Best After The Don

[centurymaker]

I meant the final against Australia where he was out in the first over after Ponting hit the best ton ever in a final not the last world cup.

ohh yeah I guess so.
I suppose if Ganguly had actually batted first, it may have panned out differently. India were chasing an impossible target against an ALL TIME XI haha

 

[centurymaker]

If your auntie had a dick she'd be your uncle?

LUCK is a HUGE FACTOR

(even play and misses are usually worse than an edge, given they are a bigger error)

 

[Prince EWS]

I mean blackcaps would've won yesterday, if the ball that hit prior on the hemet and then hit the stumps had actually dislodged the bails or if Bell hadn't been dropped, or if Prior hadn't been so lucky in the middle session or if instead of one of the so many play and misses, there had been an edge !! (even in the last over, monty came agonizing close to edging a delivery) .

I hope ppl get what I am saying?

Yeah, it definitely applies to batting. A sample size of one or a couple of innings is always a terrible way to judge a player due to the very nature of batting. One mistake, one good ball, one piece of bad luck and that's your game over. If a bowler shows up in a WC final and sends down 8 overs of complete pies then it's fair to say he's not turned up for the big game given that's actually a sample size of 48 so to speak, but if a batsman gets out second ball it really doesn't tell you much. Every great batting career is littered with dozen of examples of early failures; it's the nature of batting. Actively deciding to give one game massively more value in determining quality because it's more important really handicaps you in getting any significant.

 

[harsh.ag]

I meant the final against Australia where he was out in the first over after Ponting hit the best ton ever in a final not the last world cup.

The best ton ever hit in a final is Sachin's 134 in Sharjah, 1998. Look it up.

 

[honestbharani]

You know, I sometimes wonder if Tendulkar had had an obvious drawback like Lara (and arguably Hammond) did against quality fast bowling (the margins at that level are minimal, but still), how much flak would he have received from the same people who currently extol Lara over him so much. Maybe I am just being silly.

Sachin has an equally obvious weakness in pressure situations.. Translation: All of these are exaggerations.. Didn't Lara smash two or three hundreds against Lee in the 2003 series when he was the quickest in the world? These guys are the best in the world of their generation and it is not easy to be that when you have "obvious" weaknesses.. Add in Ponting there too.. I am always unsure where to rate him coz he started coming into his own as most of the great bowlers of that era apart from his team-mates were fading away.. But greatness is not just how good you are against the best, it is also about how much ahead you can be of the pack against the median level opposition, at least IMO.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sachin has an equally obvious weakness in pressure situations.. Translation: All of these are exaggerations.. Didn't Lara smash two or three hundreds against Lee in the 2003 series when he was the quickest in the world? These guys are the best in the world of their generation and it is not easy to be that when you have "obvious" weaknesses..

I only meant obvious in relation to the group of the 10-15 best batsmen ever. And yes, when compared with those, Lara did have a slight drawback against quality fast bowling.

 

[honestbharani]

I only meant obvious in relation to the group of the 10-15 best batsmen ever. And yes, when compared with those, Lara did have a slight drawback against quality fast bowling.

As I said, that cancels out with the inability of Sachin to make the really big scores, esp. against the best attacks.. To me, this is just nitpicking. Sachin had a different strength compared to Lara who had a different strength compared to Ponting. And the rating comes down to preferences of what you value in a batsman. People who value longevity and consistency over a long period over sustained individual series/game changing performances may prefer Sachin over Lara while others who prefer the latter would prefer Lara over Sachin. I am sure there are other reasons but from a high level, that may be the biggest factor to differentiate the two geniuses.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I agree.

If you offered me 16 year old Tendulkar and 16 year old Lara, and told me their careers would pan out similar to how they did the first time around in terms of their ability and appliciation, but I could only take one of them, I'd take Tendulkar every time. And that's primarily how I rate players.

If you told me I was to select a lineup to play against an all-time great bowling attack and that whoever I picked would be in their prime, however, I'd probably take Lara. And if some people want to give that hypothetical more value in their criteria than the former hypothetical, then who am I to argue their methods?

There's no definite answer here. And that applies to another handful of batsmen too.

