lara vs tendulkar

[Pratters]

I have seen a of people argue than Warme wasn't at his best during that series. However, he was bowling really well. I remember he got SRT in the first test vividly and I was like, wow, game on.

 

[jimmy101]

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

Wow that Mumbai middle order of Manjrekar, SRT, Kambli & Muzumdar is pretty solid.

 

[Top_Cat]

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

Pretty sure people still talk about that knock. Rare a warm-up ton gets the press it did.

Warne, from memory, was coming back from finger surgery only a few months before that tour so he wasn't deploying his usual weapons that smashed NZ/SA at home with the usual effect. He was still spinning them miles and it's fair point whether, even if had he been nailing his flipper again, it would have made any difference on Indian tracks against guys who actually knew how to play spin.

 

[Slifer]

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.

McGrath yeah but warne would've made zero difference. Indians eat leg spin for breakfast.

 

[Pratters]

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.

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 ..

Thought I will go in detail about this.

50+scores/completed innings (not outs don't count like for average)

Career:

Tendulkar 41% (remarkably high)
Lara 36% (High, too)

v all except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe:

Tendulkar: 39.3%
Lara: 35.6%

So, the gap does close when we discount Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but Tendulkar is still ahead and had a longer career too.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Which was a better name?

Sydney or Arjun

 

[Slifer]

Thought I will go in detail about this.

50+scores/completed innings (not outs don't count like for average)

Career:

Tendulkar 41% (remarkably high)
Lara 36% (High, too)

v all except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe:

Tendulkar: 39.3%
Lara: 35.6%

So, the gap does close when we discount Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but Tendulkar is still ahead and had a longer career too.

So then the difference isn't that huge. Plus I believe they have a similar conversion rate for 100s ie matches per century.

 

[stephen]

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

I was more referring to India being competitive in Australia.

 

[stephen]

Pretty sure people still talk about that knock. Rare a warm-up ton gets the press it did.

Warne, from memory, was coming back from finger surgery only a few months before that tour so he wasn't deploying his usual weapons that smashed NZ/SA at home with the usual effect. He was still spinning them miles and it's fair point whether, even if had he been nailing his flipper again, it would have made any difference on Indian tracks against guys who actually knew how to play spin.

His flipper was his deadliest weapon though. It was brutal and was what made him so effective from 93-97. He got so many batsmen out to it and it was part of the reason he was rated as the best ever at that point. I don't think Indian's had a genetic ability to magically play Warne. It came from specific preparation and Warne's lack of flipper/injured shoulder. Warne was never as good after 1997 as he was before and it was because he'd lost his main weapon. The fact that he managed to have that golden run from 2002-2007 was due to his increased smarts as a bowler rather than his raw abilities.

 

[Slifer]

Injury or not Shane Warne and any other spinner would've been owned by Indians.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was more referring to India being competitive in Australia.

Well India weren't competitive at all in 1999-2000. 2003/04 was the only really competitive series, as you mentioned against a second-string attack.

2007/08 wasn't too one-sided but was still a relatively comfortable home win despite India caught being racist and cheating and threatening to go home

 

[Top_Cat]

His flipper was his deadliest weapon though. It was brutal and was what made him so effective from 93-97. He got so many batsmen out to it and it was part of the reason he was rated as the best ever at that point. I don't think Indian's had a genetic ability to magically play Warne. It came from specific preparation and Warne's lack of flipper/injured shoulder. Warne was never as good after 1997 as he was before and it was because he'd lost his main weapon. The fact that he managed to have that golden run from 2002-2007 was due to his increased smarts as a bowler rather than his raw abilities.

It’s all moot, really, but I don’t think the flipper would have helped him in India, Indian decks at the time wouldn’t have allowed it the skid the ball needs to be effective. It’s true Warne took some time to rebuild his game plan when it couldn’t be his main weapon but even when he had a reasonable series in India in the 00s, boy did he have to plough through some overs for them.

And no, the Indian players of the time didn’t have a magical ability to play spin better, they were just better at it because they had a lot of exposure to plenty of good spin, Sidhu especially was just immense in ‘98 but there were plenty of guys good against spin throughout his career. Even Murali averaged in the 40s in India and, even at his best, I doubt Warne would have gotten that average south of 35.

 

[Logan]

Lara got owned by Donald and co too. Lara had 0 hundred iicr. Sachin at least played some great innings vs SA.

Lara scores 4 centuries against SouthAfrica and all of them were after Donald retired.

Donald was probably the best bowler of the 90s. He was the fastest. He excelled in all tracks. He had a sub 23 average and sub 50 strike against all countries. The only blemish on his great career was his mediocre record against Australia.

Injury or not Shane Warne and any other spinner would've been owned by Indians.

Even Muralitharan who I consider slightly better than Warne struggled against India. Even Shane Warne at his peak couldn’t have done much against India.

 

[stephen]

Murali struggling against India in India makes even less sense than Warne struggling there. Warne had a decent but not great series in 2004 (the only series he was actually fit) but Murali should have dominated India.

The number of times India have collapsed against mediocre part time finger spin is incredible. I always wondered why Murali never really ripped them a new one.

 

[stephen]

Lara scores 4 centuries against SouthAfrica and all of them were after Donald retired.

Donald was probably the best bowler of the 90s. He was the fastest. He excelled in all tracks. He had a sub 23 average and sub 50 strike against all countries. The only blemish on his great career was his mediocre record against Australia.

Given Australia were the best team for most of the time Donald played it's a black mark against him, however not a huge one since most of that statistical anomaly was an end-of-career Donald running into a rampaging Hayden and Ponting.

Still, I'd rate Ambrose ahead of Donald in the 90s and many would also rate Wasim, Waqar and possibly McGrath higher (though McGrath probably wasn't as good as Donald through the 90s).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Murali didn't struggle against India, only in India. He dominated India at home. Might have something to do with the differences between the SG and Kookaburra. Lots of SC spinners struggled in one of India/SL while doing very well in the other country. Harbhajan, Kumble struggled in SL, Herath in India.

 

[trundler]

Got Tendulkar out 8 times, I think.

 

[trundler]

Is it fair to say Lara was better against Murali and Sachin against Warne?

 

[Slifer]

Is it fair to say Lara was better against Murali and Sachin against Warne?

Probably. But I'd say Lara never really had a go at Warne without McGrath being present to contain him.

 

[Jack1]

I'd say Tendulkar and to be honest I didn't even have a second thought. Lara is good at destroying mediocre attacks and smelling blood however (monster hundreds).

I'm just going off the top of my head as I can't be bothered crunching the numbers and looking up stats. Happy to be proven wrong, but it did seem to be the case to me. Tendulkar is more versatile too as he can bat up and down the order a bit more and better in limited overs in my view. Obviously I went with a blanket statement, but I can't be bothered looking at the numbers right now. Lara is obviously an ATG, as is Tendulkar. But Tendulkar for me..