Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[aussie]

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.



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 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.



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.

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.

Firstly why are you taking Harmison/Hoggard out of the equation???? But the fact still remains Tnedulkar is yet to face a proper English attack in home conditions, god willing he will get that chance when India come here in 2007...

While i agree that Tendulkar is better than Lara in Aus when the faced a good/great bowling attack respectively check back previous post i came up with that average statitistic before thats why i agree.

You say this argument is pathetic ``It is interesting that whenever Lara's failed, the bowling has done well and whenever tendulkar has done well, the bowling has sucked``, well its the fact...

 

[Top_Cat]

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...

But we don't measure any of that so again, given that the number of 6's is the only objective criteria we're in posession of to measure 'big hitters', who is the bigger hitter? Because if you continue to say 'Viv' (which, incidentally, I happen to agree with more or less), it's for reasons other than numbers. And again, if you continue you indirectly assert that factors other than the numbers are important (which they are) and you'll begin to understand why people rate Lara as being at least as good as Tendy, despite some numbers saying differently.

Yes, it's not just one category Tendy wins but when I watch either player at their best, I can't imagine batting being any better. To my eyes, they're equally good but for various reasons, Tendy trumps Lara in some categories of numbers and even then, those numbers have significant caveats associated with them.

This renders the argument a glorified peeing contest. In those terms, despite Tendulkar having a higher ruler-height on walls in some countries, Lara is able to pee in ways Tendy can't, like off one wall to another for example. In trying for the trick-pee though, sometimes Lara pees on himself whereas Tendy eliminates risk by only peeing on walls with no splash-back until he's ready to pee on the biggest walls of all (Test peeing walls, you see). Sometimes Lara gushes and other times he drips whereas Tendy can always be counted on for a decent ruler-height. Does this make either of them 'better' pee'ers than the other? I don't know and I don't care. As long as they pee well when I'm watching.

 

[aussie]

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'.

firstl sorry mate, that was my mistake i was not making any propagting statement out of will, just a mistake....

 

[Anil]

This renders the argument a glorified peeing contest. In those terms, despite Tendulkar having a higher ruler-height on walls in some countries, Lara is able to pee in ways Tendy can't, like off one wall to another for example. In trying for the trick-pee though, sometimes Lara pees on himself whereas Tendy eliminates risk by only peeing on walls with no splash-back until he's ready to pee on the biggest walls of all (Test peeing walls, you see). Sometimes Lara gushes and other times he drips whereas Tendy can always be counted on for a decent ruler-height. Does this make either of them 'better' pee'ers than the other? I don't know and I don't care. As long as they pee well when I'm watching.

so you watch them pee, is that it?

do you stalk them in the bathrooms or something ? that's just disgusting man...

 

[Top_Cat]

so you watch them pee, is that it?

Well, as I said, they ARE the best.

Don't pretend you didn't laugh. And like so many things, it would have been even funnier had I been able to use the actual profanities (damn word filter).

 

[C_C]

firstl sorry mate, that was my mistake i was not making any propagting statement out of will, just a mistake....

No worries, mate.

 

[C_C]

But we don't measure any of that so again, given that the number of 6's is the only objective criteria we're in posession of to measure 'big hitters', who is the bigger hitter?

Well this is a case where a critical data ( how far one hits the ball) is missing and thus is a very subjective guage.

I loved yer hillarious peeing on the wall example.... and i agree with most of it...but as i've said and justified before, consistency at a high level is much more important than a few flashes of absolute brilliance and this is a category where Tendulkar trumps Lara.

 

[Anil]

Well, as I said, they ARE the best.

Don't pretend you didn't laugh. And like so many things, it would have been even funnier had I been able to use the actual profanities (damn word filter).

oh i did laugh, that was quite funny and an accurate assessment....just couldn't resist the dig, that's all...

you know if they had been similar kinds of players, it would have been much easier to compare them and arrive at a reasonable, logical conclusion....as it is, they are so different as players...i have tried to do comparative analysis of both using stats but it just reaches nowhere and the only thing that really emerges is that they are so, so better than other players of their generation....

 

[social]

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.

Even if I allow your asertion that Warne was fit in 97/98 (which he wasnt), McGrath did not play.

In fact, in tests where both McGrath and Warne played, his average is a mere mortal-like 37.

As I have stated many times, Tendy is, IMO, the best player of the last 10 years or so.

However, even his record is inflated by injuries to key players, scores on flat decks, etc.

Lara has been less consistent vs Aus, but has played at least 4 of the greatest innings ever against the same opponent. On that fact alone, he cannot come out behind Tendy in this scenario.

 

[aussie]

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

ok if you take out that 400 he does average only 38.90, but i'll put up the argumet that if you take out Tendulkars 241 not out, 194 not out & 248 not out on maybe not on pitches that were has flat has Antigua put were flat his average rockets down to even low of 18.62 .Sooooo those big NOT OUT scores that Tendulkar had a more significant effect on his average than Lara's 400 had on his.

 

[C_C]

Lara has been less consistent vs Aus, but has played at least 4 of the greatest innings ever against the same opponent. On that fact alone, he cannot come out behind Tendy in this scenario.

Sorry mate, i would count at most 3 innings ( 275, 153* and 200+ in Sabina park)...rest are good but not 'alltime great' category.


