Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[C_C]

Yes i agree that the WI batsmen were better than the 4 Indians overall, but i am talking about who got more CONSISTENT support from their batsmen, Tendulkar did...

Disagree...
WI got more consistent support worldwide. IND got more consistent support only in the subcontinent.

 

[aussie]

No we cannot discount ODIs, since your contention is that Lara is usually more 'tired' than Tendulkar when the second innings comes around.
Tired or not is not restricted to Tests only. You can be very tired if you play 400 club matches a year and as such, Tests and ODIs are relevant to this point.

well neither of them play much cricket for Bombay in Indian domestic cricket nor for Trinidad in WI domestic cricket so they are usually fresh enoguh for an international series so we can limit this point to mainly tests....

 

[C_C]

well neither of them play much cricket for Bombay in Indian domestic cricket nor for Trinidad in WI domestic cricket so they are usually fresh enoguh for an international series so we can limit this point to mainly tests....

No we cannot.
Like i said, if A plays 10 Tests and 15 ODIs, he is NOT as 'exhausted' as B, who plays 8 Tests and 30 ODIs.

 

[aussie]

Disagree...
WI got more consistent support worldwide. IND got more consistent support only in the subcontinent.

Really..., both got good support at home but both sides struggled abroad throughout the late 90s so it would interesting if we could check up and see who actually did get more support abroad. Mu guess would be tendulkar looking at the amount of whitewashes WI had in that period.

 

[C_C]

Mu guess would be tendulkar looking at the amount of whitewashes WI had in that period.

WI has had 3 whitewshes in that period, at the hands of PAK, RSA and NZ.
IND has had 2 whitewashes in that period, at the hands of OZ and RSA.

 

[aussie]

WI has had 3 whitewshes in that period, at the hands of PAK, RSA and NZ.
IND has had 2 whitewashes in that period, at the hands of OZ and RSA.

still that isn't totally clear, we would have to research all of IND & WI overseas defeats during that period & check just for how much support Tendulkar & Lara got to finalize who got more.

 

[aussie]

No we cannot.
Like i said, if A plays 10 Tests and 15 ODIs, he is NOT as 'exhausted' as B, who plays 8 Tests and 30 ODIs.

fair enough, but still Tendulkar averaging more than Lara in 2nd innings proves he's more consistent that all, but that does prove much??? i dunno.....

 

[C_C]

Well if it isnt totally clear, then why do you make a clear-cut comment on it in the first place ?

Statistics show that WI bowled out oppositions for lower scores than IND did and that too by a significant margin in that arbitary 95-2000 period.

fair enough, but still Tendulkar averaging more than Lara in 2nd innings proves he's more consistent that all, but that does prove much??? i dunno.....

Thats like saying 'Garry Kasparov beat me 10 times outta 10 but does that prove much ?'

Consistency is the hardest thing to achieve in any sphere of life. The fact that Tendulkar is more consistent makes him superior automatically.

 

[aussie]

Well if it isnt totally clear, then why do you make a clear-cut comment on it in the first place ?

Statistics show that WI bowled out oppositions for lower scores than IND did and that too by a significant margin in that arbitary 95-2000 period.




Thats like saying 'Garry Kasparov beat me 10 times outta 10 but does that prove much ?'

Consistency is the hardest thing to achieve in any sphere of life. The fact that Tendulkar is more consistent makes him superior automatically.

1.Well you said WI had more batting supprt worldwide and i disagreed because i wasn't too sure because of the amount of thrashing defeats WI got overseas during that period, so thats why i'm saying to be totally sure who got more consistent batting suppert overseas we would have to do that research, but of my head i really do think it was Tendulkar by a slight margin...

2. Yes Tendulkar is consistent than Lara, but the thing is Lara little technical flaws to Tendulkara close to perfect technique during the 90s is a big reason for this. Has i said before Lara's has never been a master of perfect technique his strengths are his great hand-eye co-ordination, utter brilliance, powerful, stamina, a huge appetite for runs & an the temperament for the big occasion. So if the Lara did have as sound a technique has Tendulkar, geeee one wonders what more he could have done.

 

[Anil]

So if the Lara did have as sound a technique has Tendulkar, geeee one wonders what more he could have done.

the what could've been argument is not relevant to who is better...

 

[C_C]

So if the Lara did have as sound a technique has Tendulkar, geeee one wonders what more he could have done

As Anil said, could've is not relevant to who IS better.
By the same extension, if i had Garry Kasparov's concentration skills, the hand-eye coordination of a shaolin master, the stamina of a marthon runner, the suppleness of a gymnast, the strength of a weightlifter and the speed of Maurice Greene, coupled with the intelligence of Einstien, i would be 10 times the batsman Bradman ever could dream to be, 10 times the pacer Marshall conceived of being possible and would've made Jonty Rhodes look like a fat podgy sloth on the prowl.

