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

[aussie]

False. One was averaging over 50, the other two below 45.

if you take out Dravid's games vs Bang & Zim he doesn't.

 

[aussie]

Umm pray tell why you restricted it to 250 ODIs.

well we all know the sub-continent teams play more ODI's than anybody & Tendulkar has a huge gap in ODI's played than Lara because of that fact. So restricting it to a big margin of250 ODI's & seeing where they where could show why the gap between them in ODI's isn't that big.

 

[silentstriker]

if you take out Dravid's games vs Bang & Zim he doesn't.

Zimbabwe was not a horrible team pre-2001....and Bangladesh didn't play test cricket.

 

[C_C]

well we all know the sub-continent teams play more ODI's than anybody & Tendulkar has a huge gap in ODI's played than Lara because of that fact. So restricting it to a big margin of250 ODI's & seeing where they where could show why the gap between them in ODI's isn't that big.

And whats wrong with playing more ODIs ? We all know that Australia plays more tests than most other nations....so i suppose we should rate them in the same adjusted fashion ?

I think whats more salient is this :

Since 1996 :

Tendulkar : 254 innings, 22 not outs, 10934 runs @ 47.12, 35x100, 50x50
Lara : 163 innings, 20 not outs, 5702 runs @ 39.87, 13x100, 30x50

The gap : 91 innings, 2 not outs, 5232 runs @ 58.78, 22x100, 20x50 !!

Thats a significant gap over the last ten years for two guys who've been active over the last 16 or so in ODIs. In essence, The gap between Tendy and Lara in ODIs over the last ten years is pretty substantial- that gap itself is at a higher average, runs, consistency and tons than Bevan or Richards ( two of the greatest ODI batsmen) career figures.
Not to mention, Tendy also has a significantly higher strike rate in that period.

 

[C_C]

if you take out Dravid's games vs Bang & Zim he doesn't.

Zimbabwe of Streak,Olonga and Strang were a better bowling lineup than NZ, WI, ZIM, BD of today.
Ie, actually a test class bowling attack.
Zimbabwe in the 90s were quite a decent team and would've competed well in today's world.

 

[Benny2k1]

Umm pray tell why you restricted it to 250 ODIs.

because was just choosing the last milestone as a reference point, shows that sachin and lara are prety equal in ODIS
So ill compare through all the milestones

M I NO R HS AVG 100 50 0
Lara 50 50 5 1795 128 39.88 3 13 3
Sachin 50 48 5 1446 84 33.62 0 12 3

lara 100 99 8 3994 169 43.89 7 28 3
Sachin 100 97 11 3146 115 36.58 4 21 6

lara 150 147 15 5860 169 44.39 12 38 7
Sachin 150 147 14 5321 137 40.00 12 32 7

lara 200 195 21 7370 169 42.35 14 48 12
Sachin 200 193 18 7305 143 41.74 18 43 8

Pure hardcore stats show that Sachin aint miles ahead of BCL.

 

[C_C]

because was just choosing the last milestone as a reference point, shows that sachin and lara are prety equal in ODIS
So ill compare through all the milestones

Still, it misses the point that Tendulkar has been significantly superior to Lara in ODIs over the last ten years - thats essentially the bulk of their careers !

 

[Benny2k1]

hmm

Sachin has played soo much more than lara in the last ten years so comparing them like that is unfair, thats why i did it game by game, there can be no argument after playing the same number of games they are virtually equal with lara edging ahead.


Just a point tho, like i said earlier, i have nothing against sachin tendulkar, i think he is a wonderful player with a great record.

 

[C_C]

Sachin has played soo much more than lara in the last ten years so comparing them like that is unfair, thats why i did it game by game, there can be no argument after playing the same number of games they are virtually equal with lara edging ahead.


Just a point tho, like i said earlier, i have nothing against sachin tendulkar, i think he is a wonderful player with a great record.

