Again, context. In the 2007 series, Tendulkar fell thrice against Anderson but was still scoring a fair bit, it's not like Anderson's ownage of Kohli in 2014. 2011, Tendulkar's decline began and he struggled against the entire attack, not Anderson specifically.
Well Tendulkar was an overrated hack. It was never in doubt here
I dont think you want to start posting Anderson bunny compilations if you're on the Kohli side of a Sachin v Kohli argument. It'll end badly.
Lol Kohli only struggled against Anderson in Eng unlike Sachin who struggled against Anderson everywhere. And FTR Kohli has better average against Anderson than Sachin and he faced prime Anderson
Big scores tend to do that
It is, however I believe the consensus is if he needed the big scores to bolster his average, he must have been inconsistent. A big score and some not so good scores.
Idk I don’t think thats quite the case.
Further evidence Tendulkar is tops.
What actually hurts and not helps Lara's cause is the far fewer not outs he has relative to any batsman I can think of, who's played a similar amount of tests. Some might say that's irrelevant and his own fault. Actually no. Had he cared more about his average, he could very easily had doubled up on his not outs. He played as part of the weakest WI batting lineup til now and had to make as much runs as possible, before running out of partners.
I'm not trying to diminish Lara in any way. I've been on a few forums, in the past and they stated that the 400 was selfish, the number of 200s he has scored had bolstered his average blah blah.
You're not in anyway diminishing Lara; he does come up 2nd best to Sachin and he was inconsistent. The truth is the truth.
I think post 1996, Tendulkar played mostly in a really strong batting line-up, an ATG probably in the 2000s.
Aren't those numbers practically identical?
