Brian lara vs Steve Waugh

[kyear2]

Pot say hello to kettle. The nerve....

The actual ****ing nerve of the man.

 

[pardus]

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.

Before I go into breaking down your 'reasons', my main point is, cherrypicking cuts in all ways.
Unless you are biased, if you use cherrypicking for one player (Lara in this case), you will use it for others too.

Sorry to say, these sort of 'Tendulkar was a teen' excuses are so laughably childish. He had been playing professional Test cricket for 3 years then, had scored Test centuries in England and Australia, and was clearly a hardened pro at the time. When you readily count all his accomplishments as a teen, you can't dismiss his failures with that excuse.

In any case, even ignoring Tendulkar's 92-93 series because he was a teen, his series performances against Donald led attacks for rest of his career as a non-teen were as follows:
69 runs in 4 innings at an average of 17.3 in 1996-97 series (home)
241 runs in 6 innings at an average of 40.2 in 1996-97 series (away)
146 runs in 4 innings at an average of 36.5 in 1999-2000 series

So overall (as a non-teen) - Tendulkar scored 456 runs in 14 innings at an average of 32.6 against Donald led attacks.
Incredibly, Tendulkar crossed 50 just twice in those 14 innings as a 'non-teen' against Donald led attacks, which is extremely low consistency by any standards.

This is almost exactly in the same ball park as Lara's stats against Donald led attacks in the 90s (391 runs in 12 innings at an average of 32.6).
Lara has four 50+ scores in those 12 innings.

Needless to say, extremely mediocre for both batsmen (Lara and Tendulkar) of that standard.

BTW - no confusion regarding Tendulkar against South Africa, and against Donald. Just FYI, Donald got Tendulkar just as many times as Cronje did in the same number of Test matches. So if you are advertising that he was a bunny of Cronje then naturally he should be called a bunny of Donald too.

Regarding Donald 'owning' Lara, firstly Donald got Lara 6 times and Tendulkar 5 times, so he 'owned' both. Secondly, Lara took far more risks against Donald, he frequently (albeit stupidly) tried to go after Donald and consequently paid the price.
But this reasoning is quite irrelevant - in comparison to Tendulkar against Donald - because in the end both Lara and Tendulkar ended up with similar mediocre runs/averages against Donald.

Now, with both Lara and Tendulkar at this mediocre level, if you want to use 100s against Donald as if it is a ground breaking success for one, it is up to you. I have seen the likes of Pravin Amre, Kapil Dev, Greg Blewett, Azhar Mehmood, Mohammed Azharuddin, Mike Atherton etc. all score 100s against Donald.
So I can't count it as some sort of a special accomplishment that firmly separates the two in this case, especially given that Lara has significantly higher frequency of 50+ scores and that their overall runs scored and averages are in the same ballpark.

Waugh has a clear cut case over both Lara and Tendulkar on success against Donald (and other great fast bowler led attacks of the 90s in general). But between Lara and Tendulkar - they are both so mediocre (relative to their usual high standards) - there is little to choose.

 

[Jumno]

Although Lara is my favourite player and pleasing to the eye.

Lara did not score a hundred against Donald, Wasim and Waqur.

Didn't face Ambrose or Walsh.

This

 

[Jumno]

Tendulkar scored two hundreds against Donald. Came in at 54-5 under extreme pressure and scored 169.

 

[centurymaker]

BTW - no confusion regarding Tendulkar against South Africa, and against Donald. Just FYI, Donald got Tendulkar just as many times as Cronje did in the same number of Test matches. So if you are advertising that he was a bunny of Cronje then naturally he should be called a bunny of Donald too.

20 innings and Donald got him 5 times, which is just a normal average rate of dismissing someone. Typically there's 4 main bowlers bowling at you, so you get out to a particular strike bowler once every 4th innings. So over 20 innings, the average would be 5 dismissals. So 5/20 is just your typical dismissal rate.

But the difference is Donald would've bowled A LOT more overs at Tendulkar than Cronje would have. And in several innings Cronje wouldn't have even bowled at Tendulkar at all. So Cronje's dismissal rate per innings bowled is much better and despite bowling much fewer overs. So you are statement above is false.

Tendulkar is Cronje's bunny. It's because he kept getting out to him as he didn't like his reduced pace, especially after facing high pace. He was visibly uncomfortable against him.

 

[kyear2]

Before I go into breaking down your 'reasons', my main point is, cherrypicking cuts in all ways.
Unless you are biased, if you use cherrypicking for one player (Lara in this case), you will use it for others too.

