Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[C_C]

hooper was one of the biggest wasted talents in the 90s...i consider him to be basically a better player than sidhu....whatever the stats show....and sidhu while having a better average has only played half the number of tests hooper has, stats are not all that valid as a comparison in such situations....

Yes, hooper had the talent to do a Lara-Tendulkar if he had kept focus. But talent is irrelevant if you are not gonna use it.
Hooper did pretty poorly in tests and that is why he is a lesser player than Sidhu.
Doesnt matter if i got all the talent- if i dont use it, i am a worse player.
Same with Steve Waugh and Mark waugh...latter was far more talented but the former was a far better batsman.

 

[Sanz]

Other than Brian Lara, Carl Hooper was the most giifted West Indian batsmen since the beginning of the 90's.

Hooper started his career in mid 80s and not in 90s. And What is the use of being so gifted when you end up worse than a player who was half talented than him ?

 

[Langeveldt]

Not sure who I would rate higher now, Lara or Tendulkar... But I would rate both Adam Gilchrist and Rahul Dravid above them... Gilly averages loads and loads, over a long time now (not sure if his average is higher than Lara and Sachin but Im guessing it is), and has to keep and bat with the tail, and Dravid could bat for my life, absolute star

 

[aussie]

Err actually no.
Sehwag,Dravid,Tendulkar and Laxman have handled the short and fast stuff pretty well, better than Ponting-Langer, with probably Gillchrist and Martyn being in the same level as those four. For you might wanna recall that it was the typical 'fast and/or bouncy' type bowlers such as Ambrose-Donald-Wasim-Waqar-Akhtar that gave the aussies relatively more trouble than the indians...... whilst bowlers like Vaas, Pollock etc., who are line-n-length stuff have bothered the indians more.

And Katich has done okay, nothing hoo-haa.
There is a saying in investigative research streams : the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but is concrete and not arbitary.
As such, Katich has to prove himself against high level fast-n-short stuff before i elavate him from 'okay' category.



If Fleming is the only 'world class batsman' ( personally, i dont think Fleming is worldclass...he is ordinary and not just because of his failures against Australia, but because he has done rather modestly against most excellent bowling attacks), how does that make a team of 6-7 batsmen 'good' ?
'Good' would be Kirstien-Cullinan-Cronje-Rhodes-Boucher-Pollock-Gibbs-McMillan.
Not Fleming-Astle-McMillan-nobody-nobody-nobody.


So in short, against a good english attack, Tendulkar is unproven and Lara sucks.
Against a mediocre english attack, Tendulkar has outshined Lara.
Seems like Tendulkar is ahead to me by the simple matter of concrete facts and not speculation.



We may be talking overseas. But we have to be consistent in each and every category along with each category being consistent with the other.
As such, this point is very much relevant.



So an unproven 16 year old kid does better than a proven bona-fide batsman( Lara's 2nd tour to PAK) ?
Sounds even more points to the Tendulkar column to me!

And yes, Lara never got a chance to redeem himself in RSA and Tendulkar never got a chance to improve in Pakistan when the two Ws were playing ( he still does a whole lot better than Lara though). Both cancel each other out, so this point is totally irrelevant.
What is relevant is the facts- Lara has done pretty poorly in RSA and Tendulkar has done better when RSA had a good/great bowling attack and he's done better than Lara in Pakistan under same criterias as well.
While Lara has consistently failed overseas against good attacks and pummelled poor attacks(with a few exceptions here and there), Tendulkar has consistently done well overseas against good attacks and pummelled poor attacks(with a few exceptions here and there).
Those are the facts
Therefore, factually, Tendulkar is better overseas.



An objective analysis has no place for conjencture or 'what ifs'
Going by the same line of thought, all i kknow is that we'll never know how bad Tendulkar would've pummelled McGrath-Warne-Pollock-Donald-Akram-Younis-Ambrose-Walsh etc. if he had the reflexes of a shaolin monk and the stamina of a marathon runner.
See ? conjencture leads nowhere.
We have to evaluate based on the facts presented.

Every time i have seen the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag & Laxman come up againts short fast stuff on bouncy tracks they have looked pretty abysmal with the exception of Tendulakar. When India were in AUS in 99, IND in WI 97 are 2 prime examples of this. Its true that the likes of Ambrose-Donald-Wasim-Waqar-Akhtar have troubled the aussies, but they have definately handled those bowlers.

