Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[aussie]

they both should how could they say that look at the big scores Lara has that shows he far mentally tougher than Tendulkar surely....

 

[Anil]

the 155* was off 191 balls and an attack of Kasprowicz, Reiffell, Robertson and Warne (backed up by Blewett and the Waughs)

So all 5 of these innings have been off attacks taht would struggle to count as being mediocre.

mcdermott mediocre??....bruce reid(his effort is even more significant when you consider that indians have always struggled against left-arm pacers...) and merv hughes were very good bowlers in home conditions as well....

 

[Anil]

they both should how could they say that look at the big scores Lara has that shows he far mentally tougher than Tendulkar surely....

the fact that his career has had significant troughs following significant peaks shows lara has struggled to adjust to his celebrity status and the pressure of being his country's star performer....it is his bountiful talent that has rescued him each time....but tendulkar is clearly the more stable and tougher person....

 

[Slifer]

Actually Lara has closed the gap considerably with the advent of flat pitches and decline in bowling but while Lara has 6 less matches, he has 8 more innings than Tendy with 1 more 50 + score.

Last I checked Tendulkar also has oportunities to play on these so-called flat pitches so what is your argument now. And as far as that consistency thing is concerned although Lara's overall average is lower than Tendulkar he actually scores more runs per test than Tendulkar (the number of tests runs scored divided by the number of tests played).

 

[King_Ponting]

Guys give it up ey...... We all know C_C idolises tendulkar, and will defend him to the death, even using richard like statistics to present his argument.

 

[Sanz]

Last I checked Tendulkar also has oportunities to play on these so-called flat pitches so what is your argument now.

No one is complaining dude. Because Flat pitches or not, Sachin still averages more than Lara, even in the so called flat pitches era(supposedly 2000s) and in an era when he has been going through worst phase of his career due to a tennis elbow injury.

And as far as that consistency thing is concerned although Lara's overall average is lower than Tendulkar he actually scores more runs per test than Tendulkar (the number of tests runs scored divided by the number of tests played).

ROFLMAO. Could you please explain how does that prove consistency ? Sachin has scored 4 more centuries despite batting 8 less innings than Lara.

 

[Sanz]

yes, Antigua but I think certain tracks like Barbados sort of make up for it.

And don't Banglore, Mohali make up for Nagpur and Motera etc ?

 

[SJS]

As a fielder..........Lara .

As a bowler..........Tendulkar.

As a captain.........Percy Fender (old foggy who wouldnt know a coach from a manager)

As a batsman.......Don Bradman (of the unprofessional era)

That should settle it once for all.

 

[Slifer]

No one is complaining dude. Because Flat pitches or not, Sachin still averages more than Lara, even in the so called flat pitches era(supposedly 2000s) and in an era when he has been going through worst phase of his career due to a tennis elbow injury.



ROFLMAO. Could you please explain how does that prove consistency ? Sachin has scored 4 more centuries despite batting 8 less innings than Lara.

Wait a minute no where in my thread did i ever say that Lara was more consistent than Tendulkar in fact I actually consider Tendulkar to be a slightly better batsman but i am just annoyed by a discussion i had recently with a colleague of mines who basically made it seem as if Tendulkar was ahead of Lara by a country mile and as far as stats are concerned that is not the case.

 

[aussie]

No one is complaining dude. Because Flat pitches or not, Sachin still averages more than Lara, even in the so called flat pitches era(supposedly 2000s) and in an era when he has been going through worst phase of his career due to a tennis elbow injury.

Tendulkar got this tennis elbow injury only last year, so whats ur aargument now

 

[Sanz]

Tendulkar got this tennis elbow injury only last year, so whats ur aargument now

What is your argument ? Because Tendulkar is still averaging more than Lara, despite the injury.

 

[aussie]

What is your argument ? Because Tendulkar is still averaging more than Lara, despite the injury.

since the start of 2000, show me the stats....

 

[C_C]

Last I checked Tendulkar also has oportunities to play on these so-called flat pitches so what is your argument now. And as far as that consistency thing is concerned although Lara's overall average is lower than Tendulkar he actually scores more runs per test than Tendulkar (the number of tests runs scored divided by the number of tests played).

It simply shows that on pitches good to bat, there isnt much to choose between Lara and Tendulkar but when pitches are challenging, Tendulkar is an overall better bet than Lara.
And more runs/innings is irrelevant- Lara has had the opportunity to bat a lot more than Tendulkar- opportunity to bat till he gets out, instead of the team winning/declaring and remaining not out.