 

[doesitmatter]

I just looked up the statistics about the fragility of Lara against fast bowling as mentioned in this thread and In the 90s (remember 90s was equally a good era for fast bowling) and what i found is pitch dictated his scoring along with genuine fast bowling (minus McGrath. Against him he blew hot and cold) and what i mean is all his centuries in the 90s were on batting or spin pitches except perth '97 and when i watched the video of that innings i found something interesting and that is Tony Cozier talking about the how this century would remove the flat track tag hanging over his head or something along those line. Fascinating.

When it comes to Sachin the problem he has is 1) getting uptight during pressure situation 2)of late he stops scoring just before lunch/tea breaks 3) not retiring

Conclusion at their peak if the pitch has something and against all type of bowling i would pick Tendlya and if the pitch is a belter i would pick Lara

 

[kyear2]

I just looked up the statistics about the fragility of Lara against fast bowling as mentioned in this thread and In the 90s (remember 90s was equally a good era for fast bowling) and what i found is pitch dictated his scoring along with genuine fast bowling (minus McGrath. Against him he blew hot and cold) and what i mean is all his centuries in the 90s were on batting or spin pitches except perth '97 and when i watched the video of that innings i found something interesting and that is Tony Cozier talking about the how this century would remove the flat track tag hanging over his head or something along those line. Fascinating.

When it comes to Sachin the problem he has is 1) getting uptight during pressure situation 2)of late he stops scoring just before lunch/tea breaks 3) not retiring

Conclusion at their peak if the pitch has something and against all type of bowling i would pick Tendlya and if the pitch is a belter i would pick Lara

Sachin vs BCL to me comes down to technical brilliance vs creative genius. Sachin has a technical mastery that serves him well and aids in his consistency, Lara's creative genius allows him at times to do things, craft innings and play shots that no one else can.
I will contend that for me Sachin has had the better career, not just over Lara, but everyone else who has played the game, Lara for me at his best was the better batsman.

The fact that Kallis has more votes than Hobbs, Lara, Chappell, Headley and Ponting is a bit surprising to me, yes his raw numbers are just amazing but from watching him he just doesn't match up with his modern contempories. His reputation of batting for himself over the needs of his team and of for the most part of his career being a slow scorer (s/r of 45) are well earned and just pushes him for me below Sachin, Lara and Punter. For me he is probably the third best player of All Time, but as a pure batsman I just can't put him at number two.

 

[centurymaker]

Sachin vs BCL to me comes down to technical brilliance vs creative genius. Sachin has a technical mastery that serves him well and aids in his consistency, Lara's creative genius allows him at times to do things, craft innings and play shots that no one else can.
I will contend that for me Sachin has had the better career, not just over Lara, but everyone else who has played the game, Lara for me at his best was the better batsman.

The fact that Kallis has more votes than Hobbs, Lara, Chappell, Headley and Ponting is a bit surprising to me, yes his raw numbers are just amazing but from watching him he just doesn't match up with his modern contempories. His reputation of batting for himself over the needs of his team and of for the most part of his career being a slow scorer (s/r of 45) are well earned and just pushes him for me below Sachin, Lara and Punter. For me he is probably the third best player of All Time, but as a pure batsman I just can't put him at number two.

Agreed.

maybe ppl are misinterpreting this poll as one for the 2nd best PLAYER ?

 

[Coronis]

Some people consider only raw numbers.

 

[watson]

Some people consider only raw numbers.

People say they look at just the raw numbers in a rational manner - but really they are kidding themselves.

Admittedly, stat's do play a part in judging various cricketers, but really that's only half of it.

In other words, I prefer Brian Lara over Sachin Tendulkar for exactly the same reasons that I prefer the colour green over the colour blue.

 

[harsh.ag]

As I said, that cancels out with the inability of Sachin to make the really big scores, esp. against the best attacks.. To me, this is just nitpicking. Sachin had a different strength compared to Lara who had a different strength compared to Ponting. And the rating comes down to preferences of what you value in a batsman. People who value longevity and consistency over a long period over sustained individual series/game changing performances may prefer Sachin over Lara while others who prefer the latter would prefer Lara over Sachin. I am sure there are other reasons but from a high level, that may be the biggest factor to differentiate the two geniuses.

Sachin vs BCL to me comes down to technical brilliance vs creative genius. Sachin has a technical mastery that serves him well and aids in his consistency, Lara's creative genius allows him at times to do things, craft innings and play shots that no one else can.
I will contend that for me Sachin has had the better career, not just over Lara, but everyone else who has played the game, Lara for me at his best was the better batsman.

