C_C said:
Lara's forte has been dazzling displays of brilliance amid extended periods of mediocrity. ( his one shining series vs OZ in 99 is pretty much the only successful series he's had in the 5 year span between 96 and 2001, him typically failing in all but one innings of a series to pull his average up- this series vs OZ and the last series vs ENG in the caribbean being perfect examples)
Whereas for Tendulkar, his forte has been contributing to the team's batting much more frequently in a dominant/excellent fashion.
That’s very unfair. The fact that you put it this way, “Lara's forte has been dazzling displays of brilliance amid extended periods of mediocrity.” shows your bias against Lara.
It’s true that he went through a bad patch around 97-98 partly due to injury where he missed a fair bit of cricket, and he also a bad year in 2000, but that’s no different to most players in history who go through bad patches. Tendulkar has been below par probably since around late-2002. But like Lara, the odd bad patch in an excellent 15 or so year career isn’t the end of the world.
C_C said:
Add the fact that Tendulkar faces incredible pressure of expectation- 1 billion+ fans compared to 10-odd million for Lara and the media pressure just pales into comparison- this aspect has been commented on by many many cricketers in the past and if you think this doesnt make any difference, try representing your highschool in a sport and then try representing your city in a sport.
Again, you’re being one-sided with your argument. Lara has also had to deal with extreme pressure throughout his whole career. Not only the pressure of expectation, but even worse the other forms of pressure that have been placed on him such as the question marks surrounding his captaincy in 99 against SA and Australia as well as against England just last year. Even his career has almost been on the line before, not to mention people criticising his commitment to the team. Despite all these constant pressures he’s come out and answered them, time and time again. So it’s pretty clear that both Lara and Tendulkar have had to deal with extreme forms of pressure during their careers.
C_C said:
The Aussie media and fans might like the sense of drama that Lara instills but most Australian players are on record saying that Tendulkar is the best batsman of his generation- McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, Steve Waugh, Ponting, etc. have all said so.
Opinions dont matter much but if i were to take opinions into account, i would rather take the one of neutral players than fans.
There are also many players, ex-players and coaches who consider Lara to be the better of the two. Justin Langer, Ian Chappell, Stuart MacGill, Michael Atherton, Murali, Bob Woolmer and even Waqar have all stated in their opinion that Lara is the best. But this isn’t surprising because when you have two great players who are so well matched statistically, you are bound to get mixed opinions on who is better.
C_C said:
Despite the flatter pitches, bowlers like Brett Lee ( the Trinidad spell), Akhtar ( conked him in the head first ball and for a moment it looked real bad for Lara), Harmison ( in the WI last year), etc. have all given him tremendous problems.
Would that be the test match where Lara scored 92 and 110? I believe it was so obviously Brett Lee didn’t give him too many problems. Im sure Lara looked alittle uncomfortable against Lee, especially against the short ball, but most batsmen do look uncomfortable against 90+mph deliveries aimed at the body and head. Besides, Lara’s extravagant movement to pretty much all deliveries tends to give the added impression that he’s struggling. Fact is though, Lara has cained Brett Lee on numerous occasions. Lee has also got his wicket a few times as well but that’s to be expected.
It should also be noted that Sachin has had his reported troubles against express pace before. The Aussies believe he has a problem with the pace of Brett Lee. And the statistics probably show that Sachin hasn’t performed too well against Lee. But that’s just one bowler. Sachin has also had good battles against Akhtar, including his 98 vs Pak in the 2003 WC which is the best ODI innings I’ve ever seen. So just like Lara, Sachin has had his victories and defeats against really quick bowlers.
C_C said:
Lara is flashier than Tendulkar - but i would rather watch Tendulkar at his best than Lara at his best- simply because while Tendulkar at his best is just a shade less aggressive than Lara, he looks much more solid than Lara does.
