Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[aussie]

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

this topic has been debated before if u remember Vic, and other members did agree with that fact

 

[social]

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'.



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.



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.

Without buying into the argument, Tendulkar never faced Warne at his peak or injury-free.

In '97, he was playing against all medical advice and the fear was that by continuig to do so could have spelt the end of his career.

In fact, despite the opinions of Warne, McGrath and myself as to his overall rating, Tendy's performances vs Aus do not match the Lara's.

BTW, Lara is not simply a home FTB. Murali rates him the best player that he has bowled against for his performances in SL not WI.

 

[Sanz]

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

Since 01-01-2000 :-

Overall :- Lara 57.01(17 100s, 17 50s), Sachin 58.01(12 100s, 18 50s)
Home :- Lara 63.40, Sachin 56.05
Away :- Lara 50.33 , Sachin 60.08
Vs. Australia :- Lara 47.44, Sachin 47.41
In Australia :- Lara 32.10, Sachin 61.71
1st team inning - Lara 73.6 Sachin 68.10
2nd team inning - Lara 36.36, Sachin 41.42

In 2000 - Lara 29, Sachin 63.88
In 2001 - Lara 63.94, Sachin 62.68
In 2002 - Lara 35.10, Sachin 55.68
In 2003 - Lara 74.66, Sachin 17.00
In 2004 - Lara 58.9, Sachin 91.50
In 2005 - Lara 80.44, Sachin 55.33

PS :- For the majority of the 2000s Lara was averaging betwen 47-52, it's only since his 400* in 2004 Lara has averaged 53+, On the other hand during the same period Tendulkar was averaging between 55-59 and consistently maintained an avg. of 55+ throughout the 2000s.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Vs. Australia :- Lara 47.44, Sachin 47.41

Well, I guess that settles it. Lara is clearly better...

 

[aussie]

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'.



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.



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.

Yes Tendulkar faced pretty much the same attacks but at contrating stages in their careers. when Tendulkar faced Harmison, Jones, Flintoff & Hoggard in 2002 they weren't anything special but when Lara faced them in 2004 they were far better so thats a significant factor.Its agreeable that in the 90s that both faced mediocre English attacks would have never faced the Dazzler in test neither Caddick at his best thats also a big factor.

With Reference to Fraser even though he only played 24 test prior to the 95 he made his debut since 89 and maybe the fact that he missed almost half of England's test up to that series for reasons unknown to me he was still established enough then has Englands best bowler.

Dizzy being injured definately would hold water in this case because he dind't bowl anywhere near his best during that series (if you watched the series u would realise that) and even though McDermott was coming off an injury during the 91/92 series he bowled to his potential so thats factor that has to be considered. While bringing May into the argument wont count because he didn't play in the 91/92 series .So at the respective stages of their career & the injury factor that the aussie bowlers had in 2003/04 makes much to pick-n-choose between the australian attack Tendulkar faced in 91/92 & 2003/04.

I would have to take that into consideration for the 2000 series because its one of 3 factors which disabled lara form doing well during the 2000 tour along with the situation he was in before that tour & the fact that the English attack of Gough/Caddick/Cork/White bowled very well.I'm not disconting the fact that STATS show that Tendulkar averages higher than lara againts every good/great attack overseas at the end of 99 but these facts dont tell the WHOLE truth.

Maybe Lara said that he was no match for Tendulkar but i think that was more out of respect because if he had said that he was better people would have said he was arrogant. I'm pretty sure if Tendulkar was asked that question he would say the same thing....

 

[C_C]

In '97, he was playing against all medical advice and the fear was that by continuig to do so could have spelt the end of his career.

In fact, despite the opinions of Warne, McGrath and myself as to his overall rating, Tendy's performances vs Aus do not match the Lara's.

BTW, Lara is not simply a home FTB. Murali rates him the best player that he has bowled against for his performances in SL not WI.

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.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, I guess that settles it. Lara is clearly better...

A whole 0.03 difference?? Wow, geez, why are we even fricken' debating the issue then?!?!

My take; they're both genius'. Tendulkar is a genius because of his perfection, Lara due to his imperfections. Performances and stats be damned, I love watching them both bat.

 

[Sanz]

Without buying into the argument, Tendulkar never faced Warne at his peak or injury-free.

In '97, he was playing against all medical advice and the fear was that by continuig to do so could have spelt the end of his career.

