Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

[trundler]

Th champ of the 90s era was S Waugh. Should be rated higher than both Sachin and Lara. Was better against better bowling attacks.

Only if hiding down the order and running out your partners is the criteria.

 

[Himannv]

Just trying to bring the conversation back to topic

I like how the post right after this takes it back to Sanga again, as more and more people realize that he's a fraud.

 

[subshakerz]

Only if hiding down the order and running out your partners is the criteria.

Waugh was a late order specialist. Hiding suggests that he should have batted 3 or 4 and didn't.

You can demote him for batting late in the order but suggesting he was hiding is just wrong.

 

[trundler]

Also it's very weird to say Tendulkar sneakily improved his record in SA after Donald and Pollock retired as if South Africa didn't have arguably the greatest pacer of all time leading its great as usual attack when Tendulkar had his best ever series there.

Lara is kinda underwhelming away tho.

 

[subshakerz]

Also it's very weird to say Tendulkar sneakily improved his record in SA after Donald and Pollock retired as if South Africa didn't have arguably the greatest pacer of all time leading its great as usual attack when Tendulkar had his best ever series there.

Tendulkar averaged 33, 40, 64, 33 and 81 in five series in SA. The first series he was a teenager and scored a ton against Donald. Overall, a terrific record.

Lara is kinda underwhelming away tho.

Only compared to Tendulkar. The only country Lara suffered in was NZ. India he just played one series.

 

[BazBall21]

Mid in England. One monster series, struggled in the other two. Ponting was more consistent than Lara in England. I do think ultimately with Lara in comparison to Sanga, if he played for SL 2000-2015 he would probably have averaged more than Kumar.

 

[Calm_profit]

Mid in England. One monster series, struggled in the other two. Ponting was more consistent than Lara in England. I do think ultimately with Lara in comparison to Sanga, if he played for SL 2000-2015 he would probably have averaged more than Kumar.

I will discount that 2000 series because he was having eye issues but in 2004 both at away or home(apart from his 400) he failed.

 

[subshakerz]

I will discount that 2000 series because he was having eye issues but in 2004 both at away or home(apart from his 400) he failed.

I mean, that was classic Lara, he would struggle in several series but have one quality knock in the middle or end that would balance it out.

 

[BazBall21]

I will discount that 2000 series because he was having eye issues but in 2004 both at away or home(apart from his 400) he failed.

Didn't know about the eye issues but that is a valid defence. In 2004, he really struggled by and large against a better than normal England attack.

 

[Himannv]

Not sure how anyone claim Lara was substandard against England when he broke the record for most runs scored in an innings against them on multiple occasions and looked effortless while doing it. Sanga couldn’t even look Graeme Swann in the eye ffs.

 

[shortpitched713]

Didnt you just say that average differences can point to playing in a more batting friendly era? Sanga's entire batting career coincided with that.

As did the second half of Tendulkar's career, from 2001. A time period which contains an extended dip in batting production spanning 2006 to 2009, without the excuse of needing to be a wicketkeeper, which could excuse the early career reduction in Sanga's batting production.

 

[shortpitched713]

Good Lord, what have you been smoking?

I watched Tendulkar when he played, as did many others sure. I'd put him on the level of Dravid or Miandad as a batsman. He was certainly extremely talented, and possibly the most aesthetic to watch. That, and his insane longevity I think make people rate him over what he actually was on most given days on a cricket pitch (a very talented, but certainly fallible batsman).

On the other hand, I never saw the hype of "best since Bradman" or other such things I heard at the time, and maybe my perception is a bit colored by the inordinate pedestalizing of him.

Edit: To be clear as well, I always fell on the Lara side of the Lara vs Tendulkar debate. The quality of Lara's greatest performances shone through for mine in a way that Tendulkar's didn't, and I found him to be a greater batsman when it came to asserting himself on any opposition at this very best.

 

[subshakerz]

As did the second half of Tendulkar's career, from 2001. A time period which contains an extended dip in batting production spanning 2006 to 2009, without the excuse of needing to be a wicketkeeper, which could excuse the early career reduction in Sanga's batting production.