He did badly in 2000 because of reason i have argued before i would take his 2004 failure more because he was in top form & the england attack failed him, while Tendulkar outshines Lara againts a poor English attack only because he has played againts poor english attack in 3 series compared to Lara 1. Why do we have to be consistent in each and every category??, your argument at first was always based on records overseas so why bring that up.

Ok you win i agree with your last 2 points their with reference to SA & PAK, so in all Tendulkar is superior overseas with the exception of England were i still maintain that he has NEVER made runs againts a good english attack in home conditions. You must be tired seeing this one eh

 

[C_C]

Every time i have seen the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag & Laxman come up againts short fast stuff on bouncy tracks they have looked pretty abysmal with the exception of Tendulakar. When India were in AUS in 99, IND in WI 97 are 2 prime examples of this.

Umm....Tendulkar averaegd 57 against WI that tour, Dravid in the high 50s and Laxman-Ganguly in the 40s range i think.
But i am not talking about one series in particular, i am talking overall.
It doesnt matter what the average says in this, because they dont keep stats on how you did against a particular bowler.......i may be real good against pace and bounce and a total ninny against L&L, you can be just the opposite but it wont show in our stats when we play RSA, simply because i am gonna be cleaned up by Pollock a lot more than Donald and the other way round for you.
I just think that the Indian top order has handled pace and/or bounce type bowlers ( Ambrose, Walsh,Donald,Akhtar, Waqar) better than the aussies have while Aussies have handled 'naggers' like Pollock-Vaas better.

Lara played a poor English attack in only 1 series ?
I am sorry but all but the series in late 90s involving Gough-Caddick etc. were poor/average attacks.
England still today is an average attack.

 

[C_C]

Not sure who I would rate higher now, Lara or Tendulkar... But I would rate both Adam Gilchrist and Rahul Dravid above them... Gilly averages loads and loads, over a long time now (not sure if his average is higher than Lara and Sachin but Im guessing it is), and has to keep and bat with the tail, and Dravid could bat for my life, absolute star

While Dravid may get into that club, he is still a bit off Tendulkar-lara category, primarily because he hasnt faced the same quality of bowling as much.
And Gillchrist ? Gilly is great but he is some ways off Lara-Tendulkar. Tendy averages more than Gilly and has for the past 5-6 years i think. Gilly bats with the tail, thats true, but he has faced nowhere close to the same level of bowling might Tendulkar-lara have and he comes in under a lot less pressure most of the time, given that he comes after half a dozen awesome aussie batsmen.

 

[Pothas]

If England today are an average atack then Australia are the only better than average atack in the whole world unless all the others are just bad

 

[aussie]

I just think that the Indian top order has handled pace and/or bounce type bowlers ( Ambrose, Walsh,Donald,Akhtar, Waqar) better than the aussies have while Aussies have handled 'naggers' like Pollock-Vaas better.

Lara played a poor English attack in only 1 series ?
I am sorry but all but the series in late 90s involving Gough-Caddick etc. were poor/average attacks.
England still today is an average attack.

1. Well i think the aussie batsman have both those types of bowlers better...

2. Aren't we speaking about in England, and england's attack today is definately better than average if it can trouble the much vaunted aussie attack has that much this season its got to be good, no average attack can do that to Australia come on mate....

 

[Anil]

While Dravid may get into that club,

dravid, maybe towards the end of his career....gilchrist....exciting and gifted stroke player, yes greater batsman than tendulkar or lara, no way....

 

[Anil]

I just think that the Indian top order has handled pace and/or bounce type bowlers ( Ambrose, Walsh,Donald,Akhtar, Waqar) better than the aussies have while Aussies have handled 'naggers' like Pollock-Vaas better.

not true, the top aussie batsman handle pace(fast, fast medium, swing...) several times better than indians with the possible exception of tendulkar, now if you are talking about spin, the indians are the masters at playing it....

 

[C_C]

If England today are an average atack then Australia are the only better than average atack in the whole world unless all the others are just bad

Quiete accurate mate.
Apart from the aussies, all attacks are pretty frickin average.

2. Aren't we speaking about in England, and england's attack today is definately better than average if it can trouble the much vaunted aussie attack has that much this season its got to be good, no average attack can do that to Australia come on mate....