Tendulkar played against Warne in 1991-92, 97-98, 99-00, 00-01, 04-05. I am sure Warnie was not at peak in any of those series. His peak must have lasted an awefully short period.

 

[social]

Tendulkar played against Warne in 1991-92, 97-98, 99-00, 00-01, 04-05. I am sure Warnie was not at peak in any of those series. His peak must have lasted an awefully short period.

Warne's debut test was in 91-92.

Operated on for shoulder problems after 97-98 series.

You were saying?

 

[King_Ponting]

Tendulkar played against Warne in 1991-92, 97-98, 99-00, 00-01, 04-05. I am sure Warnie was not at peak in any of those series. His peak must have lasted an awefully short period.

Can i grab some of that medicinal youve been smoking?

 

[C_C]

Yes Tendulkar faced pretty much the same attacks but at contrating stages in their careers. when Tendulkar faced Harmison, Jones, Flintoff & Hoggard in 2002 they weren't anything special but when Lara faced them in 2004 they were far better so thats a significant factor.Its agreeable that in the 90s that both faced mediocre English attacks would have never faced the Dazzler in test neither Caddick at his best thats also a big factor.

Umm...even if you take Flintoff-Hoggard-harmison outta the equation, Tendy averages 74.77 to 55.77 for Lara- again, Tendy beats Lara pretty handily in English conditions.

With Reference to Fraser even though he only played 24 test prior to the 95 he made his debut since 89 and maybe the fact that he missed almost half of England's test up to that series for reasons unknown to me he was still established enough then has Englands best bowler.

That doesnt mean much really. In the absence of Bond, Vettori is the best Kiwi bowler but overall, Vettori is ordinary and nothing hoo-haa.

Dizzy being injured definately would hold water in this case because he dind't bowl anywhere near his best during that series (if you watched the series u would realise that) and even though McDermott was coming off an injury during the 91/92 series he bowled to his potential so thats factor that has to be considered. While bringing May into the argument wont count because he didn't play in the 91/92 series .So at the respective stages of their career & the injury factor that the aussie bowlers had in 2003/04 makes much to pick-n-choose between the australian attack Tendulkar faced in 91/92 & 2003/04.

Dizzy didnt bowl at his best, but he didnt bowl utter tripe either. He just got bludgeoned by Sehwag and stonewalled by Dravid into oblivion. And FYI, McDermott rarely bowled to his potential, since he was a walking wounded for most of his career.
The fact that he played a full series only 5 times outta 25 occasions in his career is a testament to that.

In anycase, if you wanna restrict it to McDermott-Hughes-Reid-McGrath-Warne-Gillespie-Fleming for both of them,
Tendulkar averages 46.14 in OZ while Lara averages 40.11
Again, Tendulkar is superior by a fair margin.

I would have to take that into consideration for the 2000 series because its one of 3 factors which disabled lara form doing well during the 2000 tour along with the situation he was in before that tour & the fact that the English attack of Gough/Caddick/Cork/White bowled very well

It is interesting that whenever Lara's failed, the bowling has done well and whenever tendulkar has done well, the bowling has sucked...that is a pretty pathetic argument, mate.
And like i said, injury problems are irrelevant. Both have had injuries and both have carried injuries into the match and Tendy has done a lot better than Lara in most cases.

I'm not disconting the fact that STATS show that Tendulkar averages higher than lara againts every good/great attack overseas at the end of 99 but these facts dont tell the WHOLE truth.

They tell most of the truth and a lot more than arbitary personal opinions, really.
When it is as comprehensive as that - better overall average, better overseas average by a huge margin and better average against EVERY SINGLE NATION, its pretty conclusive.
In a scientific investigation, this is 'case closed, conclusion is conclusive' scenario.

Maybe Lara said that he was no match for Tendulkar but i think that was more out of respect because if he had said that he was better people would have said he was arrogant. I'm pretty sure if Tendulkar was asked that question he would say the same thing....

yes, i am sure when you say ' he is better than me', it is modesty and not admitting that you aint a match for me. I am sure 'he is an excellent player and i respect him a lot'( the standard fare for reactions and comparisions between oneself and others in international sporting scene) isnt modest.....

Man...factually, it is conclusive that Tendulkar is a better player than Lara...you may prefer Lara to tendulkar- i have no problems with that....but factually there is only one truth- that Tendulkar is better. Simple.