No. Tendulkar had five career phases:

1989 to 1992 - Boy wonder phase touring the world and averaging 37 in 21 tests
1993 to 2002 - 10 years, best in the world, averaging 60 plus in 84 tests
2003 to 2006 - Dip due to injuries, averaging 44 in 30 tests
2007 to 2011 - Best in the world again, averaging 60 plus in 42 tests
2011/2 to 2013 - Decline at the end, averaging in the 30s in 23 tests

Tendulkar's dip coincided with his tennis elbow and other injuries as has been fairly well documented. However, before that he had a ten year peak coinciding with some of the top bowlers in the world, and then another five years peak when he was back to full fitness after the 2007 WC.

 

[shortpitched713]

No. Tendulkar had five career phases:

1989 to 1992 - Boy wonder phase touring the world and averaging 37 in 21 tests
1993 to 2002 - 10 years, best in the world, averaging 60 plus in 84 tests
2003 to 2006 - Dip due to injuries, averaging 44 in 30 tests
2007 to 2011 - Best in the world again, averaging 60 plus in 42 tests
2011/2 to 2013 - Decline at the end, averaging in the 30s in 23 tests

Tendulkar's dip coincided with his tennis elbow and other injuries as has been fairly well documented. However, before that he had a ten year peak coinciding with some of the top bowlers in the world, and then another five years peak when he was back to full fitness after the 2007 WC.

I mean, you can split it any way you like, but the dip in form was there. And it happened during the 2001 to 2016 era, which is the "flat pitch era" for mine. If batsmen get less credit for over performing in that "easy" conditions vs those that played in harder batting eras, than why shouldn't they also get extra demerit for under performing in the same said "easy" conditions?

 

[StephenZA]

At least we have moved on to the natural common denominator of the more terrible reasons to have biased opinions regarding Lara vs Tendulkar.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lara would win in a fight

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, you can split it any way you like, but the dip in form was there. And it happened during the 2001 to 2016 era, which is the "flat pitch era" for mine. If batsmen get less credit for over performing in that "easy" conditions vs those that played in harder batting eras, than why shouldn't they also get extra demerit for under performing in the same said "easy" conditions?

Except he didnt underperform. Even with injuries, Tendulkar averaged over 50 in the 2000s.

 

[shortpitched713]

Except he didnt underperform. Even with injuries, Tendulkar averaged over 50 in the 2000s.

I think that's a bit generous. I think we should remember, he had a career's worth of batting even just from the 2000s-ealry 2010s. In that time period, he had a clear inconsistency of performance compared to the earlier half of his career. He had both dizzying heights, but also extended drier spells of the level that could have taken anyone not named Sachin Tendulkar out of the Test side at that highly competitive time for Indian batsmen.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Also it's very weird to say Tendulkar sneakily improved his record in SA after Donald and Pollock retired as if South Africa didn't have arguably the greatest pacer of all time leading its great as usual attack when Tendulkar had his best ever series there.

Lara is kinda underwhelming away tho.

Yes that Sachin-Steyn battle was epic. It was more a commentary on how one series could swing it with the arbitrary cut off of 40 (or any number really), if you’re close enough, or have a monster (or poor) final series.

 

[subshakerz]

I think that's a bit generous. I think we should remember, he had a career's worth of batting even just from the 2000s-ealry 2010s. In that time period, he had a clear inconsistency of performance compared to the earlier half of his career. He had both dizzying heights, but also extended drier spells of the level that could have taken anyone not named Sachin Tendulkar out of the Test side at that highly competitive time for Indian batsmen.

Dude, the only period when he was droppable was towards his last 20 tests at the end.

Even in his injury dip from 2003 to 2006, Tendulkar was averaging 44 and scoring tons, its not like he was Kohli now.

You yourself are judging Tendulkar not performing in the 'flat pitch era' which is basically a decade plus of time. Clearly, over that stretch of time, any players is going to have ups and downs, but he averaged over 50 in this period so by no means is that an underperformance. The most you can say is that he didn't cash in as much as others, but so what? He rose to no.1 again in the rankings by 2011.

Can you name another batsman who has 15 years averaging 60 plus in their career? It is a phenomenal achievement.