 

[C_C]

I think CC needs to give up on this... I can tell you one thing as an Indian who has basically watched almost every innings of Sachin, he has higher no. of not outs (due to all those test matches in India when Kumble and Co. do the job so well in the first innings that Sachin needs to play for declaration..) and secondly, pitches in India in the 90s were good to play in than those pitches in West Indies (and I am strictly talking the middle 90s here, they started to flatten towardst the late 90s..) and thirdly, I have never heard McGrath say "Tendulkar is better than Lara" during the past 4 years... IT was all before that and if you want to take that as a criteria, Steve Waugh felt Laxman was every bit as good as Sachin in 2001... And by the same token, I have heard both Murali and Wasim claim Lara was better than Sachin at different points in time. And I know Lara has mentioned Sachin as the best batsman he has seen, but then, so has Sachin in an interview to Trinidad Express in 2002 when India were there...


Like I said earlier, I think Lara is a better test batsman by a slight margin, but it is no shame to either to be second best to the other.

McGrath said Tendulkar is the best he's faced as recently as his interview after Lords, where he broke the 500 wicket barrier.
And i disagree that IND pitches were easier to bat in the 90s than the West Indies. If that were true, you'd have a lotta overseas batsmen doing well in IND....the truth is, the pitches are just different sort. Doesnt mean easier. Facing Kumble-Harbhajan on a crumbling pitch is no less challenging(albeit a different kinda challenge) than facing Ambrose-Walsh on a Barbados pitch from the 90s.
And as i said, the not outs is out of Tendulkar's control. I cant believe that one is getting penalised for the ability to NOT BE DISMISSED!

 

[C_C]

they both should how could they say that look at the big scores Lara has that shows he far mentally tougher than Tendulkar surely....

Because they realise that the hardest thing to do is to remain consistent, not rack up huge scores. Every bird has its day. But only the ones who have their days consistently are the ones who rule.
Based on your argument, Lawrence Rowe is a better batsman than Alan Border because he's got higher scores than Border.

 

[C_C]

Like i said, you are being incosistent by counting 95 series Lara played as 'against a good bowling attack' and dismissing the 2002 series Tendulkar played in England as 'against newbies', when facts prove that the 95 attack was marginally more experienced than the 2002 attack. You are going by the CURRENT reputation and experience of Gough/Fraser instead of applying it in the 1995 context, when BOTH were newbies with very little experience.

And you might remember that in 1991/92, McDermott was comming off of injury as well...ofcourse you'd know that if you followed McDermott and realise that he's never finished a full series in his career( i am pretty sure on this and if he did finish series, it was probably 1 or 2 series in his entire career).
So i dont see any reason to conclude that McDermott-Reid-Hughes attack is superior to Lee-Gillespie-McGill overall.

And whether Lara/Tendulkar played against South Africa once or twice when Donald-Pollock played is irrelevant.What is relevant is Tendulkar has succeeded more against them than Lara has. Incase you forget, Tendulkar has missed out on cashing in against the mediocre english attacks more than Lara has, who's played a lot more against the mediocre english

thirdly, I have never heard McGrath say "Tendulkar is better than Lara" during the past 4 years..

I said that about Lara. When he played Caddick-Gough-Fraser after they'd established themselves, he flopped bigtime in England.

And no, i dont consider Lara to be a bigger batting treat than Tendulkar and there are many people who'll disagree with you on tht one. So bringing in personal preferences is irrelevant.

 

[C_C]

Guys give it up ey...... We all know C_C idolises tendulkar, and will defend him to the death, even using richard like statistics to present his argument.

I do more than you, kid.
I make a claim and then i back it up with reasons and logic- something that you dont and instead you specialise in throwing your toys outta yer pram when you got nothing objective to say or when you find yourself unable to justify your opinion(s).

 

[aussie]

Like i said, you are being incosistent by counting 95 series Lara played as 'against a good bowling attack' and dismissing the 2002 series Tendulkar played in England as 'against newbies', when facts prove that the 95 attack was marginally more experienced than the 2002 attack. You are going by the CURRENT reputation and experience of Gough/Fraser instead of applying it in the 1995 context, when BOTH were newbies with very little experience.

And you might remember that in 1991/92, McDermott was comming off of injury as well...ofcourse you'd know that if you followed McDermott and realise that he's never finished a full series in his career( i am pretty sure on this and if he did finish series, it was probably 1 or 2 series in his entire career).
So i dont see any reason to conclude that McDermott-Reid-Hughes attack is superior to Lee-Gillespie-McGill overall.

And whether Lara/Tendulkar played against South Africa once or twice when Donald-Pollock played is irrelevant.What is relevant is Tendulkar has succeeded more against them than Lara has. Incase you forget, Tendulkar has missed out on cashing in against the mediocre english attacks more than Lara has, who's played a lot more against the mediocre english



I said that about Lara. When he played Caddick-Gough-Fraser after they'd established themselves, he flopped bigtime in England.

And no, i dont consider Lara to be a bigger batting treat than Tendulkar and there are many people who'll disagree with you on tht one. So bringing in personal preferences is irrelevant.

