Brian Lara vs Shane Warne

[Slifer]

Sure. 'Not close' is relative.

Tendulkar is no.2 bat of all time.

Lara is no.7/8.

Warne is the best spinner ever.

Yeah so more of a gap between Lara and Tendulkar than Warne and Lara.

Not close isnt relative not close means far from. Most pundits would say Sachin and Lara are neck and neck, yet you say Warne is more accomplished than,Lara but somehow warne isnt close to Sachin. That makes absolutely no sense. Afaic, Warne should be close to Sachin as well. To pretend like there's a huge gulf (ie not close) between the two is insulting tbh.

And fwiw, Sachin being the number bat of all time is not set in stone. Since you want to use relative, only one spinner in history could replace Warne in a hypothetical At XI. Sachin could realistically be replaced by: Lara, Viv, Chappell, Smith, Hammond, Gary etc. "Oh that's because there are more batsmen." Partly true but there have been a handful of quality spinners: Underwood, Laker, Ashwin, etc but only one measures up to Warne (Murali).

 

[subshakerz]

Not close isnt relative not close means far from. Most pundits would say Sachin and Lara are neck and neck, yet you say Warne is more accomplished than,Lara but somehow warne isnt close to Sachin. That makes absolutely no sense. Afaic, Warne should be close to Sachin as well. To pretend like there's a huge gulf (ie not close) between the two is insulting tbh.

Fair. Tendulkar is notably better than both Lara and Warne.

Pundits overestimate the degree to which Lara and Tendulkar are that close. Tendulkar has a clear edge.

And fwiw, Sachin being the number bat of all time is not set in stone. Since you want to use relative, only one spinner in history could replace Warne in a hypothetical At XI. Sachin could realistically be replaced by: Lara, Viv, Chappell, Smith, Hammond, Gary etc. "Oh that's because there are more batsmen." Partly true but there have been a handful of quality spinners: Underwood, Laker, Ashwin, etc but only one measures up to Warne (Murali).

Tendulkar being better than many more competitors is more impressive than Warne being much better than far fewer competitors except Murali.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not close isnt relative not close means far from. Most pundits would say Sachin and Lara are neck and neck, yet you say Warne is more accomplished than,Lara but somehow warne isnt close to Sachin. That makes absolutely no sense. Afaic, Warne should be close to Sachin as well. To pretend like there's a huge gulf (ie not close) between the two is insulting tbh.

And fwiw, Sachin being the number bat of all time is not set in stone. Since you want to use relative, only one spinner in history could replace Warne in a hypothetical At XI. Sachin could realistically be replaced by: Lara, Viv, Chappell, Smith, Hammond, Gary etc. "Oh that's because there are more batsmen." Partly true but there have been a handful of quality spinners: Underwood, Laker, Ashwin, etc but only one measures up to Warne (Murali).

O'Reilly is another, but agree with your point; there really is no valid logic to suggest Warne and Tendulkar aren't close, let alone that AND Warne is ahead of Lara.

 

[Slifer]

Fair. Tendulkar is notably better than both Lara and Warne.

Pundits overestimate the degree to which Lara and Tendulkar are that close. Tendulkar has a clear edge.


Tendulkar being better than many more competitors is more impressive than Warne being much better than far fewer competitors except Murali.

Tendulkar has a slightly better average, Lara converts 100s slightly better. Only place Sachin is distinctly ahead is away. Sachin has more runs but duh, he's played many more tests. Against the best of the best, both were fairly close. If you can prove otherwise, be my guest.

And so we're clear, I don't disagree with that Sachin in better than Warne but it's close. It's like you taking issue with Kyear when he stated Marshall was the 3rd auto pick for an atg XI.

 

[Coronis]

View attachment 42445

Why the hell are some of those players even on that list?

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar has a slightly better average, Lara converts 100s slightly better. Only place Sachin is distinctly ahead is away. Sachin has more runs but duh, he's played many more tests. Against the best of the best, both were fairly close. If you can prove otherwise, be my guest.

Tendulkar didn't have weaknesses against high pace like Lara as well. And please don't bring out raw averages knowing Tendulkar played them as a teen. In their respective primes, Lara was owned by these bowlers, Tendulkar was never owned.

And so we're clear, I don't disagree with that Sachin in better than Warne but it's close. It's like you taking issue with Kyear when he stated Marshall was the 3rd auto pick for an atg XI.

I dunno, I think a difference of 5-6 places overall on the greatness rankings is notable.

 

[kyear2]

Lara is better marginally. He is tied with Sobers, and only behidn Viv, Sachin and Hobbs, and very very close to Viv. Warne is behind Murali, Marshall, Mcgrath, Imran, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, and not a good prospect for the top 3/4 atleast. More plausible to make a case for Lara as the best after Bradman

Don't think Warne is behind all of those guys.

I have
Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee | Steyn | Warne Murali | Ambrose

And I often shift if I have Steyn ahead of the spinners or behind.