True, he's played more than Lara in the last ten years ( in ODIs atleast). But his superiority isnt just becaue of more matches.
As the records show, the gap between them is 5200 runs in 89 dismissals- thats a stupendous average of almost 59 - which is a huge margin of difference. Not to mention, Tendy also has 22 tons and 20 fifties more...scoring 42 times over 50 and 22 times over 100 in a 90 match span is a fairly huge gap in performance.
Not to mention, at a significantly higher strike rate ( lara's career strike rate is in the high 70s and Tendulkar's in the high 80s. However, you'd find that Lara's strike rate in the early 90s was higher,when he batted with the likes of Haynes, Richardson, Hooper etc. and had very little pressure on his shoulders. Tendulkar's strike rate has been well over 90 since he's taken to opening in ODIs...so in the last ten years, the strike rate difference is close to 20 runs/100 balls.
If the difference between player A and player B in ODIs for ten years is a near 60 runs average, 5000+ runs, scores over 50 in almost 50% of the innings and a 20 runs/100 balls strike rate, thats a pretty categoric superiority.

 

[Benny2k1]

However, you'd find that Lara's strike rate in the early 90s was higher,when he batted with the likes of Haynes, Richardson, Hooper etc. and had very little pressure on his shoulders

you could say the same about Sachin in the last few years, Dravid, Sehwag, Yuvi, Ganguly,Dhoni while Lara has been relied on (even the other day vs zim!)

. Tendulkar's strike rate has been well over 90 since he's taken to opening in ODIs...so in the last ten years, the strike rate difference is close to 20 runs/100 balls.

Isnt that the Idea of opening, get the innings off to a fast start while lara has had to bat at all different positions in different situations, when lara has opened his srike rate is around the 90 mark.

Tendy also has 22 tons and 20 fifties more

Play more games, ull make more centuries

 

[C_C]

you could say the same about Sachin in the last few years, Dravid, Sehwag, Yuvi, Ganguly,Dhoni while Lara has been relied on (even the other day vs zim!)

Err no.
The first part of Lara's career in ODIs was largely pressure-free. The WI were an excellent ODI team, they had excellent ODI batters like Haynes, Hooper, Richardson, etc. and Lara being a young talented newbie could throw around his bat in full abandon.
Tendulkar didnt have that luxury- he came into the ODI arena in a wonky team and immediately was its stalwart(Despite a poor start in ODIs)...by the time Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag started firing, Tendulkar was already established and had the huge pressure and responsibility.

Play more games, ull make more centuries

Please !
22 tons and 20 fifties in 90 more innings is scoring 50+ in every other game almost. By ODI standards, thats an almost Bradmansque gap! Add to that a near-60 runs average Lara would require to match Tendulkar over the last 10 years, its not even close !
The difference between Tendulkar and Lara over the last ten years in ODIs has been Bevan-esque. Actually, MORE than Bevan-esque. Even Bevan doesnt have a near-60 average with 50+ scores every other game and a century every 4th game.
Thats a large large difference that cannot be ignored- and that too, for the bulk of their careers.
Which is why i said in ODIs, the gap between Tendulkar and Lara is significant.
He's outshined Lara comprehensively in ODIs over the last ten years of a 15-16 year overlap career.

 

[Sanz]

Play more games, ull make more centuries

In ODIs Sachin has a century every 9 innings, Lara has a century every 13th inning which means at this rate it would take 520 innings for Lara to make 39 100s.

 

[Benny2k1]

The first part of Lara's career in ODIs was largely pressure-free. The WI were an excellent ODI team, they had excellent ODI batters like Haynes, Hooper, Richardson, etc. and Lara being a young talented newbie could throw around his bat in full abandon.
Tendulkar didnt have that luxury- he came into the ODI arena in a wonky team and immediately was its stalwart(Despite a poor start in ODIs)...by the time Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag started firing, Tendulkar was already established and had the huge pressure and responsibility.

M Azharuddin, Navjot Singh Sidhu, Ravi shastri, Kapil Dev, Manjrekar hardly a bad side to come into?

 

[Anil]

Play more games, ull make more centuries

as simple as that huh?

 

[C_C]

M Azharuddin, Navjot Singh Sidhu, Ravi shastri, Kapil Dev, Manjrekar hardly a bad side to come into?

