Brian lara vs Steve Waugh

[subshakerz]

Okay, you viewing Lara as unprofessional is also whatever

I mean, you will get tons of commentary saying the same of Lara at the time. Even @Sliferxxxx said this. And yeah it doesn't reflect well on him and is not a valid excuse for lack of performance.

 

[Johan]

I mean, you will get tons of commentary saying the same of Lara at the time. Even @Sliferxxxx said this. And yeah it doesn't reflect well on him and is not a valid excuse for lack of performance.

I believe it to be a valid excuse for lack of brilliance rather than a technical issue, and Yeah, Lara being unprofessional at the time is a completely understandable take, makes sense if you penalize him against Tendulkar for that.

 

[subshakerz]

this was made when Tendulkar was 29 aka from 20 years ago, in a recent interview he said Tendulkar was technically the best while calling Lara brilliant himself and a genius instead of dissing him, back to square one.

Sheesh he literally in that interview declares Tendulkar no. 1 and Lara no.2.

 

[subshakerz]

I believe it to be a valid excuse for lack of brilliance rather than a technical issue, and Yeah, Lara being unprofessional at the time is a completely understandable take, makes sense if you penalize him against Tendulkar for that.

Ok becuse cricket isnt just technical but also about temperament and that's where Tendulkar to me also edges Lara.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Oh God not this again...

Smith is a new one though.

I'll give you credit for not even trying to deny any of my assertions. Admitting you have a problem is half the battle....

 

[Johan]

Sheesh he literally in that interview declares Tendulkar no. 1 and Lara no.2.

He says Tendulkar is technically the best while Lara is the best strokemaker, very different to him saying Lara isn't even in that class 25 years back

 

[Johan]

Ok becuse cricket isnt just technical but also about temperament and that's where Tendulkar to me also edges Lara.

I'd say their character being reflective of their overall value to a team is a fine argument.

 

[subshakerz]

He says Tendulkar is technically the best while Lara is the best strokemaker, very different to him saying Lara isn't even in that class 25 years back

Sure, perhaps Lara's late surge in the 2000s helped but my point is he always considered Tendulkar the best bat he played.

 

[subshakerz]

I'll give you credit for not even trying to deny any of my assertions. Admitting you have a problem is half the battle....

No what is strange is that you fundamentally agree with me on my points but still argue.

 

[Johan]

Sure, perhaps Lara's late surge in the 2000s helped but my point is he always considered Tendulkar the best bat he played.

Or the more likely, Donald just got over Lara's behaviour in 98 and didn't have any bitterness left and thus rated those two as best even though their output against him stinks and is worse than Michael Atherton

 

[subshakerz]

Or the more likely, Donald just got over Lara's behaviour in 98 and didn't have any bitterness left and thus rated those two as best even though their output against him stinks and is worse than Michael Atherton

I never claimed Tendulkar dominated Donald but I just think looking at context it's clear Lara struggled relatively more due to that 98 series in both of their primes

 

[Sliferxxxx]

I never claimed Tendulkar dominated Donald but I just think looking at context it's clear Lara struggled relatively more due to that 98 series in both of their primes

So in other words, you're drawing conclusions with Lara vs Donald based on that ONE series?

 

[subshakerz]

So in other words, you're drawing conclusions with Lara vs Donald based on that ONE series?

The conclusion being that Lara struggled more that series than prime Tendulkar ever did against Donald in 96, 97 and 2000 when he lost his wicket once a series. Lara got owned that series.and.lost his wicket 5 times. And he never scored a ton, even if we include the 92 test and 2001 series when Donald was past his prime.

And just to remind, it is the the critics who are drawing conclusions that Tendulkar and Lara did equally bad against Donald. Just not true.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

The conclusion being that Lara struggled more that series than prime Tendulkar ever did against Donald in 96, 97 and 2000 when he lost his wicket once a series. Lara got owned that series.and.lost his wicket 5 times. And he never scored a ton, even if we include the 92 test and 2001 series when Donald was past his prime.

And just to remind, it is the the critics who are drawing conclusions that Tendulkar and Lara did equally bad against Donald. Just not true.

Yeah but we can't include 2001, you said so yourself since Donald was past his prime. And lol for even suggesting '92 So you're doing something pretty Anti-Subzy ie drawing conclusions based on ONE series. Maybe better to say, Lara is untested vs Donald relative to Sachin.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

No what is strange is that you fundamentally agree with me on my points but still argue.

You don't have points you have vendettas....

 

[subshakerz]

You don't have points you have vendettas....

Well you still agree with my conclusions bro

 

[subshakerz]

Maybe better to say, Lara is untested vs Donald relative to Sachin.

Lol is that what your side is arguing now? What happened to your raw averages? Just stick to one argument that I can respond to.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Lol is that what your side is arguing now? What happened to your raw averages? Just stick to one argument that I can respond to.

No the untested stuff just popped into my head based on a prior debate that we had. You know the one. As always, i appreciate your insight.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Well you still agree with my conclusions bro

No I don't not all. I've literally always said yes I rate Sachin over Lara overall but that's only due to Sachin being better overseas. Against the best bowlers that they both faced: fast, medium fast and spin Sachin and Lara are on a similar plane.

Let me say it louder for those in the back who didn't hear me. I consider Sachin to be 2nd best batsman of all time and slightly better than Lara. And only better than Lara because he's better overseas. He isn't better because he supposedly did markedly better than Lara vs the better bowlers that they both faced because he didn't.

 

[kyear2]

If you look without context, only then it seems Lara and Tendulkar against Donald are equal.

But Tendulkar played Donald as a teen, Lara didn't.

Tendulkar scored two tons against Donald, Lara didn't.

Tendulkar never got owned again and again by Donald in a series, Lara did.

As usual, you critics confuse performance against SA in that period with performance against Donald.

So he gets credit for all the great things he did as a teen, but with regards to SA and Aus it doesn't count?

And the tons argument is stupid in trying to show superiority, because if you score two tons to none and end up with similar averages, again what does that say about the overall performances.

And you can't take credit for the hundreds and disavow the other performances.

Now no one cares about this, but it's something you're continuously harping about re Lara.

And Pakistan 7 tests @ 32, again, yes the hundred but does that tell a story of dominance?

The way you tell he he slayed before the 2000's vs the WWs and Donald and Pollock and Lara was useless against them.

And stop it, he either scored runs against Donald and co or he didn't. And he didn't.