Sorry to say, these sort of 'Tendulkar was a teen' excuses are so laughably childish. He had been playing professional Test cricket for 3 years then, had scored Test centuries in England and Australia, and was clearly a hardened pro at the time. When you readily count all his accomplishments as a teen, you can't dismiss his failures with that excuse.

In any case, even ignoring Tendulkar's 92-93 series because he was a teen, his series performances against Donald led attacks for rest of his career as a non-teen were as follows:
69 runs in 4 innings at an average of 17.3 in 1996-97 series (home)
241 runs in 6 innings at an average of 40.2 in 1996-97 series (away)
146 runs in 4 innings at an average of 36.5 in 1999-2000 series

So overall (as a non-teen) - Tendulkar scored 456 runs in 14 innings at an average of 32.6 against Donald led attacks.
Incredibly, Tendulkar crossed 50 just twice in those 14 innings as a 'non-teen' against Donald led attacks, which is extremely low consistency for any standards.

This is almost exactly in the same ball park as Lara's stats against Donald led attacks in the 90s (391 runs in 12 innings at an average of 32.6).
Lara has four 50+ scores in those 12 innings.

Needless to say, extremely mediocre for both batsmen (Lara and Tendulkar) of that standard.

BTW - no confusion regarding Tendulkar against South Africa, and against Donald. Just FYI, Donald got Tendulkar just as many times as Cronje did in the same number of Test matches. So if you are advertising that he was a bunny of Cronje then naturally he should be called a bunny of Donald too.

Regarding Donald 'owning' Lara, firstly Donald got Lara 6 times and Tendulkar 5 times, so he 'owned' both. Secondly, Lara took far more risks against Donald, he frequently (albeit stupidly) tried to go after Donald and consequently paid the price.
But this reasoning is quite irrelevant - in comparison to Tendulkar against Donald - because in the end both Lara and Tendulkar ended up with similar mediocre runs/averages against Donald.

Now, with both Lara and Tendulkar at this mediocre level, if you want to use 100s against Donald as if it is a ground breaking success for one, it is up to you. I have seen the likes of Pravin Amre, Kapil Dev, Greg Blewett, Azhar Mehmood, Mohammed Azharuddin, Mike Atherton etc. all score 100s against Donald.
So I can't count it as some sort of a special accomplishment that firmly separates the two in this case, especially given that Lara has significantly higher frequency of 50+ scores and that their overall runs scored and averages are in the same ballpark.

Waugh has a clear cut case over both Lara and Tendulkar on success against Donald (and other great fast bowler led attacks of the 90s in general). But between Lara and Tendulkar - they are both so mediocre (relative to their usual high standards) - there is little to choose.

Hopefully he'll stop with the stupid arguments and double standards. But knowing him he wouldn't.

 

[pardus]

20 innings and Donald got him 5 times, which is just a normal average rate of dismissing someone. Typically there's 4 main bowlers bowling at you, so you get out to a particular strike bowler once every 4th innings. So over 20 innings, the average would be 5 dismissals. So 5/20 is just your typical dismissal rate.

But the difference is Donald would've bowled A LOT more overs at Tendulkar than Cronje would have. And in several innings Cronje wouldn't have even bowled at Tendulkar at all. So Cronje's dismissal rate per innings bowled is much better and despite bowling much fewer overs. So you are statement above is false.

Tendulkar is Cronje's bunny. It's because he kept getting out to him as he didn't like his reduced pace, especially after facing high pace. He was visibly uncomfortable against him.

I don't disagree with you. But it could go other ways too. For example, one of the occasions that Cronje got Tendulkar was, when he scored 111 in the 1992 Test series. But if you had watched that innings, early on in his innings Tendulkar looked very vulnerable against Donald. He had multiple, uncontrolled, streaky shots against Donald early on in his innings.
Donald should have gotten Tendulkar when he had scored just 10 runs. An express short ball from Donald hit the edge of Tendulkar's bat and was flying straight to the safe hands of Brian McMillan at second slip, however Craig Matthews from third slip jumped in between and messed up, what would have been a straightforward catch for McMillan at second slip.
Donald was visibly distraught after the missed chances.
Tendulkar settled down and scored a brilliant 100 before getting out to Cronje. It was a nothing delivery by Cronje that eventually got Tendulkar. Tendulkar got out by attempting to pull Cronje for a boundary - he was clearly exhausted by then after having scored a 100 and IIRC he was almost the last Indian batsman out in that innings so he wanted to score as many runs as quickly as possible before the tail got bowled out.