So Warne 5 / 6, Lara 6/7

That's pretty close.

 

[kyear2]

Tendulkar didn't have weaknesses against high pace like Lara as well. And please don't bring out raw averages knowing Tendulkar played them as a teen. In their respective primes, Lara was owned by these bowlers, Tendulkar was never owned.


I dunno, I think a difference of 5-6 places overall on the greatness rankings is notable.

Meh, I have Sachin 7/8 overall ranking and Warne 9/10.

So depending on the person, really not far apart at all.

 

[kyear2]

Tendulkar didn't have weaknesses against high pace like Lara as well. And please don't bring out raw averages knowing Tendulkar played them as a teen. In their respective primes, Lara was owned by these bowlers, Tendulkar was never owned.


I dunno, I think a difference of 5-6 places overall on the greatness rankings is notable.

So Sachin was great and unique because he was a teenaged prodigy, but we can't use the numbers from when he was a teen?

 

[subshakerz]

Meh, I have Sachin 7/8 overall ranking and Warne 9/10.

So depending on the person, really not far apart at all.

Tendulkar way too low.

 

[subshakerz]

So Sachin was great and unique because he was a teenaged prodigy, but we can't use the numbers from when he was a teen?

Huh? You are the same one giving allowance for Sobers teen years.

Tendulkar as a teen scored tons in SENA to his credit but expecting him to average the same is too much.

 

[kyear2]

Huh? You are the same one giving allowance for Sobers teen years.

Tendulkar as a teen scored tons in SENA to his credit but expecting him to average the same is too much.

Ok, let me be clear.

His claim to fame according to you....

Was that he was a before unseen teen prodigy, not to mention averaging 60.in the 90's. So it can be used to his credit but can't be used as a critique?

And yeah, Sobers as a teen was not good, as I've said repeatedly, he kept his place initially based on his fielding. I don't see the comparison where one scenario was one's secret sauce and the other was notably ordinary, at best.

 

[subshakerz]

My top ten greatest cricketers (not necessarily best cricketers):

Bradman
Sobers
Tendulkar
Viv
Imran
Hobbs
Marshall
Hadlee
Warne
Murali or Lara

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, let me be clear.

His claim to fame according to you....

Was that he was a before unseen teen prodigy, not to mention averaging 60.in the 90's. So it can be used to his credit but can't be used as a critique?

Two separate claims. Teen prodigy by scoring tons in difficult places for SC bats.

 

[sayon basak]

My top ten greatest cricketers (not necessarily best cricketers):

Bradman
Sobers
Tendulkar
Viv
Imran
Hobbs
Marshall
Hadlee
Warne
Murali or Lara

Imran both better and greater cricketer than Viv. Hadlee should be ahead of Marshall, rest seems fine. Would personally rate Murali ahead of Warne; and McGrath (and also Kallis) ahead of Lara.

Also in terms of greatness, WG is top 5 for sure.

 

[kyear2]

Imran both better and greater cricketer than Viv. Hadlee should be ahead of Marshall, rest seems fine. Would personally rate Murali ahead of Warne; and McGrath (and also Kallis) ahead of Lara.

According to his method, Viv is up there.

There's a reason he made the Wisden top 5.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Was that he was a before unseen teen prodigy, not to mention averaging 60.in the 90's. So it can be used to his credit but can't be used as a critique?

Tendulkar was a test standard batsman before he was an adult (with decent to great contributions on tours of Pakistan, NZ, England, Aus, SA) which is completely unheard of.

If you include these averages with no context arguing he should be averaging 50 immediately then it's a pretty pointless critique because other comparable batsmen weren't even good enough to play tests at the same age and "ruin" their averages by averaging ~37 like Sachin did.

 

[DrWolverine]

We see so many case of talented cricketers who lose direction once they perform well and get game and money. Sachin was a rare teen prodigy who not only accomplished everything for his talent but also kept a level head and didn’t get distracted to other things.

Tendulkar was a test standard batsman before he was an adult (with decent to great contributions on tours of Pakistan, NZ, England, Aus, SA) which is completely unheard of.

Sachin on April 23rd 1993

25 Tests. 1522 runs. Avg of 45. 5 centuries. 8 fifties.

1989 - 59 against Imran & Akram
1989 - 57 against Akram & Waqar
1990 - 88 against Hadlee
1992 - 73 against Donald

111 @ Johannesburg
114 @ Perth
119 @ Manchester
148 @ Sydney

 

[Coronis]

Tendulkar was a test standard batsman before he was an adult (with decent to great contributions on tours of Pakistan, NZ, England, Aus, SA) which is completely unheard of.

If you include these averages with no context arguing he should be averaging 50 immediately then it's a pretty pointless critique because other comparable batsmen weren't even good enough to play tests at the same age and "ruin" their averages by averaging ~37 like Sachin did.

Of course its unheard of. It didn’t happen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Of course its unheard of. It didn’t happen.

For Tendulkar ? Yeah it did, he played really impressive innings in all those tours .