few words to say to him. Lara on his day can be destructive, but you have to look at consistency and I think Tendulkar is definitely more consistent than Lara."


Saqlain Mushtaq:
"Both have their good qualities but I feel Tendulkar doesn't give as many chances as Lara does. Lara, once he settles down, can be a better player to watch because of the left-hander's grace and also because he plays more shots. He has played more match-winning innings compared to Tendulkar because he finished off the job once he is in. But Sachin is more compact and puts a heavy price on his wicket. It is more difficult to dislodge Tendulkar compared to Lara."


Andrew Flintoff
"Sachin Tendulkar is a better batsman than brian Lara"


Brett Lee
"I have consistently said that Sachin is the best player I have bowled to. He is like a good bottle of wine, getting better with age. He is one of my favourite players and I am thrilled for him. He got these runs against real pace away from home. He is a true class,"

.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

The real question is can Lara or Tendulkar bat as well as Margaret Gough (otherwise known as Geoff Boycott's grandmother)? Well, not that the two men weren't great players, but I have my doubts.

 

[coolkuna]

.

Yes I see these quotes on Tendulkar fan web-pages all the time.

Just a couple of directly contradicting views (videos and newspaper statements):

Gillespie on Lara and Tendulkar:
YouTube - ‪JASON GILLESPIE ON BRIAN LARA.vob‬‏

McGrath on Lara and Tendulkar:
Lara just slightly ahead of Sachin: McGrath - Express India
In one particular interview McGrath said his score against Tendulkar was 55-45 in his favor, while his score against Lara was 51-49 in his favor. I will dig up the video of that interview when I get some time.

And I also believe in the ESPN round table conference, more former cricketers picked Lara. Yes, they could have changed their mind since.

 

[Dan]

The bolded underlined part is unfortunately where your argument collapses. Why the need for "levelling the field" in the first place? And why take longetivity out of the equation when comparing these two batsmen? You say as if Lara was 'forced' to retire and Sachin somehow 'allowed' to play on for these additional years. Longetivity is every bit a manifestation of a player's discipline. And discipline is what makes a champion out of a merely skilled person.

Such kind of "exclusions" leave a sour taste in the mouth because it kind of rubbishes what Tendulkar did in the last 4 years, as if it never happened at all. What Tendulkar did in the last 4 years is every bit as important as whet he did in the previous 17-18 years. Lara being around or not is irrelevant when comparing the careers of these two batsmen. Right now, it's like comparing 70% of Tendulkar to 100% of lara's career, which is just fail.

As to your not outs argument, not every notout is as a result of left stranded while the 10th wicket had fallen.

I think (i.e. is completely subjective) that to accurately compare the skills of a batsman you need to look at how they compare when playing against the same opposition. What I did by removing everything post-2006 was, in effect, remarkably similar to what you and others have done by limiting the parameters to certain bowlers. What I have done is limit it to bowlers Lara and Tendulkar could both have faced (theoretically, given selection for different tours and whatnot) in a common time period. We do not know how Lara would have coped with Steyn, so I do not see the point in comparing Tendulkar's record against modern (post-Lara) attacks, in addition to his common period stats, against Lara's career record (given Lara's career fits entirely within Sachin's).

I'm not comparing career outcomes, I'm comparing performance over a common time period. Then I looked at a per-innings average, rather than per dismissal. Not penalising Tendulkar for remaining unbeaten more, rather I'm looking at how many runs they score every time they go out to bat. I couldn't care less if Tendulkar had never been dismissed for these purposes, I'm looking at his contribution to the side in each innings he played.

Obviously, if you take longevity into account, Sachin runs away with it. However, over the period in which they both played simultaneously (and don't take this literally again), they both contributed similarly to their teams, on average, each innings. In a team sense, they were equals as batsmen in that common period. You say that longevity, via discipline, makes champions out of merely skilled players. I'm looking at the skills, not the discipline, not the end result. Simply the skills.