Troubled in one match ?
Whopee ding!
a good attack is one that can do well against a topnotch team........not dominate perhaps but do well......England has so far played 1 match against OZ and did okay..i dont think you'll be singing the same tune by the time the ashes are over.

 

[C_C]

not true, the top aussie batsman handle pace(fast, fast medium, swing...) several times better than indians with the possible exception of tendulkar, now if you are talking about spin, the indians are the masters at playing it....

Disagree....raw speed and bounce is in favour of India along with spin......accurate line and length stuff and medium-fast stuff is in favour of OZ.

 

[Top_Cat]

Gilly bats with the tail, thats true, but he has faced nowhere close to the same level of bowling might Tendulkar-lara have and he comes in under a lot less pressure most of the time, given that he comes after half a dozen awesome aussie batsmen.

This is true. What's also true is that he's come in with Australia 5 down for not many and hit them out of the mire. Australia would have lost quite a few more Tests than they have in the last 5 years if it wasn't for Gilchrist.

 

[Anil]

This is true. What's also true is that he's come in with Australia 5 down for not many and hit them out of the mire. Australia would have lost quite a few more Tests than they have in the last 5 years if it wasn't for Gilchrist.

sure...but for all that he still is not equal to lara or tendulkar...

 

[Anil]

Disagree....raw speed and bounce is in favour of India along with spin......accurate line and length stuff and medium-fast stuff is in favour of OZ.

are you talking patrick patterson type of raw pace? not too many international batsmen are afraid of short-pitched direction-less stuff just because the ball moves real fast....good, accurate fast bowlers on pacy, bouncy tracks have made most indian batsmen uncomfortable-to-downright miserable barring a few honourable exceptions......the aussies have always been better at handling real pace...i really don't understand what you are on about....

 

[C_C]

This is true. What's also true is that he's come in with Australia 5 down for not many and hit them out of the mire. Australia would have lost quite a few more Tests than they have in the last 5 years if it wasn't for Gilchrist.

oh yes...Gilly has been awesome- make no mistake and i admire his batting a great deal....i am just saying that relative to Lara-Tendulkar, Gilly comes up a bit short.

 

[C_C]

are you talking patrick patterson type of raw pace? not too many international batsmen are afraid of short-pitched direction-less stuff just because the ball moves real fast....good, accurate fast bowlers on pacy, bouncy tracks have made most indian batsmen uncomfortable-to-downright miserable barring a few honourable exceptions......the aussies have always been better at handling real pace...i really don't understand what you are on about....

I am going by player to player.
Yes, Aussies handled the pace and bounce quiete well previously, primarily because of excellent players of pace such as Slater, Waugh brothers, etc. Their replacements in the current team ( hayden, Clarke, Katich etc) arnt anywhere as good against really fast or bouncy stuff.

Player-vs-player wise, i think Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag are more accomplished against raw pace than Hayden,Langer,Ponting,Gilly. Notice that pacey or bouncy bowlers like Ambrose, Akhtar, Donald etc. didnt cause the abovementioned group(when/if they faced them) as much trouble as they caused Hayden,Ponting,Katich,etc. while bowlers with accuracy/movement/etc. like Pollock/Vaas/Akram has troubled the Indians considerably more.
This has been for the past few decades, going back to the early 70s really.
Gavaskar, Mohinder Amarnath, Sandeep Patil, Chauhan,Manjrekar etc. were pretty competent against raw pace/bounce while they wernt so good relatively against accurate/movers of the ball. Apart from a few batsmen here and there, such as Vengsarkar, Azhar,Ganguly etc, India has handled raw pace and bounce stuff ( like Akhtar-Ambrose-Holding etc.) better than accurate bowlers or movers of the ball ( Akram/Hadlee/Botham/McGrath/Pollock etc).

 

[vic_orthdox]

I just think that the Indian top order has handled pace and/or bounce type bowlers ( Ambrose, Walsh,Donald,Akhtar, Waqar) better than the aussies have while Aussies have handled 'naggers' like Pollock-Vaas better.

Let's see how close this is to the truth, with basic analysis.
Very basic analysis - it is me doing it, after all

Ambrose
Versus Aus: 27 1116 2718 128 7/25 10/120 21.23 2.43 52.3 8 1
Versus Ind: 9 248.3 574 15 5/87 5/87 38.26 2.30 99.4 1 0
Note: Included in those figures against Aus are 24 wickets at 12.91 at the WACA And he never played a Test in India - that 38 average against the Indians is all in the West Indies.