My only point was that people talk all the time about Tendulkar's inability to score big, or his slowing down when getting near a hundred, or such things, but Lara is not scrutinized in the same manner. That's it.

 

[watson]

My only point was that people talk all the time about Tendulkar's inability to score big, or his slowing down when getting near a hundred, or such things, but Lara is not scrutinized in the same manner. That's it.

That's because glorious batting covers a multitude of sins.

In other words, we know Lara's faults and deliberately gloss over them because who gives a damn when he's in the groove and the ball is skidding to the cover boundary at a hundred miles an hour.

 

[the big bambino]

why is gavasakar so under rated?

nobody faced better attack (OPENING !! ) and did so well in history of the game.
he set very special world records
no prior experience of facing quick balls
only headley (and hadlee among bowlers) reached this kind of heights in batsman ship from an inferior team. (must give more weightage here).

even his last innings was unbelievable

Dear God not this bull**** again...

 

[the big bambino]

That's because glorious batting covers a multitude of sins.

In other words, we know Lara's faults and deliberately gloss over them because who gives a damn when he's in the groove and the ball is skidding to the cover boundary at a hundred miles an hour.

Actually I think they prove an almost complete absence of sins. I've never seen anyone as capable as Lara of destroying an attack, no matter what bowlers it contained, and scoring the amount of runs needed in such a short space of time.

 

[harsh.ag]

Actually I think they prove an almost complete absence of sins. I've never seen anyone as capable as Lara of destroying an attack, no matter what bowlers it contained, and scoring the amount of runs needed in such a short space of time.

My god man, IVA.

 

[doesitmatter]

Sachin vs BCL to me comes down to technical brilliance vs creative genius. Sachin has a technical mastery that serves him well and aids in his consistency, Lara's creative genius allows him at times to do things, craft innings and play shots that no one else can.
I will contend that for me Sachin has had the better career, not just over Lara, but everyone else who has played the game, Lara for me at his best was the better batsman.

The fact that Kallis has more votes than Hobbs, Lara, Chappell, Headley and Ponting is a bit surprising to me, yes his raw numbers are just amazing but from watching him he just doesn't match up with his modern contempories. His reputation of batting for himself over the needs of his team and of for the most part of his career being a slow scorer (s/r of 45) are well earned and just pushes him for me below Sachin, Lara and Punter. For me he is probably the third best player of All Time, but as a pure batsman I just can't put him at number two.

Creative Genius :
1) Ability to hit good balls for 4 . Has more than one shot for any given ball.
2) Ability to manipulate the field the way you want it to be(lot of times when Lara is picked as no.1 this attribute most often is associated with him)
3) Aesthetically pleasing innings.

All of the above needs a level of creativity when you encounter good sides/good bowlers. w.r.t 1st point i have to say both Lara and Tendulkar are equal. 2nd Lara has an advantage and not by much 3) Lara obviously has an advantage left-hander and all. Tendulkar is not bad either btw . Young Tendulkar's backfoot defence was a thing of beauty let alone his attacking shots.
At this point Lara has an advantage of 2-1 or 2-11/2. Now comes the most important aspect of where they did it (Home or Away) and against whom. Here both have an similar record but Tendulkar comes slightly on top because of his great away record. So the score now is 2-21/2 in Tendulkar's favour.

Technical brilliance :

When it comes to this there is none better than the Indian master. For the first 15 years of his career he was the best as his adaptability in playing great in foreign conditions is ample proof and to just survive so many years or atleast up until 2011 is because of his immaculate technique. Even at Lara's peak his tendency to jump led to a tangle against well directed bouncer (which added to his "creative genius" btw that jump and flick of the ball towards the leg side with one leg up ooh-aah ) .I cannot imagine Lara facing that country c*** Thommo with this technique.

Anyway for me it is Tendulkar by a slight margin as my score indicates and i am not even talking about statistics except for the score i gave myself to each of them above

Is there a proof that Kallis slowness or so called selfish-ness had led to SA defeat or even a draw from a winning position. I don't think so. May be in a few ODIs . So i think he is being unjustly crucified by some. But i agree with you him having more votes than Lara in this batsman poll is sacrilege.

 

[the big bambino]

My god man, IVA.

I hadn't seen better - until I saw Lara.