Brian lara vs Steve Waugh

[subshakerz]

I really don't think so personally. He had more dry series vs the WI than good ones, didn't do that well vs the Ws and didn't have to face his own attack which was the best in the world. Very good record vs a tough SA attack yes. Just statistically, I don't think that's enough to overtake Tendulkar who averaged 5 points higher and had 4 more hundreds in 20 fewer tests even if the runs against the very best pacers were a bit less.

Also think it's a bit silly people just ignore the runs made against Warne in 98. Obviously McGrath was missing but dominating the greatest spinner ever on turning decks is surely a big point in his favour. Waugh was definitely better against the very best pacers in the 90s, but that's not all there is to batting, I'd still take Tendulkar and/or Lara over him even for that decade.

Waugh had a much tough decade if you look at the opposition generally he played.

Waugh had a ridiculous peak in the mid-90s averaging in the 70s and simply overtook Sachin in high yield series against Donald. Sachin didn't play WI with Ambrose that much but Waughs 95 series was arguably in the most important series that decade if not era.

Tendulkar had good series against top attacks that decade and a really great one against Warne and aside from that mostly scoring against moderate attacks. Waugh had more impact knocks usually scored when the match was in the balance, it's not as if he was coasting every time at 5 coming to the crease.

 

[Van_Sri]

AUS vs SA Cricket Scorecard, 9th Super at Leeds, June 13, 1999

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get Australia vs South Africa 9th Super, cricket scorecard, ICC World Cup 1999 dated June 13, 1999.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[kyear2]

Corrected?

Yup, the arrogance of the man.

 

[Van_Sri]

AUS vs SA Cricket Scorecard, 9th Super at Leeds, June 13, 1999

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get Australia vs South Africa 9th Super, cricket scorecard, ICC World Cup 1999 dated June 13, 1999.

www.espncricinfo.com

Steve Waugh could play an Innings like this Which Tendulkar never did

 

[capt_Luffy]

I really don't think so personally. He had more dry series vs the WI than good ones, didn't do that well vs the Ws and didn't have to face his own attack which was the best in the world. Very good record vs a tough SA attack yes. Just statistically, I don't think that's enough to overtake Tendulkar who averaged 5 points higher and had 4 more hundreds in 20 fewer tests even if the runs against the very best pacers were a bit less.

Also think it's a bit silly people just ignore the runs made against Warne in 98. Obviously McGrath was missing but dominating the greatest spinner ever on turning decks is surely a big point in his favour. Waugh was definitely better against the very best pacers in the 90s, but that's not all there is to batting, I'd still take Tendulkar and/or Lara over him even for that decade.

That's fair. And I never said I rate Waugh over Sachin/Lara from 90s. I don't. I just think he has as good a case a them over the 90s and is generally underrated.

 

[Van_Sri]

SR Waugh (AUS)

1986-2003

45

72

18

3173

177*

58.75

5920

53.59

10

14

6

359

3

Ashes Record of Steve Waugh

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sachin didn't play WI with Ambrose that much but Waughs 95 series was arguably in the most important series that decade if not era.

Amazing series for sure. He also had another good series in 99. But also had 3 other series vs the WI where he averaged 16,25 and 31. Can't just highlight the successes and not the failures.

You're not saying anything I disagree with btw, Waugh was definitely better vs the better pace attacks than Tendulkar/Lara in that decade. I just think that's as much to do with the circumstances as his actual ability vs good pacers.

 

[kyear2]

And this is purely a me thing, but I rate Waugh less than most of the forum specifically because he fits the Chanderpaul archetype of a batsman who batted lower down the order (and that too in a good lineup unlike Chanders), and failed in the few times he did bat higher than 5. It may be unfair but I pretty much always rate these batsmen lower, it's just harder to make the same runs up the order and reinforces a belief in my mind that they're batsmen with inherent limitations. If he'd have shown some success batting at 3/4 I might feel differently. Amazing player but not up there with the very best imo.

Can't disagree with any of this.

In other ways he was also more Border, Chanders than Sachin and BCL. But that's just more of a me thing.

 

[subshakerz]

Also I can understand demeriting Waugh for no.5 if he was being compared to an opener or no.3. Tendulkar batted at no.4, it's not a massive difference in this case.

 

[subshakerz]

Can't disagree with any of this.

In other ways he was also more Border, Chanders than Sachin and BCL. But that's just more of a me thing.

There is a massive chasm between Border and Chanders.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Can't disagree with any of this.

In other ways he was also more Border, Chanders than Sachin and BCL. But that's just more of a me thing.

Border had almost 150 innings at 3/4 IIRC and had great numbers. I don't think he should be lumped in with Waugh.

I'm not that dogmatic about this. There are great batsmen like Sobers, Border, even merely very good batsmen like Laxman who batted 5/6 for a lot of their career but they also did prove themselves doing well at 3/4 at various points in their careers. Shows some level of versatility to your game.

 

[kyear2]

There is a massive chasm between Border and Chanders.

Didn't mean quality

 

[kyear2]

Border had almost 150 innings at 3/4 IIRC and had great numbers. I don't think he should be lumped in with Waugh.

I'm not that dogmatic about this. There are great batsmen like Sobers, Border, even merely very good batsmen like Laxman who batted 5/6 for a lot of their career but they also did prove themselves doing well at 3/4 at various points in their careers. Shows some level of versatility to your game.

Also not what I meant, but not restarting that discussion. And I do rate Border ahead of Waugh.

 

[Van_Sri]

Steve Waugh scored 6213 Runs in 143 Innings @43.45 Runs Per Innings, Brian Lara scored 5573 Runs in 112 Innings @49.76 Runs Per Innings, Sachin Tendulkar scored 5626 Runs in 109 Innings @51.61 Runs Per Innings in 90s.

 

[subshakerz]

Also not what I meant, but not restarting that discussion. And I do rate Border ahead of Waugh.

Border yes is slightly ahead of Waugh.

 

[DrWolverine]

Not outs in 1990s
Lara : 4 in 112 innings
Sachin : 12 in 109 innings
Waugh : 26 in 143 innings

 

[DrWolverine]

Steve Waugh could play an Innings like this Which Tendulkar never did

That’s in ODIs.
Waugh is not even remotely close to Sachin in ODIs

 

[Narayana]

Steve Waugh scored 6213 Runs in 143 Innings @43.45 Runs Per Innings, Brian Lara scored 5573 Runs in 112 Innings @49.76 Runs Per Innings, Sachin Tendulkar scored 5626 Runs in 109 Innings @51.61 Runs Per Innings in 90s.

In 90s -Sachin Tendulkar 2990 runs at 75.74 avg against farmers of NZ,eng,sl.

As a player from the best team, Steve Waugh didn't get much opportunity to score against farmers like sachin.
And 90s Lara is quite similar to Kane Williamson.

 

[Narayana]

That’s in ODIs.
Waugh is not even remotely close to Sachin in ODIs

Yes , he didn't get the Asian flat tracks, Azharuddin was better odi batsmen than sachin, sachin only scored in Asia, zero odi Centuries in Sena in 90s era.

 

[DrWolverine]

Azharuddin was better odi batsmen than sachin,