****OFFICIAL**** Lara vs Tendulkar Debate Thread

[silentstriker]

This stats shows that in games won Tendulkar averages better, but it would be interesting if one is to break down Tendulkar's & Lara 25/24 games before 2001 which they won to see how many cases where India & West Indies were in 4th innings chases.

For Lara in matches chasing targets he averages 61, Tendulkar averages 54. Again not a big difference, but i still rate Lara's ability as a match-winner higher than Tendulkar.

You can win by chasing OR by setting a first innings score. They are both equally important, its just that scores made chasing are more memorable. So, again, I don't see how you can objectively rate that ability higher. Its one thing if you personally like one player over another (and thats fine, just like I like tendulkar), but quite another if you 'rate' them objectively and say 'This one isnt as good at matchwinning as another.'

It is also important to note that in the early 90's, WI were much much better than India has ever been. Probably even through the entire 90's. Since about 2000's, India have been better but Tendulkar has not been as consistent. So that works against him.

Overall though, Tendulkar (for me, personal opinion) is better in almost ever facet when compared to Lara. Perhaps not as good as making exceptionally large scores, but thats about it.

 

[marc71178]

So then how can you say he chokes [even a little bit], if he scores more than Lara in games won?

Maybe because when he fails they don't win so those scores don't go into his "won game" average thus making it higher?!

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe because when he fails they don't win so those scores don't go into his "won game" average thus making it higher?!

That seems more an endoresement of him than an indictment, showing how valuble he is to team success.

 

[aussie]

You can win by chasing OR by setting a first innings score. They are both equally important, its just that scores made chasing are mre memorable.

its not just that its more memorable, it tougher because by the 4th innings of a match a pitch is at its hardest to bat on, which makes making runs in 4th innings more significant.

Lets say you bat first on flat pitch & make 150 & in the 4th innings the pitch becomes slow, low & you have to make 300 to win & you make 120 obviously in this innings you would have to apply yourself more..

 

[marc71178]

That seems more an endoresement of him than an indictment, showing how valuble he is to team success.

No, it's just countering your comment about choking, since choking would indicate the sides in a chance to win, he fails and they don't win.

 

[silentstriker]

its not just that its more memorable, it tougher because by the 4th innings of a match a pitch is at its hardest to bat on, which makes making runs in 4th innings more significant.

Lets say you bat first on flat pitch & make 150 & in the 4th innings the pitch becomes slow, low & you have to make 300 to win & you make 120 obviously in this innings you would have to apply yourself more..

But a run is a run, and scoring 150 and 25 adds up the same as 25 and 150.

 

[silentstriker]

No, it's just countering your comment about choking, since choking would indicate the sides in a chance to win, he fails and they don't win.

Ah, I see what you mean. Maybe someone can provide some stats on chasable targets and the percentage of times he failed vs. lara failed.

It would be a bit inaccurate because pitches tend to be harder to bat on in India in the fourth innings. However, I think we can ignore this for our purposes.

 

[aussie]

It is also important to note that in the early 90's, WI were much much better than India has ever been. Probably even through the entire 90's. Since about 2000's, India have been better but Tendulkar has not been as consistent. So that works against him.

Dont know how relevant the point about which sides were better whenever but i think for the majority of the 90s Tendulkar has always been more consistent than Lara

Overall though, Tendulkar (for me, personal opinion) is better in almost ever facet when compared to Lara. Perhaps not as good as making exceptionally large scores, but thats about it.

Not totally true, along with that Lara i think is a slightly better player of spin than. If you judge them by how they have played Murali & Warne over the years.

Lara dominated Murali totally in his own backyard in 2001 & in the caribbean was pretty good in 2003. Nobody in modern cricket has played Murali better in more than one series consistently at his best, not even Tendulkar.

Againts Warne during his great period of 93-97, Lara home or away wasn't that superb vs Warne but assaulted him in 99 when he was really below par & last year played him pretty well in Australia but didn't dominate him. Tendulkar smoked him in India in 98 & 2001, played him pretty well in 99/00 but he hasn't dominated Warne at his best in Australia.