So these kind of stats are not always as straightforward. Sometimes batsmen are more watchful against the great fast bowlers and take their chances against lesser ones.

And same goes for any batsman. In 2003-04 WI-Aus series, Andy Bichel got Lara 4 times while Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie and Glenn McGrath got Lara 0 times in that series. Bichel was a medium pacer, exactly the kind of bowler who you'd expect Lara to eat for breakfast. Lara took far more chances against Bichel and consequently got dimissed by Bichel more often too.

 

[subshakerz]

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?

Kindergarten level argument. He gets demerited for his last lousy tours. Touring as a teen is completely different.

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.

BS. It shows you are a superior threat because you have that low stay at the crease against a class attack. Lara not scoring a single ton against Donald/2Ws is a blemish.

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

We don't.

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?

One series as a teen debutant, the other in which he never got dismissed by the 2WS. Is this the same as Lara's struggles against the 2Ws?

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

Maybe you are too slow to catch the argument, but I am responding to the assertion that Tendulkar struggled as much as Lara against the 2Ws. He didn't it's a fact.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Again, I want to know if you really discount the 2001 series or not. Because in other arguments, you will bring up total innings against Donald and use the 2001 series. So it seems you don't care about this argument.

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.

You consider Tendulkar better than Lara and in the other thread you state weaknesses of Laras that mirror mine. You agree Sehwag is better than Lara against spin like me. You eve agreed with me on Ambrose's issues in the second half of his career.

 

[Coronis]

Huh? Just saying Donald started out international cricket as a pretty good bowler since he was already matured and with experience.

Tendulkar having first class and county experience doesn't change the fact that he was physically not even matured at that point.

Just because he was “physically not matured” doesn’t mean mean he wasn’t a good and experienced player.

 

[Coronis]

Scoring tons mean nothing unless he's winning games,

Wut

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Again, I want to know if you really discount the 2001 series or not. Because in other arguments, you will bring up total innings against Donald and use the 2001 series. So it seems you don't care about this argument.


You consider Tendulkar better than Lara and in the other thread you state weaknesses of Laras that mirror mine. You agree Sehwag is better than Lara against spin like me. You eve agreed with me on Ambrose's issues in the second half of his career.

All true and I stated why I rank Sachin over Lara ie their overseas records. I see them as close enough against the best bowlers they both faced. But overseas, Sachin is just better.

 

[subshakerz]

Sorry to say, these sort of 'Tendulkar was a teen' excuses are so laughably childish. He had been playing professional Test cricket for 3 years then, had scored Test centuries in England and Australia, and was clearly a hardened pro at the time. When you readily count all his accomplishments as a teen, you can't dismiss his failures with that excuse.

I'm sorry, but a teen is not as physically mature as other cricketers and Tendulkar displaying the level of success he had away as a teen prodigy is one of crickets great achievements.

Putting an expectation of him to average 45 plus on first away tours as a teen as if in his prime is ridiculous.

In any case, even ignoring Tendulkar's 92-93 series because he was a teen, his series performances against Donald led attacks for rest of his career as a non-teen were as follows:
69 runs in 4 innings at an average of 17.3 in 1996-97 series (home)
241 runs in 6 innings at an average of 40.2 in 1996-97 series (away)
146 runs in 4 innings at an average of 36.5 in 1999-2000 series

So overall (as a non-teen) - Tendulkar scored 456 runs in 14 innings at an average of 32.6 against Donald led attacks.
Incredibly, Tendulkar crossed 50 just twice in those 14 innings as a 'non-teen' against Donald led attacks, which is extremely low consistency by any standards.

Which are problems against SA not just Donald.

BTW - no confusion regarding Tendulkar against South Africa, and against Donald. Just FYI, Donald got Tendulkar just as many times as Cronje did in the same number of Test matches. So if you are advertising that he was a bunny of Cronje then naturally he should be called a bunny of Donald too.

Huh? Makes no sense. Tendulkar having a bogie bowler in Cronje is completely different for him supposedly struggling against Donald. You cant conflate them.

The only reason Lara has as many innings to dilute his out percentage is because he played Donald slightly past his prime in 2001.

Regarding Donald 'owning' Lara, firstly Donald got Lara 6 times and Tendulkar 5 times, so he 'owned' both. Secondly, Lara took far more risks against Donald, he frequently (albeit stupidly) tried to go after Donald and consequently paid the price.