Kapil was largely a spent force when Tendulkar came into the fray and so was Shastri.
Shastri wasnt that good anyhow. Manjrekar- a classic test batsman totally out of his element in ODIs....Sidhu and Azhar were there and were superb, no doubt, but i believe that WI batting was distinctly stronger than India's in ODIs till 96 or so. Not to mention, WI had three superb ODI bowlers in Walsh, Bishop and Ambrose that India lacked.
The other half makes a big difference.
You wouldnt see McGrath or Lee bowling as well and as consistently as they do in ODIs if they didnt have the superb batting support ( ie, they know that 8 outta 10 times whatever the opposition scores is not gonna be enough) or see the WI batting of the 80s just annihilate if they didnt have the superb bowling support ( ie, they knew that 8 outta 10 times, whatever they score is gonna be enough)...

 

[Anil]

Kapil was largely a spent force when Tendulkar came into the fray and so was Shastri.
Shastri wasnt that good anyhow. Manjrekar- a classic test batsman totally out of his element in ODIs....Sidhu and Azhar were there and were superb, no doubt, but i believe that WI batting was distinctly stronger than India's in ODIs till 96 or so. Not to mention, WI had three superb ODI bowlers in Walsh, Bishop and Ambrose that India lacked.
The other half makes a big difference.
You wouldnt see McGrath or Lee bowling as well and as consistently as they do in ODIs if they didnt have the superb batting support ( ie, they know that 8 outta 10 times whatever the opposition scores is not gonna be enough) or see the WI batting of the 80s just annihilate if they didnt have the superb bowling support ( ie, they knew that 8 outta 10 times, whatever they score is gonna be enough)...

not true....shastri was an exceptional all-rounder for a large part of his career in one dayers....a very good one day bowler, he was a pressure player as a batsman as well....you haven't watched too many one dayers in the 80s if you say shastri wasn't that good....for a period he was too slow as a batsman, but he corrected that and started tonking the ball real hard and he was always good as a one day bowler....as a fielder he wasn't great but he wasn't poor as well...

 

[Benny2k1]

as simple as that huh?

Lol ok good point ill rephrase More Oppertunitys to score 100s

You wouldnt see McGrath or Lee bowling as well and as consistently as they do in ODIs if they didnt have the superb batting support

Good bowlers are good bowlers, with strong batting support or not!

 

[aussie]

Zimbabwe was not a horrible team pre-2001....and Bangladesh didn't play test cricket.

Zimbabwe weren't a horrible team no since they had a very stable batting in Campbell, the flower brothers, Carlise, Goodwin, Johnson but their bowling attack (which is what i am refering to) wasn't anything outstanding with only Streak & Strang(to an extent) good enough test bowlers.

And Bangladesh did play test cricket up to 2001, they played their first test in 2000.

 

[aussie]

Zimbabwe of Streak,Olonga and Strang were a better bowling lineup than NZ, WI, ZIM, BD of today.
Ie, actually a test class bowling attack.

I'd give you WI, ZIM (of today) & Bangladesh but not NZ. Steak yes was top class no question, Strang was very good, while Olonga was pretty inconsistent at test level and those were only 3 bowlers. NZ since 2001 have had Bond/Cairns/Tuffey/Vettori/Franklyn/Martin/Wiseman etc, who overall make a better attack than Zim for sure.

Zimbabwe in the 90s were quite a decent team and would've competed well in today's world.

yea but this is irrelevant since we are talking about ZIM bowling attack.

 

[aussie]

True, he's played more than Lara in the last ten years ( in ODIs atleast). But his superiority isnt just becaue of more matches.
As the records show, the gap between them is 5200 runs in 89 dismissals- thats a stupendous average of almost 59 - which is a huge margin of difference. Not to mention, Tendy also has 22 tons and 20 fifties more...scoring 42 times over 50 and 22 times over 100 in a 90 match span is a fairly huge gap in performance.
Not to mention, at a significantly higher strike rate ( lara's career strike rate is in the high 70s and Tendulkar's in the high 80s. However, you'd find that Lara's strike rate in the early 90s was higher,when he batted with the likes of Haynes, Richardson, Hooper etc. and had very little pressure on his shoulders. Tendulkar's strike rate has been well over 90 since he's taken to opening in ODIs...so in the last ten years, the strike rate difference is close to 20 runs/100 balls.
If the difference between player A and player B in ODIs for ten years is a near 60 runs average, 5000+ runs, scores over 50 in almost 50% of the innings and a 20 runs/100 balls strike rate, thats a pretty categoric superiority.

good, i willing to accept this since its all a pretty fair assesment.