Is anyone seeing what I am seeing. Against the top bowling attacks of the last 15 years (Australia, England, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan) Lara has 27 centuries while Tendulkar has 24. If we add in West Indies and India then Lara has 28 tons and Tendulkar has 27.
So how come Tendulkar has 3 more centuries than Brian Lara? Well he scores them against the 3 weakest bowling and fielding teams in Test cricket namely New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Tendulkar out scores Lara 7 to 3. Tendulkar just dominates mediocre bowling what can I say.
So let us all just be nice and thank ourselves fortunate to have seen the Greatest Batsman of All Time.....BRIAN CHARLES LARA.
Utter bullcrap.
First, Bradman is the greatest batsman of alltime, not BCL.
Second, Lara is
clearly the second best to Sachin against Quality attacks.
Australia's quality attack is essentially composed of McGrath + Warne.
And while against McGrath and Warne, Lara is marginally better ( marginally- their averages are within 2 points of each other), Lara doesnt hold a candle to Tendulkar
in australia.
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
South Africa were a quality attack before Donald retired ( this is evidenced by the decimation of many a batting lineup by Donald-Pollock through the 90s and early 2000s).
Against them, Lara averages 35.95, Tendulkar averages 34.31 but his average in South Africa against those is significantly superior to that of Lara's - 36.91 to 31.00
Pakistan's bowling attack was excellent when Wasim-Waqar were around.
Against them, Tendulkar averages 38.60 while Lara averages 30.30. In Pakistan against those bowlers, Tendulkar averages 35.83 while Lara averages 22.25.
Against Sri Lanka ( and Murali), both have exemplary records.
Infact, Lara has been one of the prime benificiaries with the flattening of the pitches in the last 5 years and the drop in bowling quality- he's heaped on the runs against South Africa and a sub-standard Pakistan and anyone who's watched Lara knows that serious fast bowling ( of the excellent type, not mediocre type) gives him a lot of trouble - he was clueless against Wasim even in his glory days ( much more so than Tendulkar, Tugga and co.) and he's struggled mightily against Donald- something Donald flat out says.
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.
Tendulkar hasn't capitalised that much on the significant drop in bowling quality- part owing to him not being in his stunning form and part due to his injury worries.
While Lara has more runs against South Africa + Pakistan + Australia + England, a cursory glance reveals that he's also played a lot more than Tendulkar against them.
However, it is abundantly clear that against quality attacks in their career, Tendulkar has been generally more successful than Lara.
Add to the fact that Lara never had to face Ambrose and Walsh in Test cricket ( who've given him quite a hard time in domestic competitions) and Tendulkar averages 57+ against them. Also add to the fact that Kumble + Srinath is no way equal to Ambrose + Walsh in terms of challenge posed to the batsmen.
Then throw in the fact that Tendulkar has faced more quality opposition in his career than Lara - he's played bowlers like Hadlee, Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop, the ones who can all be genuinely called alltime greats or at the very least, world class, who Lara's never had to face. The only world class/great bowler Tendy has never faced but Lara has is Kumble.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On top of all that, add the fact that Tendulkar is 4 years younger than Lara and if he ends up playing to the same age as Lara, he will most definately go past Lara's total of runs and centuries( already ahead of it).
Simply speaking, while Lara is a great batsman in his own right, one who performs more often is simply the better player- because the job of a player is to contribute
as frequently as possible.
And in this respect and against quality opposition, Tendulkar wins clearly.
Therefore, it is quite ludicrous to argue that Lara is definately better than Tendulkar, when objectively speaking, he is, at best, his equal.
Anyways, i've debated this topic to death and therefore, i am not gonna comment further on it anytime soon.