For the record, I think Tendulkar is the better batsman, but what I'm trying to put across is that when they were both playing together, they had remarkably similar contributions to their side on a per-innings basis, regardless of how they performed against individual bowlers.

As they say, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[centurymaker]

Yes I see these quotes on Tendulkar fan web-pages all the time.

Just a couple of directly contradicting views (videos and newspaper statements):

Gillespie on Lara and Tendulkar:
YouTube - ‪JASON GILLESPIE ON BRIAN LARA.vob‬‏

McGrath on Lara and Tendulkar:
Lara just slightly ahead of Sachin: McGrath - Express India
In one particular interview McGrath said his score against Tendulkar was 55-45 in his favor, while his score against Lara was 51-49 in his favor. I will dig up the video of that interview when I get some time.

And I also believe in the ESPN round table conference, more former cricketers picked Lara. Yes, they could have changed their mind since.

those statements were made between 04-07, when tendulkar was in a decline (appeared to be finished), so it's pretty easy for these guys to have been somewhat influenced by that.
Plus, opinions change all the time.....

 

[Cevno]

Is it me or is this who played which bowler better thing a bit of a futile argument after a extent.

I mean Mohinder Amarnath had a cracking series the only time the 4 of Garner,Marshall,Holding and Roberts played together .
Does this make him a better player than Gavaskar?

Exactly What use is playing Donald better if you get out to Cronje,Symcox or how much weightage should be given to playing Mcgrath better if you go and fail against the likes of Venkatesh Prasad,Venkatpathy Raju or Zaheer Khan at the time?

Since India and Srilanka did not have any ATG pacers at the time ,does it flat out mean that performances against them do not count in terms of how the players played against pace if they got out to Chaminda Vaas or Javagal Srinath? When on their day these bowlers could run through batting lineups too.

 

[centurymaker]

Is it me or is this who played which bowler better thing a bit of a futile argument after a extent.

I mean Mohinder Amarnath had a cracking series the only time the 4 of Garner,Marshall,Holding and Roberts played together .
Does this make him a better player than Gavaskar?

Exactly What use is playing Donald better if you get out to Cronje,Symcox or what use is playing playing Mcgrath better if you go and fail against the likes of Venkatesh Prasad,Venkatpathy Raju or Zaheer Khan at the time?

Since India and Srilanka did not have any ATG pacers at the time ,does it flat out mean that performances against them do not count in terms of how the players played against pace if they got out to Chaminda Vaas or Javagal Srinath? When on their day these bowlers could run through batting lineups too.

exactly.

 

[Bun]

Is it me or is this who played which bowler better thing a bit of a futile argument after a extent.

I mean Mohinder Amarnath had a cracking series the only time the 4 of Garner,Marshall,Holding and Roberts played together .
Does this make him a better player than Gavaskar?

Exactly What use is playing Donald better if you get out to Cronje,Symcox or how much weightage should be given to playing Mcgrath better if you go and fail against the likes of Venkatesh Prasad,Venkatpathy Raju or Zaheer Khan at the time?

Since India and Srilanka did not have any ATG pacers at the time ,does it flat out mean that performances against them do not count in terms of how the players played against pace if they got out to Chaminda Vaas or Javagal Srinath? When on their day these bowlers could run through batting lineups too.

super

 

[J_C]

From what I remember, Lara was generally worse than Tendulkar against most of the great attacks/bowlers in live games but did a helluva lot better in dead rubbers. I am not much of a stats man (true story!) but I'm glad that the stats seem to confirm this.

Here are their stats against the ATG bowling pairs of the 90s...

In live matches against McWarne,

Tendulkar averaged 45.25 with 2 tons,
Lara averaged 42.16 with 2 tons,

In live matches against Donald & Pollock

Tendulkar averaged 42.87 with 1 ton,
Lara averaged 32.16 without a hundred,

In live matches against Wasim & Waqar,

Tendulkar averaged 39.71 with 1 ton,
Lara averaged 31.14 without a hundred.

