Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[number11]

SRT has acquired loads of longevity records - most runs/most tons etc, but Lara has a much greater impact footprint. If you take them on their best day - Lara would be superior. That settles it for me.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

SRT has acquired loads of longevity records - most runs/most tons etc, but Lara has a much greater impact footprint. If you take them on their best day - Lara would be superior. That settles it for me.

Yep, and that's how I interpret it and other people will interpret it/assess things different to us - which absolutely fine. I just think that in my opinion, Lara was better than Tendulkar and he is still the best batsman in my eyes that I have seen. Other people will have a different view/opinion....which is of course fair enough too.

They are two very fine batsman. All time greats.

 

[rtramdas]

Definitely SRT was better for me. Had a phase in his career from 1993 Jan 1st to 2011 Mar 30 , where he scored 13608 runs at 59.41 average. In this phase his abroad average was 61+ . His least average in any country was 45 in PAK. Such a towering record!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep in mind this 13608 is still larger than 2nd placed Ricky Ponting's tally.

 

[Silver Line]

Love how strike rate enthusiasts have decided to stop using this metric in tests as soon as cricketweb’s favourite boy tendulkar is seen unfavoured against Lara in that

 

[honestbharani]

cricketweb’s favourite boy tendulkar

You haven't been here long, have you?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Love how strike rate enthusiasts have decided to stop using this metric in tests as soon as cricketweb’s favourite boy tendulkar is seen unfavoured against Lara in that

Your assumption that strike rate is the only reason Tendulkar was being called better than Kallis in that other thread is incorrect.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Not really. Sachin is slightly better. He was better overseas and was a little better vs pace.

You voted Lara

 

[Adorable Asshole]

India vs South Africa Scorecard 1999/00 | Cricket Scorecard

Catch live and detailed score report of India vs South Africa 1st Test 1999/00, South Africa tour of India only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Find the complete scorecard of India vs South Africa 1st Test Online.

www.espncricinfo.com

Tendulkar won this match with his batting and bowling. Lara never managed that. (neither did Kallis clearly)

Kallis as usual sucked when SA won.

 

[ataraxia]

Kallis as usual sucked when SA won.

He took 3–30 (16) in Mumbai ffs, before a match-winning 4th innings knock.

But even if he did, why does that matter?

 

[Himannv]

Love how strike rate enthusiasts have decided to stop using this metric in tests as soon as cricketweb’s favourite boy tendulkar is seen unfavoured against Lara in that

From what I've seen here, there is more support for Lara on this forum than Tendulkar. Lara is most people's favourite batsman, while I don't think there are that many Tendulkar fans on the forum (you get a few here and there). In terms of how they are rated here, I think it's probably at a level where Tendulkar is somewhat underrated now and has his fair share of detractors.

It's players like Kallis who really divide opinion here. Some people falsely believe that he's a top player and better than Sobers or whatever, while other more level-headed individuals clearly don't. There used to be a sheep-like fandom of Sangakkara here, but people have opened their minds more now and see him for the fraud that he is (although you get the odd fanatic with the Sanga posters in his bedroom and wearing patented Sanga underpants - all a bit sad really).

 

[Socerer 01]

fmd i praised the guy in the other thread and here he is back to being a muppet over Tendulkar

 

[Silver Line]

Your assumption that strike rate is the only reason Tendulkar was being called better than Kallis in that other thread is incorrect.

i mean thats the only reply I was given except for the ‘hes more than stats bro’ cope when I showed Kallis being a statistical equal with the bat as him in tests

 

[CricAddict]

Love how strike rate enthusiasts have decided to stop using this metric in tests as soon as cricketweb’s favourite boy tendulkar is seen unfavoured against Lara in that

Any CW posts that you can quote where strike rate is used as a definitive metric in tests to rate players?

 

[ataraxia]

i mean thats the only reply I was given except for the ‘hes more than stats bro’ cope when I showed Kallis being a statistical equal with the bat as him in tests

It's longevity.

 

[Silver Line]

It's longevity.

Its chasing a certain personal record that translates to ‘look how long he’s been here for!’

 

[Silver Line]

Any CW posts that you can quote where strike rate is used as a definitive metric in tests to rate players?

the recent viv vs tendulkar hapenning in the smith vs tendulkar thread

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

From what I've seen here, there is more support for Lara on this forum than Tendulkar. Lara is most people's favourite batsman, while I don't think there are that many Tendulkar fans on the forum (you get a few here and there). In terms of how they are rated here, I think it's probably at a level where Tendulkar is somewhat underrated now and has his fair share of detractors.

It's players like Kallis who really divide opinion here. Some people falsely believe that he's a top player and better than Sobers or whatever, while other more level-headed individuals clearly don't. There used to be a sheep-like fandom of Sangakkara here, but people have opened their minds more now and see him for the fraud that he is (although you get the odd fanatic with the Sanga posters in his bedroom and wearing patented Sanga underpants - all a bit sad really).

I rate Kallis right up there - great player but probably below Lara and Tendulkar. Still though Kallis has an outstanding record.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Perhaps one stat which isn't talked about a lot in cricket (especially Test cricket) is how many times a batsman scores a total of 100+ runs for the match. Its probably a stat that hasnt been regarded or even thought about a lot. Anyway, we know in Test matches that the maximum amount of times a batsman can bat is twice.

So let's look at Tendulkar and Lara.

Tendulkar played 200 Test matches and scored 100+ runs in a Test match 64 times. That means he scored 100+ runs in a match every 3.1 Test matches. If we were to stretch things a bit more and look at 150+ runs scored per Test match - Tendulkar did that 26 times, so he averaged scoring 150+ every 7.6 Test matches.

Lara played 131 Test matches and scored 100+ runs in a Test match on 48 occasions. That means he scored 100+ runs in a match every 2.7 Test matches. Again, if we were to stretch things and look at 150+ runs scored in a Test match, Lara achieved this 25 times, so he averaged scoring 150+ runs every 5.2 Test matches.

My opinion, this is another stat that reflects that there isn't very much between Tendulkar and Lara. Both all time greats.

Cheers.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara for all his limitations did pretty well overall. But it's Tendulkar.

 

[kyear2]

Lara for all his limitations did pretty well overall. But it's Tendulkar.

For all his limitations?

Dude is probably at worse the 7th best bat ever....