• 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.

lara vs tendulkar

Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
sasuke1191 said:
I am amazed at some of you who think Lara is way better then Sachin.

To me, Sachin is slightly superior. Here are my reasons.
Click to expand...
Kinda contradicting yourself there sport. But welcome none the less... Trust me when I say that if you check out some of the older threads, most of those here who prefer Lara have quite rigourously worked through their own arguments - just like the Sachinistas... That's why its an argument that never ends round these parts...
 
S

sasuke1191

Cricket Spectator
Matt79 said:
Kinda contradicting yourself there sport. But welcome none the less... Trust me when I say that if you check out some of the older threads, most of those here who prefer Lara have quite rigourously worked through their own arguments - just like the Sachinistas... That's why its an argument that never ends round these parts...
Click to expand...
thx bud.

I will take a look at some pages, but it will also help if you can tell me what pages have good arguments since it seems you are familiar with this place.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Without wanting to sound like a smartass, there are literally dozens. Try the search button on the task bar at the top of the page to find some of the threads.

Its a good question to debate, but unfortunately you'll find few takers purely because it has been done a lot here in the past. I myself have Sachin slightly, just slightly, ahead, but have no issue with people preferring Lara - they're so close that it becomes a question of what people personally prefer.
 
JBMAC

JBMAC

State Captain
It's not all about stats....it's the way the individual plays the game....so that gives it to Lara
 
sideshowtim

sideshowtim

Banned
It's interesting, there seems to be a divide between cricketers of past and present when you ask them whom is better.

I've seen Ponting and Warne rate Tendulkar as superior. Then guys like Murali rate Lara as superior. Any other perspectives from players? I know Benaud included Tendulkar in his all-time XI over Lara.
 
S

sasuke1191

Cricket Spectator
JBMAC said:
It's not all about stats....it's the way the individual plays the game....so that gives it to Lara
Click to expand...
I agree but what show how the individual play the game? stats does that and so does watching individual player lot of time. Obviously lot of stats can be flawed and they might not tell you the whole story and, for that reason I have provided some deeper stats to distiguish each other.

One player does better in clutch then other is subjective and it very much depends on perspective. I m not saying being subjective is bad. I am just saying it varies. The thing about subjectivity is that it doesnt really have measure stick which is why it is hard to measure which is better. Stats are more tangible so its easier to discuss. Which is why i provided some other stats to clear out the fog of subjectivity.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
sideshowtim said:
It's interesting, there seems to be a divide between cricketers of past and present when you ask them whom is better.

I've seen Ponting and Warne rate Tendulkar as superior. Then guys like Murali rate Lara as superior. Any other perspectives from players? I know Benaud included Tendulkar in his all-time XI over Lara.
Click to expand...
With the likes of Warne and Murali it's much a case of how both batsmen made said wristspinners look almost pedestrian, something no-one else ever did.

I doubt, TBH, that you could trace any discernible pattern in who thinks who's better (other than that West Indians are more likely to prefer Lara, Indians Tendulkar). Like Warne and Murali themselves, the question of who's-better might be interesting if it wasn't so impossible to answer.

If anything annoys me, it's someone who thinks there's an obvious answer, which some do. There isn't. And it annoys me almost as much when people talk about those two and never mention Stephen Waugh, who was every bit in the same category for a long time, but just never looked as convincing.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Its very difficult to chose between two of the alltime greats though being such close contemporaries does make such comparisons more relevant and unavoidable.

I chose Lara over Tendulkar because of Lara's superior footwork (particularly off the backfoot) which also meant that he was better aware of where his stumps were than Tendulkar. This meant that Lara was surer of which ball to play and which to leave than even Sachin who is extremely good himself.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Yea, its a difficult decision. At the end of the nineties, most picked Tendulkar, including Benaud, Bradman, and others. But Lara had some good years post 2002, while Sachin didn't, so people then picked Lara.

I don't really mind if someone picks either.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
I just always thought SRT was slightly better. Better away average and consistency did it for me. Plus SRT has hundreds vs all the greats, bcl missed out on the Donald's and WW of his time.
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think Lara should've been the second best batsman of all-time, but he was just a bit too inconsistent for a significant chunk of his career. It's very odd that he averaged more at the start and the end of his career, but relatively struggled in the middle. Sachin claims it on longevity, for mine.
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Slifer said:
I just always thought SRT was slightly better. Better away average and consistency did it for me. Plus SRT has hundreds vs all the greats, bcl missed out on the Donald's and WW of his time.
Click to expand...
Sachin also didn't play much against Wasim/Waqar and didn't average great against them in '99, but he did make that amazing 136 in Chennai. I think Tendulkar is ahead mainly on longevity, but both were magical batsmen at their peak (Lara a little bit more).
 
jimmy101

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
morgieb said:
I think Lara should've been the second best batsman of all-time, but he was just a bit too inconsistent for a significant chunk of his career. It's very odd that he averaged more at the start and the end of his career, but relatively struggled in the middle. Sachin claims it on longevity, for mine.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, against Australia in particular, Lara would either be untouchable, or get out rather quickly. Rarely did he ever seem to score consistently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top