lara vs tendulkar

[trundler]

Tendulkar scored two great tons vs Donald (one in 92 and the one at Capetown in 97), and a great innings of 97 in the 2000 home series too. Lara had a bunch of attractive but ultimately forgettable fifties.

Lara's record against the great Australian attacks is virtually unmatched though.

Huh, always thought it was one. Sachin has a great attack against Australia which I think is more well-rounded. Fewer stellar performances but Lara got most of his runs in Australia vs Australia at the Adelaide Oval only. Further proof that Sachin was better against true pace. Not saying his is a superior record because Lara did some unbelievable things.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Guess I was half right. 32 with 2 tons.

 

[akilana]

Tendulkar scored two great tons vs Donald (one in 92 and the one at Capetown in 97), and a great innings of 97 in the 2000 home series too. Lara had a bunch of attractive but ultimately forgettable fifties.

Lara's record against the great Australian attacks is virtually unmatched though.

He played a few great knocks against them but was also terrible in few of the series and only hit hundreds when the series was already decided.
...probably matched by VVS

 

[Slifer]

He played a few great knocks against them but was also terrible in few of the series and only hit hundreds when the series was already decided.
...probably matched by VVS

Dude u are high. Lara had 2 bad series 97 and 00 in oz. In '97 yeah he scored a dead rubber hundred and in the other series '00 he scored 182 in the 3rd of 5 tests. In his last series in oz, Lara was outdone by fked up umpiring. Otherwise he was very good to outstanding vs oz. 92 he made 277 to drag wi from the brink. 95 he averaged 43 which wasnt atg or anything but far from a failure. 99 no comment, SRT has nothing in his cv to match the 99 series. Lara repeated more of the same in the 2003 series in wi if vs a lesser attack.

I think srt is overall better but don't come with these bs generalizations of bcl vs oz.

 

[Coronis]

The only thing going for Tendulkar ahead of Lara is a longer career tbh. That doesn't make Tendulkar better than Lara, just as a long career doesn't make Hobbs better than Sobers, say.

Just not true. Tendulkar overall was a far more consistent batsmen against all comers.

 

[Slifer]

Just not true. Tendulkar overall was a far more consistent batsmen against all comers.

Against all comers?? Having not looked at the stats but I believe Lara averaged more vs RSA, PAK, SL, and ENG (?). Both were great vs Oz. I believe Lara did suck vs India whereas Srt was better vs the WI. Also FWIW, Tendy did play alot more tests vs Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. So overall yeah Tendy was more consistent but not by any huge amt and not vs all comers.

 

[stephen]

SRT faced easier Australian bowling attacks than Lara did.

Both fantastic batsmen and I remember both breaking my heart on a number of occasions. That double hundred Lara scored against us on the early 90s was easily the most depressed I've ever been about an opposition batting innings.

 

[Slifer]

SRT faced easier Australian bowling attacks than Lara did.

Both fantastic batsmen and I remember both breaking my heart on a number of occasions. That double hundred Lara scored against us on the early 90s was easily the most depressed I've ever been about an opposition batting innings.

Lol at the last sentence.

 

[TheJediBrah]

that's a good point Stephen, now that you mention it Sachin did get a bit lucky when playing Australia with McGrath being injured on a couple of occasions. Rarely had to face Gillespie either I think?

Lara always tended to be up against full strength Aus attacks though (except a Warne-less Aus in 2000 but they had MacGill who was just about as good anyway)

 

[Pratters]

Just not true. Tendulkar overall was a far more consistent batsmen against all comers.

I have always heard this but let's show some stats. How was Tendulkar far more 'consistent'? Not that it answers the question per say ..

 

[vcs]

Tendulkar scored two great tons vs Donald (one in 92 and the one at Capetown in 97), and a great innings of 97 in the 2000 home series too. Lara had a bunch of attractive but ultimately forgettable fifties.

Lara's record against the great Australian attacks is virtually unmatched though.

His 155 in Bloemfontein in 2001 was also great when Sehwag hit 100 on debut. Maybe Donald sat out that one but SA still had a strong attack.

 

[stephen]

that's a good point Stephen, now that you mention it Sachin did get a bit lucky when playing Australia with McGrath being injured on a couple of occasions. Rarely had to face Gillespie either I think?

Lara always tended to be up against full strength Aus attacks though (except a Warne-less Aus in 2000 but they had MacGill who was just about as good anyway)

Part of the reason India were so competitive against Australia between 1998 and 2008 was because McGrath and Warne were often either completely missing due to injury or suspension or were playing injured or recovering from injury.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Part of the reason India were so competitive against Australia between 1998 and 2008 was because McGrath and Warne were often either completely missing due to injury or suspension or were playing injured or recovering from injury.

The only reason Australia beat India in India is because Tendulkar basically didn't have a functioning elbow.

 

[vcs]

The only reason Australia beat India in India is because Tendulkar basically didn't have a functioning elbow.

Don't forget the rain saving them in Chennai. Sehwag would have knocked off the 200 odd runs in 30 overs, otherwise.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar's failures v Donald and McGrath are a bir over stated, has to be said. Against top notch bowlers at their best, most players usually dont have great records.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don't forget the rain saving them in Chennai. Sehwag would have knocked off the 200 odd runs in 30 overs, otherwise.

And they got a perfect pitch made for them at nagpur. Cheating aussies doctoring pitches even away from home.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The only reason Australia beat India in India is because Tendulkar basically didn't have a functioning elbow.

Please, that series wasn't even really close. India could have had a whole extra star batsman in their team and 11 wickets per innings and still not won. Aus dominated despite missing their captain and the best batsman of the decade throughout. The only reason it was 2-1 and not 3-0 was because of a horrendously doctored pitch in the Mumbai dead rubber (Michael Clarke 6-9 lmfao)

 

[vcs]

Why are you bringing logic into it, I thought we were dismissing wins by teams we didn't like based on pointless hypotheticals

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why are you bringing logic into it

never been accused of that before

 

[Top_Cat]

Sachin was only so dominant in the 1998 series because Sidhu pummelled the Aussie bowlers, softening them up for a downhill ton.

**** you all.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sachin was only so dominant in the 1998 series because Sidhu pummelled the Aussie bowlers, softening them up for a downhill ton.

**** you all.

Pssshhhh Tendulkar chewed up Warne and spat him out in this game which broke him mentally for the rest of the tour:

Mumbai v Australians at Mumbai (Brabourne), 24-26 February 1998