 

[aussie]

But a run is a run, and scoring 150 and 25 adds up the same as 25 and 150.

statistically it does, but you cannot deny deny the fact that scoring runs in the last innings of a match is MUCH harder that scoring runs in the 1st innings of a match.

 

[silentstriker]

statistically it does, but you cannot deny deny the fact that scoring runs in the last innings of a match is MUCH harder that scoring runs in the 1st innings of a match.

I do not deny this, but if you score a lot during 2nd innings, and not 1st, isnt that a weakness as well?

 

[steds]

I bet you a pound to a penny that I know what'll happen to this thread.

 

[aussie]

I do not deny this, but if you score a lot during 2nd innings, and not 1st, isnt that a weakness as well?

i dont see how could it?, but in cricket generally that scenario doesn't happen since batting last is much harder.

 

[silentstriker]

i dont see how could it?, but in cricket generally that scenario doesn't happen since batting last is much harder.

In any case, Tendulkar averages 35, Lara averages 36 in the fourth innings.

So thats not a difference either....

 

[Francis]

I'm glad this topic came up, and I see no reason why it wont be a civil thread...

Anyway my pick is Tendulkar, mainly based off what I've seen with my eyes which are always the best indicators.

To be honest statistically it's hard to compare them. For example, some people claim Lara has a greater propensity for big scores, which may be true. Some people say Tendulkar's average is only so high up because of all his not outs. But how do we know Tendulkar wouldn't have as many double-centuries had he not run out of partners? We don't. We don't know how well Tendulkar would have done has he not had so many not outs.

There's just little things like that, that make it hard to compare them. The stats are merky and hard to balance. I think it's safe to say that both have had very similar scenarios in their batting career, which normally would make it easier, but they just have to many merky stats.

Also, and this is as a huge Lara fan, I do think he's a little hit and miss. Where would his average be if he didn't score the odd double, or big hundred? I mean those scores are to be commended, but how many matches has he impacted with this great average? Lara, for me, impacts the odd game with a massive score.

Really that's what separates them for me, impact.

I will say this though, and this is a massive complement because I love Tendulkar, but there's almost no cricketer I'd rather watch than Lara when he's at his best. He just has a way of looking exciting at the crease with the massive backswing, the early antipication of the ball.

Once again, like the Viv Richards piece, cricinfo gets it right when they talk about his presence.

 

[silentstriker]

Wow, what a timely article:


http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/245575.html


Lara is shown to be one of the most inconsistent batsmen in the history of cricket. Contrast that with Tendulkar, who isn't in the top ten in terms of being the most consistent, but he is there right outside the top 15.

The least consistent batsmen with over 5,000 runs:

1. Atapattu
2. Abbas
3. Jayasuriya
4. Lara

Now obviously, all four of those are excellent batsmen, and Lara is more than just excellent......however, they are all widly inconsistent and that factor alone really decimates my ranking of him. He wouldn't make the all time world XI, second XI and maybe not even the third XI because of this (again, picking of the World XI and the like is simply an opinion, not an objective list).

 

[marc71178]

No, he's clearly not in the top 15.

 

[silentstriker]

No, he's clearly not in the top 15.

Oops, re-read that article, he is just outside the top 15. Plus if you only look at the 90's (both their peaks), Lara would be almost as inconsitent while Sachin would be even more consistent. Regardless, their careers didn't end in 1999, so their whole career must be looked at.

 

[Matt79]

I do not deny this, but if you score a lot during 2nd innings, and not 1st, isnt that a weakness as well?

Has that ever happened any player who's played more than a handful of tests.

 

[Sanz]

I dont think we can discount the tall scores. I would rather have a batsman who is capable of scoring a 150 in every 5th inning than a player who will give me a 50 in every inning. It's not as if scoring huge scores is a bad thing.

 

[aussie]

well i have never doubted that Tendulkar is more consistent, it was my first point in the original post in this thread.