In 95 Fraser was by no means a newbie to international cricket, that 95 series was his 3rd or 4th series againts the windies, while Gough was inexperienced.But i'm not disagreeing that the 95 attack was has mediocre has the attack Tendulkar faced in 2002.In this agrument it doesn't matter if Lara has faced more of medicre England overall we are talking about their records in ENG where Tendulkar has NEVER faced any proper English attacks in Home conditions while in 3 tours he only faced a mediocre english attack in 95.

I am pretty sure McDermott completed more than 1 or 2 series in his career i have tapes of AUS vs WI 91 & 92/93 plus the new Story of the Ashes video tape he finished the 94/95 & 85 but even so during India tour in 91/92 he still took 31 wickets in the 5 test @ 21 which shows he recovered well enough to be at his best while Dizzy in tour was injury filled and wasn't able to perform at his best. Lee in 2003/04 and even now cannot be compared to hughes ability has a test bowler because he hasn't proven himself as good enoguh test bowler.

MaCGill may have been better than any other spinner AUS may have had in the 90s behind Warne but if you watched that series u would realise he bowled a lot of nonsense so he was has bad has the wrest & in 91/92 Tendulkar would have also faced Reid & Whitney who averaged 11.00 & 21 respectively compared to MaCgills 50.78. So Tendulkar faced a better bowling attack in 91/92 that in 2003/04 without doubt.

Lara never flopped in ENG when Fraser was established, but he did in 2000 when the Dazzler & Caddy were established but has i said before Lara came into that series after a testing little period in his career and also had an eye problem which required him to bat with shades, so Lara was no where near his best in 2000.

Well i dont know many people who disagree with me on that neither here on CW nor in my area where i live

 

[C_C]

In 95 Fraser was by no means a newbie to international cricket, that 95 series was his 3rd or 4th series againts the windies, while Gough was inexperienced.But i'm not disagreeing that the 95 attack was has mediocre has the attack Tendulkar faced in 2002.In this agrument it doesn't matter if Lara has faced more of medicre England overall we are talking about their records in ENG where Tendulkar has NEVER faced any proper English attacks in Home conditions while in 3 tours he only faced a mediocre english attack in 95.

He's faced pretty much the same attacks Lara has faced and did far better than him.
Fraser had 24 matches under his belt before the onset of the 95 series......by no means a 'veteran'.

am pretty sure McDermott completed more than 1 or 2 series in his career i have tapes of AUS vs WI 91 & 92/93 plus the new Story of the Ashes video tape he finished the 94/95 & 85 but even so during India tour in 91/92 he still took 31 wickets in the 5 test @ 21 which shows he recovered well enough to be at his best while Dizzy in tour was injury filled and wasn't able to perform at his best. Lee in 2003/04 and even now cannot be compared to hughes ability has a test bowler because he hasn't proven himself as good enoguh test bowler.

Look mate, I said McDermott was always plagued by injury......there are very few series that he completed in reality and so Dizzy being injured doesnt hold water.
Lee is not as good as Hughes, agreed, but you are forgetting that McGilla is streets ahead of May as a spinner and overall thre isnt much to pick-n-choose between the two attacks.

Lara never flopped in ENG when Fraser was established, but he did in 2000 when the Dazzler & Caddy were established but has i said before Lara came into that series after a testing little period in his career and also had an eye problem which required him to bat with shades, so Lara was no where near his best in 2000.

Over a long career, everyone runs into problems. You forget that Tendulkar's back has been screwed up for a while now, which is why he doesnt step outside the crease and loft spinners as much as he did in the past...not to mention, he has a permanently shattered bigtoe ( and surely, you understand how big the foot is when it comes to cricket- for batting or bowling- see Chanderpaul's performances skyrocket since the floating bone in his foot was removed).
Tendulkar has had many injury concerns as well and in most cases, he's adapted far better than Lara has.
When Lara faced Paksitan in 93 or so, he bombed bigtime and that was Waqar comming back from his back injury that kept him outta action for over a year or so.
When Lara decimated Warne-McGrath in 99, Warne was just comming back from a finger surgery while in 97, he was close to his physical best and got absolutely annihilated by Tendulkar.I dont see you taking those things into consideration.
Lara has more memorable scores, i dont doubt that, but that is irrelevant as it is not even 10% of his batting career. You have to guage it as a whole, not based on a solitary innings or two because like i said, one swallow doesnt make a summer.
You cannot discount the fact that Tendulkar in the end of 99 ( when there were good/great bowlers going around in a lot more teams than today and when pitches wernt so flat), Tendulkar averaged better than lara overall and against every single frickin opposition, not to mention considerably better overseas.

It clearly shows that while Lara is a great batsman, he is a big home-bully and a smasher of also-ran attacks while Tendulkar performs consistently and well in much more diverse conditions around the globe and when it comes to batting against the topnotch bowlers, Tendulkar is superior.
Not to mention, Lara himself said in 1999 that he is no match for Tendulkar.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well i dont know many people who disagree with me on that neither here on CW nor in my area where i live

Judging by who's been posting, and what has been posted in the last page or so, I don't think too many other members actually care