Precisely why Tendulkar played him slightly better. Lara was owned in 98 and Tendulkar was never owned in a series by Donald despite playing in multiple.

But this reasoning is quite irrelevant - in comparison to Tendulkar against Donald - because in the end both Lara and Tendulkar ended up with similar mediocre runs/averages against Donald.

Against SA.

Now, with both Lara and Tendulkar at this mediocre level, if you want to use 100s against Donald as if it is a ground breaking success for one, it is up to you. I have seen the likes of Pravin Amre, Kapil Dev, Greg Blewett, Azhar Mehmood, Mohammed Azharuddin, Mike Atherton etc. all score 100s against Donald.
So I can't count it as some sort of a special accomplishment that firmly separates the two in this case, especially given that Lara has significantly higher frequency of 50+ scores and that their overall runs scored and averages are in the same ballpark.

We aren't saying Tendulkar is simply better because of tons but that Lara has a weakness in his record of no tons against Donald and 2Ws which Tendulkar does not.

 

[subshakerz]

Just because he was “physically not matured” doesn’t mean mean he wasn’t a good and experienced player.

The fact he was physically not matured is why I won't apply those expectations on him and him being good and experienced despite that is simply to his credit.

 

[subshakerz]

So these kind of stats are not always as straightforward. Sometimes batsmen are more watchful against the great fast bowlers and take their chances against lesser ones.

This argument would have more force if you didn't just try and argue Sachin was struggling against Donald based on number of dismissals to Cronje.

 

[pardus]

Hopefully he'll stop with the stupid arguments and double standards. But knowing him he wouldn't.

Spot on

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Again, I want to know if you really discount the 2001 series or not. Because in other arguments, you will bring up total innings against Donald and use the 2001 series. So it seems you don't care about this argument.


You consider Tendulkar better than Lara and in the other thread you state weaknesses of Laras that mirror mine. You agree Sehwag is better than Lara against spin like me. You eve agreed with me on Ambrose's issues in the second half of his career.

Regarding the 2001 series, i bring it up honestly just to make up numbers because even you can agree/ appreciate the fact that one series vs Donald isnt enough to draw conclusions. The 2001 series likely doesn't reflect either players ability because Donald was past it and Lara was still dealing with all his physical and mental issues. I'd have love to have seen prime Lara at home vs Donald.

In 1993 and 1995 series vs Pakistan and Australia we saw prime Lara hold his own vs two prime attacks: the Ws and McWarne. He scored zero hundreds but averaged 43 and 44 vs two challenging attacks. McGrath was early in his development but his rise had to have begun somewhere and imo it was that 1995 series.

 

[subshakerz]

Regarding the 2001 series, i bring it up honestly just to make up numbers

You realise how many times you used this argument though? Now you admit it's just BS. Lara without 2001 had 6 dismissals in 12 innings including the 92 test. So no case that Tendulkar and him had similar struggles against Donald.

In 1993 and 1995 series vs Pakistan and Australia we saw prime Lara hold his own vs two prime attacks: the Ws and McWarne. He scored zero hundreds but averaged 43 and 44 vs two challenging attacks. McGrath was early in his development but his rise had to have begun somewhere and imo it was that 1995 series.

McGrath, Lara only struggled away. 93 Pakistan was before his eye problem when he didn't have pace issues.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

You realise how many times you used this argument though? Now you admit it's just BS. Lara without 2001 had 6 dismissals in 12 innings including the 92 test. So no case that Tendulkar and him had similar struggles against Donald.


McGrath, Lara only struggled away. 93 Pakistan was before his eye problem when he didn't have pace issues.

I'm honestly too tired to do this back and forth with you. Sachin is better than Lara. Imo, because he's better overseas. Infer from anything else I say at your leisure. If other people rate Lara higher than you think that's fine it's their opinion but please stop acting like you're the be all and end all when it comes to cricketing opinion. And I'm not the only one who take issues with your dialog either. Remember that....

 

[subshakerz]

I'm honestly too tired to do this back and forth with you. Sachin is better than Lara. Imo, because he's better overseas. Infer from anything else I say at your leisure. If other people rate Lara higher than you think that's fine it's their opinion but please stop acting like you're the be all and end all when it comes to cricketing opinion. And I'm not the only one who take issues with your dialog either. Remember that....

Let's disengage and take it easy then. No hard feelings.