Could've might've and should've is irrelevant.
Fact is, Lara isnt as good as Tendulkar on a statistical analysis basis.

And i would like to point out to you that i am tlaking about WI's bowling quality in the 90s, pertaining to your incorrect assumption that Lara had to field more than Tendy because WI bowling conceded a lotta runs in 95-2000 period.

 

[Anil]

well neither of them play much cricket for Bombay in Indian domestic cricket nor for Trinidad in WI domestic cricket so they are usually fresh enoguh for an international series so we can limit this point to mainly tests....

why do one dayers not influence the "fatigue" factor again? you are deliberately avoiding the issue here...

 

[Slifer]

A home FTB doesnt mean that you NEVER succeed outside home conditions...merely means that your success is a lot more at home than away...which Lara's career stats reflects.
And in 1997, Warne was close to his best when the India series started.

His injury concerns were first murmured and medical advice followed after India vs Australis in Kanpur ( the ODI series which followed the test series).

And i think Tendy has performed significantly better against OZ than Lara has.... Lara has never done well Australia in Australia when Australia had a great attack.... Tendulkar has.
And Tendulkar has never really failed against Australia apart from the last series when he was pretty restricted due to his injury.
Lara has just two series of excellence/decent returns against Australia when OZ were fielding a full-strength attack- 1999 at home outta the 4 he's played against a full strength/near-full strength aussie attack in his career...Tendulkar has 2 outta 3 and in the third series he was struggling for fitness.....I dont see how Lara has done better against OZ than Tendulkar....a couple of innings doesnt change the entire career.

Ok again deminishing Lara's achievements. As far as i am concerned Lara has had 2 poor series against the Aussies in 1997 and in 2000. In all the other series he has averaged 40+. Again note that i never said he was better than SRT. i actually find Tendulkar to be slightly better but 2 say that Lara just had 2 decent series against the aussies is seriously belittleing the man's achievements when i fact Lara has performed ok/excellent in 4 out of the 6 series he has played against them.

 

[Slifer]

Love these discussions so I'll add my 2 cents. Overall i think Tendulkar has obviously been more consistent than Lara where as Lara has at times produced massive/brilliant/memorable innings that not even Tendulkar can match. Overall there isnt much to separate the 2 but if i had to chose one over the other i would say that tendulkar is SLIGHTLY better. As a West Indian it pains me to admit this but facts are facts but as mentioned earlier there isnt much to separate the two and i definitely prefer to see Lara bat!!!

 

[C_C]

Ok again deminishing Lara's achievements. As far as i am concerned Lara has had 2 poor series against the Aussies in 1997 and in 2000. In all the other series he has averaged 40+. Again note that i never said he was better than SRT. i actually find Tendulkar to be slightly better but 2 say that Lara just had 2 decent series against the aussies is seriously belittleing the man's achievements when i fact Lara has performed ok/excellent in 4 out of the 6 series he has played against them.

I am not diminishing Lara's accomplishments.
I have quoted facts... factually, lara has done well in all but two series and Tendulkar has done well in all but 1 series.

 

[aussie]

Well lets go back to the original 9 points that i argued, see what have established so we could put a close on this very interesting argument :

1. Yes i agree, but Lara is more destructive

2. Agreed

3.Stats prove this, but has i maintain it doesn't tell the whole truth

4.Stats show here that Tendulkar averages more in AUS, ENG, PAK & SRI. But we discovered little details behind these plain stats. I agree that Tendulkar has done better than Lara in AUS when they both faced good/great attacks. Even though he averages 23 more than Lara in ENG i maintain that Tendulkar has faced poor english attacks in all his 3 tours here while Lara in lara's 3 tours he only encountered a poor attack in 95. Tendulkar averages 24 more in PAK but has we established both were faced great Pakistani attacks on their 1st tours in 89 & 90 respectively and didn't do anything special. Lara failed againts a good PAK attack in 97 but Tendulkar faced a fairly mediocre one in 2004, so these little details are significant. While their is not much to pick and chose between their respective records in SRI, Lara has dominated Vaas & Murali at their peaks while Tendulkar never did that....

5. Could we count Lara 2001 series againts Murali & Vaas because thats one series where he did average 40+ away againts a good/great attack. But has i said before in reference to Tendulkar's record in SA vs a good/great attack he had more of a chance to prove himself overtheir than Lara did & i agree that you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant.