And yet no batsman since Don Bradman has built up huge scores as consistently as Lara has. So obviously looks can be deceiving. Personally I just think that everything about Lara’s technique makes him look uncomfortable and not so solid at the crease when infact, once he gets set, he can be as solid as a rock for hours and hours. Take his innings vs Aus at Adelaide for example; once he found touch after reaching his half-century he went from 50 runs to 226 runs at a S/R of around 90. Yet he didn’t look troubled at all, mixing the odd boundary up with a single almost every delivery. Never has a batsman made it look so easy for so long against the likes of McGrath, Warne, Lee and MacGill.
His record clearly shows with 8 double tons, 18 scores of 150+ and a 20+ average of around 85 (which I believe is second only to Bradman) that once he gets set he is as comfortable as anybody. Regardless of how he may look with all the flamboyance.
C_C said:
Overall, in australia Lara averages a measley 41.97 to 54.15 to Tendulkar's.
If you bring in their averages against Australian attack of fame- McWarne- in australia, Lara's average drops to 37.14 while Tendulkar's drops to 46.33.
Averages can be very deceiving. Tendulkar averaged 76 on his last tour to Australia. So he had a good series, right? Well not really, because his not out scores of 240* and 60* in the last test masked what was a rather average series. Same could be said of Lara in the series that just finished with his 226, although that wasn’t a not out score. Sachin’s other scores on that tour were 0, 1, 37, 0, 44.
This is why Innings Average, something already pointed out, is just as valid and as good a guide as average IMO. And when you go by Innings Average, Tendulkar’s record in Australia drops from 54.15 to 46. Still very impressive. Lara’s I. Ave (Innings Average) in Australia remains at 41.97 due to having no not out scores in Australia. So Sachin still has the better record in Australia, although average due to his huge not out score of 240* tends to inflate the difference. When comparing their records vs Australia both home and away, Lara’s I. Ave is 49.2 whereas Sachin’s is 47.6. Not much difference really.
C_C said:
Throw in the fact that tendulkar is considerably superior to Lara away from home- this is important since its more demanding ( both skill-wise and pressure-wise) to do well in the opposition's backyard than in your own.
Lara's away average is 47.25, Tendulkar's is 56.58. Drop out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Tendulkar's away average is 55.58 while Lara's is 46.94.
Again, average can be considered unfair when comparing their records away from home. Sachin’s is as you pointed out 56.58 compared to Lara’s of 47.25. However, Sachin’s I. Ave away from home is 50.3. Once again that is still extremely good. Lara’s I. Ave away from home only drops from 47. 25 to 46.8 due to incredibly only having one not out score away from home in 111 innings. So he has really earned what is still a world class away average of 47. And when you take out performances against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, their records away from home using Innings Average are almost identical.
And just back on averages if you prefer them as a measure; minus matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, Sachin’s average drops from 57.3 to 54.8 whereas Lara’s drops from 53.9 to 53.5. So there’s just the small matter of one run difference in average when you discount performances vs. the minnows.
Apart from giving us all a headache, I suppose the point of all those numbers is that stats really can be used to suit anyones argument when comparing two very closely matched players. The perfect example of this is their longevity/time in the game. One could argue that Lara has aged much better by still performing at high levels into his late 30’s whereas Sachin has showed signs of slowing down in his early 30’s. However, someone supporting Sachin could easily use the age argument in their favour by pointing out that Sachin made his debut as a 16-year-old boy and performed extremely well at that young age against some of the best the world has ever seen. So it clearly takes a genius to perform at that age against the likes of Wasim, Waqar etc, hence Sachin is better. See, it’s very easy to argue either way.
IMO, the difference between the two is so minimal that I don’t think you can say with confidence that one is better than the other. So instead of arguing we should all just sit back and enjoy watching two of the greatest batsmen of all-time who will go down in history alongside the likes of Sober, Richards and Hobbs. Naturally though, we cant do this and will always argue who is better. So my favourite stat when comparing the two is this: It took them both well over a decade to reach the coveted 10’000 run milestone in Test cricket and amazingly, both brought up their 10’000th run in exactly the same amount of innings – 195 each. So there you go, they are dead even.
)% of the time. So those aren't exactly opportunities denied to score runs either. 