And yes, Tendy has benifitted from alsoran bowling- every batsman has. But the point is, he has benifitted a lot less than lara or most others and succeeded more than them in most situations.

 

[C_C]

ok if you take out that 400 he does average only 38.90, but i'll put up the argumet that if you take out Tendulkars 241 not out, 194 not out & 248 not out on maybe not on pitches that were has flat has Antigua put were flat his average rockets down to even low of 18.62 .Sooooo those big NOT OUT scores that Tendulkar had a more significant effect on his average than Lara's 400 had on his.

No wonder...you are taking out 3 scores for Tendy and 1 for Lara.


But yes, lara was more successful in 2004 and also in 2003 and 2002 and 2 other years in the 90s i think but 5 years doesnt cut the mustard, mate.Especially when we are talking about 15 year careers.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Really, let's see in 2000-01 sereis Lara didn't get to face Warnie at all and still failed (except for one inning of 182). He even struggled against spins of Miller and Macgill. In 2003-04, his biggest scores came when Warnie & Mcgrath were missing from the first 2 tests. Infact Lara didn't get to face Warnie in any of those two series.

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.

So was Lara's Avg because of high scores like 400* vs. Eng, 202, 196, 176 Vs. SA and 191 vs. Zim.

 

[aussie]

2nd team inning - Lara 36.36, Sachin 41.42

all this 2nd innings shows that Tendulkar has been a tad more consistent than Lara in second innings since 2000.But a major factor this lies in the strenght of IND & WI bowling respectively. A good example is in WI recent home series againts SA when Lara made those 2 big centuries in WI 1st innings in Trinidad & Barbados respectively he batted for a long time, then when it was SA's turn to bat he feilded for an even longer time..., now that would have surely had an effect on Lara physically and mentally which would have disabled him from scoring that heavily in WI second innings.

Tendulkar also averages higher than Lara in team 2nd innings throughout their careers but Lara has been faced with the stress even in the latter stages of Amborse & Walshes careers of ``Making big runs in the first innings then having to feel for long periods``. Sachin would have had to face that, but no way near has much as Lara

 

[social]

Sorry mate, i would count at most 3 innings ( 275, 153* and 200+ in Sabina park)...rest are good but not 'alltime great' category.


And yes, Tendy has benifitted from alsoran bowling- every batsman has. But the point is, he has benifitted a lot less than lara or most others and succeeded more than them in most situations.

Add in the 100 off 84 balls (out of 117 whilst at wicket) at Antigua.

 

[Sanz]

Tendulkar also averages higher than Lara in team 2nd innings throughout their careers but Lara has been faced with the stress even in the latter stages of Amborse & Walshes careers of ``Making big runs in the first innings then having to feel for long periods``. Sachin would have had to face that, but no way near has much as Lara

* Apart from Batting Tendulkar also bowls for his team which Lara never does
*Tendulkar never had the support of bowlers like Ambrose/Walsh
* Tendulkar has more 1st inning centuries than Lara
* Tendulkar has more 2nd inning centuries than Lara.

 

[Sanz]

Add in the 100 off 84 balls (out of 117 whilst at wicket) at Antigua.

I dont think that was a great inning, it was made against an attack of Mcgrath, Dale, Miller, Macgill. Not to forget that Miller dropped a sitter when Lara was @ 15.

 

[Dasa]

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.

Well said, mate. I agree completely, although a little nationalistic bias makes me prefer Tendulkar - that and I enjoy watching right-handers more.

How about this, Tendulkar best right-handed batsman of our times, Lara the best leftie? I don't think anyone can argue with that (unless Richard brings up Graeme Smith).

 

[aussie]

Really, let's see in 2000-01 sereis Lara didn't get to face Warnie at all and still failed (except for one inning of 182). He even struggled against spins of Miller and Macgill. In 2003-04, his biggest scores came when Warnie & Mcgrath were missing from the first 2 tests. Infact Lara didn't get to face Warnie in any of those two series.



So was Lara's Avg because of high scores like 400* vs. Eng, 202, 196, 176 Vs. SA and 191 vs. Zim.

Thast my point in 2000/01 Lara was no where near his best, his struggles againts the likes of MaCGill & Miller proves that (since Lara without doubt is the best player of spin today). While even though Lara didn't face Warne in 2003 nor Pigeon for 2 test even though Tendulkar faced the same bowlers in (Dizzy, Lee, MaCgill, Bichel) plus Bracken & Williams, if you remember Dizzy & Lee were injured plagued throughout that series and were bowling no where has good as they bowled in the caribbean earlier than year againts Lara.

Secondly the difference between Lara scores their to Tendulkar scores where the fact that Lara was more consistent throughout 2004....

 

[aussie]

* Apart from Batting Tendulkar also bowls for his team which Lara never does
*Tendulkar never had the support of bowlers like Ambrose/Walsh
* Tendulkar has more 1st inning centuries than Lara
* Tendulkar has more 2nd inning centuries than Lara.

1. What does that have do with this argument

2. Thats true but after WI lost to AUS in 95, even though WI still had Ambrose/Walsh they still conceded big totals to the opposition, so if Lara was to make a big score in the 1st Innnings then fail in the 2nd that was due to fact that he was in the field for LONG periods which would affect him when he goes to bat a second time around...

3. What does this also havr to do with this argument

4. Yes and i have explained above the main reason why this is so....