 

[aussie]

Since 01-01-2000 :-
Vs. Australia :- Lara 47.44, Sachin 47.41
In Australia :- Lara 32.10, Sachin 61.71
2nd team inning - Lara 36.36, Sachin 41.42

In 2000 - Lara 29, Sachin 63.88
In 2002 - Lara 35.10, Sachin 55.68
In 2003 - Lara 74.66, Sachin 17.00
In 2004 - Lara 58.9, Sachin 91.50

Tendulkars overall average & average in AUS would have been helped by the fact that in 2003/04 he caught a out of sorts aussie attack. Lara on the other hand in 2000 even though it was his 2nd series after the preceeding tour here were he went through a very difficult phase in his career still wasn't the Lara of old.

In 2002 Lara came back in home series againts IND & NZ after his horrific injury in SRI in early 2002 which would have surely affected his game while Tendulkar played more than him in 2002. But the same argument can be put up for Tendulkar in 2003.

In 2004 Lara was definately more consistent than Tendulkar no doubt, Tendulaks average was helped by socres of 241 @ SCG, 194 & 240 odd vs BAN were followed by only 2 other 50s, while his other scores were failures. Some may argue that his tennis elbow injury but Tendulkar was ging throught this bad run in TESTS since the NZ tour in 2202/03....

 

[Slow Love™]

It's two hard for me to seperate these two on sheer quality, so I won't bother trying - I will say that I myself prefer to watch Lara of the two. They are both brilliant though.

But on the "mental toughness" issue, I would say that Tendulkar is in front. Lara's the archetypal flawed genius, and he occasionally demonstrates an emotional fragility (and ability to be gotten to) that Tendulkar doesn't. And although both players are frequently under a lot of pressure from their home country's fans, I believe that Tendulkar's position in this regard is probably higher than for any current player.

 

[C_C]

Tendulkars overall average & average in AUS would have been helped by the fact that in 2003/04 he caught a out of sorts aussie attack. Lara on the other hand in 2000 was in his first year back in international cricket during the 2000/01 tour down under even though it was his 2nd series after his comeback was back to the Lara of old.

I've corrected you on this and yet you keep propagating BS.
2000 was NOT lara's first year back in international cricket- his first year back in intl. cricket was during the SL series in SL. In 2001 before OZ, he played England and NZ in a full series just a few months before playing OZ.
That is NOT 'back to international cricket'- in that case, every single player during every single new series is comming 'back to international cricket'.

In 2004 Lara was definately more consistent than Tendulkar no doubt, Tendulaks average was helped by socres of 241 @ SCG, 194 & 240 odd vs BAN were followed by only 2 other 50s, while his other scores were failures. Some may argue that his tennis elbow injury but Tendulkar was ging throught this bad run in TESTS since the NZ tour in 2202/03....

Yeah...and Lara's record was helped a LOT by his 400* in a dead-rubber match on a very very flat pitch.

 

[Top_Cat]

Man...factually, it is conclusive that Tendulkar is a better player than Lara...you may prefer Lara to tendulkar- i have no problems with that....but factually there is only one truth- that Tendulkar is better. Simple.

Factually, Ian Botham hit more 6's in his career than Viv. Does that make him a bigger hitter than Viv and your assertion otherwise, wrong?

 

[C_C]

Factually, Ian Botham hit more 6's in his career than Viv. Does that make him a bigger hitter than Viv and your assertion otherwise, wrong?

No, because there are several components of 'being a big-hitter', not just sixes....Tendulkar overall scores a comprehensive win, not just one-category hogging.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, because there are several components of 'being a big-hitter', not just sixes

Such as? 6's are the only objective measure of big hitting, after all.

 

[King_Ponting]

Such as? 6's are the only objective measure of big hitting, after all.

Yeh thats all we got. the most runs available of a single "big" hit is 6..... The only method of defining a big hitter is 6ers, if we do it statistically

 

[C_C]

Such as? 6's are the only objective measure of big hitting, after all.

Not necessarily.... one also has to find out how many times one got dismissed trying to play that stroke and how huge those hits were...Ganguly has one of the highest # of sixes in ODI cricket but he isnt a big hitter...his sixes usually just cross the rope or at best into the stands...

 

[Anil]

Tendulkar played against Warne in 1991-92, 97-98, 99-00, 00-01, 04-05. I am sure Warnie was not at peak in any of those series. His peak must have lasted an awefully short period.

warne tends to hit the valleys when tendulkar is in form...so of course it is true that he was never at his peak....