Tendulkar seems well ahead to me (at least against Pollock/Donald and the W's). He is also surprisingly ahead against McWarne even though he got little to no oppurtunities against them during his best years compared to Lara. I get similar results when I check their stats against (what I consider) formidable Australian, SA and Pakistani attacks....

Tendulkar averages 45.25 in 6 live Tests (1999, 2001, 2004) against quality Australian attacks.

Lara averages 41.68 in 19 live Tests ( 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005) against quality Australian attacks.


Tendulkar averages 32.91 in 7 live Tests (1989,1999) against quality Pakistani attacks.

Lara averages 28.67 from in 5 live Tests (1990,1993,1997) against quality Pakistani attacks.


Tendulkar averages 34.11 in 10 live Tests (1992,1996,1997,2000) against quality SA attacks.

Lara averages 33.35 in 7 live Tests (1992,1998,2001) against quality SA attacks.

And yet Lara seems to do FAR better than Tendulkar against the same attacks in dead rubbers! I get similar results even when I see their OVERALL records against Test-standard sides. Tendulkar averages 53+ and Lara 52+ overall. But Lara's average drops down to 48+ whereas Tendulkar's pretty much the same in live Tests.

My intention here is not to portray Lara as a dead rubber bully (even though the stats do sort of suggest that! ) nor am I saying Tendulkar's superior stats in live Tests (against the ATG attacks and otherwise) definitively make him the better player. What I do want to point out is that it's Lara's performances in ...slightly less meaningful games that gives him the edge over/reduces the gap between him and Sachin against the best attacks/overall. That's it.

 

[honestbharani]

From what I remember, Lara was generally worse than Tendulkar against most of the great attacks/bowlers in live games but did a helluva lot better in dead rubbers. I am not much of a stats man (true story!) but I'm glad that the stats seem to confirm this.

Here are their stats against the ATG bowling pairs of the 90s...

In live matches against McWarne,

Tendulkar averaged 45.25 with 2 tons,
Lara averaged 42.16 with 2 tons,

In live matches against Donald & Pollock

Tendulkar averaged 42.87 with 1 ton,
Lara averaged 32.16 without a hundred,

In live matches against Wasim & Waqar,

Tendulkar averaged 39.71 with 1 ton,
Lara averaged 31.14 without a hundred.

Tendulkar seems well ahead to me (at least against Pollock/Donald and the W's). He is also surprisingly ahead against McWarne even though he got little to no oppurtunities against them during his best years compared to Lara. I get similar results when I check their stats against (what I consider) formidable Australian, SA and Pakistani attacks....

Tendulkar averages 45.25 in 6 live Tests (1999, 2001, 2004) against quality Australian attacks.

Lara averages 41.68 in 19 live Tests ( 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005) against quality Australian attacks.


Tendulkar averages 32.91 in 7 live Tests (1989,1999) against quality Pakistani attacks.

Lara averages 28.67 from in 5 live Tests (1990,1993,1997) against quality Pakistani attacks.


Tendulkar averages 34.11 in 10 live Tests (1992,1996,1997,2000) against quality SA attacks.

Lara averages 33.35 in 7 live Tests (1992,1998,2001) against quality SA attacks.

And yet Lara seems to do FAR better than Tendulkar against the same attacks in dead rubbers! I get similar results even when I see their OVERALL records against Test-standard sides. Tendulkar averages 53+ and Lara 52+ overall. But Lara's average drops down to 48+ whereas Tendulkar's pretty much the same in live Tests.

My intention here is not to portray Lara as a dead rubber bully (even though the stats do sort of suggest that! ) nor am I saying Tendulkar's superior stats in live Tests (against the ATG attacks and otherwise) definitively make him the better player. What I do want to point out is that it's Lara's performances in ...slightly less meaningful games that gives him the edge over/reduces the gap between him and Sachin against the best attacks/overall. That's it.

Jeez..more clutching at straws.. You do understand that those dead rubbers won't have happened if the Windies were as good as India were in the noughties????????????????