Walsh
Versus Aus: 38 1426.4 3872 135 6/54 9/146 28.68 2.71 63.4 4 0
Versus Ind: 15 520.4 1316 65 6/62 10/101 20.24 2.52 48.0 4 1
Note: Walsh also managed to go at 18 runs per wicket over 7 matches in India. Admittedly, he's probably the least "out and out" fast bowler of those mentioned, but still - the Aussies played him much better.

Donald
Versus Aus: 14 544.2 1647 53 6/59 9/133 31.07 3.02 61.6 2 0
Versus Ind: 11 415.4 987 57 7/84 12/139 17.31 2.37 43.7 3 1
Note: Hmmm, tide starting to turn here - big discrepancy between those two sets of figures. Mind you, I don't think Donald's figures versus Australia do him justice - the last series he had here would have wrecked them, and mid-to-late 90s he was pretty darn successful versus Australia.

Akhtar
Versus Aus: 10 291.5 1105 31 5/21 8/72 35.64 3.78 56.4 3 0
Versus Ind: 4 125.5 415 15 4/47 8/118 27.66 3.29 50.3 0 0
Note: Average versus Aus is 10 runs per wicket above his career average, while India have still handled him pretty well. Lack of a five wicket hall against India indicates how he's been more consistent versus them, as opposed to against Aus where he's had some very very good days, and some just as ordinary ones (probably the next day!) as well. Also interesting to notice the economy rate difference.

Waqar
Versus Aus: 12 313.5 1014 30 4/55 7/144 33.80 3.23 62.7 0 0
Versus Ind: 4 107 390 8 4/80 4/91 48.75 3.64 80.2 0 0
Note: I'm not sure when Waqar had his injuries, so if you want to edit these figures to when he was the demon speedster - feel free! I've posted his career figures, take from that what you will. Indians seem to have found him much easier to deal with - averaging 25 runs per wicket more against them than over his career.

Overall, much of a muchness - and maybe if anything slightly in Australia's favour. Interesting to note how each bowler's economy rate is higher against Aus than India - a reflection of the Australian philosophy of batting since Waugh took over, I'm sure. I don't know if I can be bothered doing Pollock, Vaas, et al...

 

[Anil]

I am going by player to player.
Yes, Aussies handled the pace and bounce quiete well previously, primarily because of excellent players of pace such as Slater, Waugh brothers, etc. Their replacements in the current team ( hayden, Clarke, Katich etc) arnt anywhere as good against really fast or bouncy stuff.

Player-vs-player wise, i think Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag are more accomplished against raw pace than Hayden,Langer,Ponting,Gilly. Notice that pacey or bouncy bowlers like Ambrose, Akhtar, Donald etc. didnt cause the abovementioned group(when/if they faced them) as much trouble as they caused Hayden,Ponting,Katich,etc. while bowlers with accuracy/movement/etc. like Pollock/Vaas/Akram has troubled the Indians considerably more.
This has been for the past few decades, going back to the early 70s really.
Gavaskar, Mohinder Amarnath, Sandeep Patil, Chauhan,Manjrekar etc. were pretty competent against raw pace/bounce while they wernt so good relatively against accurate/movers of the ball. Apart from a few batsmen here and there, such as Vengsarkar, Azhar,Ganguly etc, India has handled raw pace and bounce stuff ( like Akhtar-Ambrose-Holding etc.) better than accurate bowlers or movers of the ball ( Akram/Hadlee/Botham/McGrath/Pollock etc).

ponting is arguably the best player against pace bowling right now....sachin and dravid are quite good against quality pace, laxman and sehwag, on fast tracks against top pace, i'm not too sure....

of the old players you mentioned, gavaskar, an in-form amarnath yes, manjrekar for a brief period in the late 80s yes, patil, chauhan have played a few excellent innings against pace(especially patil who has taken the fight to them a few times...) but has never been consistent enough to make that list....vishwanath and vengsarkar have been better against pace and swing and cut much more than them....but when you compare the aussies of that era...the chappells, the waughs, border, slater being some of the exceptional ones, most of their top order over the past 30-40 years have been fairly comfortable against pace....

 

[vic_orthdox]

Australia would have lost quite a few more Tests than they have in the last 5 years if it wasn't for Gilchrist.

I guess the subsequent question is - would Gilchrist have prevented as many losses as Tendulkar and/or Lara?