6. True

7. True but Tendukar has faced these same attacks in the last 5 years and hasn't done better, but we established when pitches ahave become tailormade for batsmen in the last 5 years, there isnt much to pick and choose from between lara & Tendulkar but when wickets are favouring the bowlers, Tendulkar has done better.

8. True

9.YES Tendulkar's technique is superior to Lara's & he did have this big technical flaw throughout the 90s but has i said Lara never needed any great Technique``, Lara is all about great hand-eye co-ordination, utter brilliance, powerful, stamina, a huge appetite for runs & an the temperament for the big occasion. But i am not convinced that Tendulakar was just OCCASSIONALLY vulnerable to the incutter during that period.

 

[SJS]

Anyone who says Tendulkar has a better technique than Lara doesnt know what cricket technique is all about.

I am not saying which of the two is a better player. It is a useles argument. But Lara's technique is superior to almost anyone playing test cricket today and that includes those who people think are perfection personified such as Dravid who inspite of being so good off the backfot could still take lessons from Lara on perfect and decisive movement of the feet when deciding to play of the backfoot for example.

 

[C_C]

I agree that Tendulkar has done better than Lara in AUS when they both faced good/great attacks. Even though he averages 23 more than Lara in ENG i maintain that Tendulkar has faced poor english attacks in all his 3 tours here while Lara in lara's 3 tours he only encountered a poor attack in 95.

I disagree totally on this one.
I see no reason to say Lara faced a significantly superior attack last time in ENG compared to Tendy's last visit to ENG, considering that they faced literally the same attack.
Yes, the attack has improved its 'stats' since Tendy has faced them but have done very little of note against a STRONG batting lineup like IND or AUS and has only plumped the plate by feeding on poor/mediocre batting lineups.
Lara faced the English attack in his second tour that was better than Any tendy faced but even if you take that out, Tendy is still superior.

Tendulkar averages 24 more in PAK but has we established both were faced great Pakistani attacks on their 1st tours in 89 & 90 respectively and didn't do anything special.

Tendulkar STILL did a LOT better in Pakistan against quality attacks.
Tendulkar in his debut series as a 16 year old averaged 36 against Imran-Wasim-Waqar-Qadir while Lara averaged 24.50 and 21.50 respectively.
Still SIGNIFICANTLY worse.

But has i said before in reference to Tendulkar's record in SA vs a good/great attack he had more of a chance to prove himself overtheir than Lara did & i agree that you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant.

This argument is irrelevant.
Lara has had more chances against Australia and England but you dont see me trumpeting that to try and big-up Tendulkar.
Lara bolloxed up in RSA while Tendy has done significantly better. That is fact. Just like how Lara played England way more when England was a mediocre attack.

has i said Lara never needed any great Technique``, Lara is all about great hand-eye co-ordination, utter brilliance, powerful, stamina, a huge appetite for runs & an the temperament for the big occasion.

He never needed any great technique ?
Is that why Lara took Sober's advice and rectified his glaring technical flaw ?
If he didnt need any great technique, please do tell, why did Lara barely average 40 from 1996 to 2001 ?

But i am not convinced that Tendulakar was just OCCASSIONALLY vulnerable to the incutter during that period.

If you dont believe me, please go rent DVDs of Tendulkar batting.
he fell to the incutter a few more times than other deliveries but his weakness was nowhere as glaring as Lara's who fell to that particular delivery numerous times ( mcGrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Donald, Waqar all exploited it to the hilt)....Lara's weakness to that ball was like Ponting's weakness against the offspinners on a spinning deck or Jimmy Adam's weakness against the short pitched one - ie, glaring.

Throghout that period he struggled with that delivery, even when he scored big.

 

[aussie]

Anyone who says Tendulkar has a better technique than Lara doesnt know what cricket technique is all about.

I am not saying which of the two is a better player. It is a useles argument. But Lara's technique is superior to almost anyone playing test cricket today and that includes those who people think are perfection personified such as Dravid who inspite of being so good off the backfot could still take lessons from Lara on perfect and decisive movement of the feet when deciding to play of the backfoot for example.

interesting cant disagree with you here SJS...

 

[C_C]

Anyone who says Tendulkar has a better technique than Lara doesnt know what cricket technique is all about.

Yes. I am sure.
Please continue to put your foot in your mouth.
Sunil Gavaskar, Greg Chappell(before he took the IND coaching job), Clive Lloyd and Gary Kirstien are on record for saying it, not to mention, i have personally spoken to great cricketers who'll say the same.
I suppose they dont know what cricket technique is all about.


And i dont think Lara can teach anything to Dravid when it comes to technique- lara's technique currently is still pretty flawed. He jumps across the crease and then goes back, instead of taking a short compact step back like Dravid does.