Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[Anil]

I agree Tendular is the more dependable. I watched Lara score a big hundred on the SCG, one of the highlights of my Cricket watching. I think of late Tendulkar has lost a little of his 'instict' and has become a little mechanical. Not 'having a go' just an observation.

i think it's his numerous niggling injuries starting to take a toll...i am sure he still has a lot of fight left in him though......

 

[archie mac]

i think it's his numerous niggling injuries starting to take a toll...i am sure he still has a lot of fight left in him though......

No doubt.

Will go down as one of the all time greats.

 

[Dasa]

I agree Tendular is the more dependable. I watched Lara score a big hundred on the SCG, one of the highlights of my Cricket watching. I think of late Tendulkar has lost a little of his 'instict' and has become a little mechanical. Not 'having a go' just an observation.

Quite true. That prolonged period of poor form resulted in him playing 'by the numbers' - so Tendulkar becamse a lot less exciting to watch for a while. However, his last few series' have shown signs of him being back to his best.

 

[C_C]

not completely true...lara's average was in the 60s in the 90s for quite some time when he made those huge scores, 375, 277* etc...he then had a serious slump which saw the average drop below 50 and has resurrected himself in the 2000s as you mentioned...

True. But overall progressive career average is not indicative of your career progression.
You can do 'jawdroppingly' as a newbie( and those instances arnt exactly non-existant),benifitting from being an 'unknown quantity' and then the opposition bowlers get you under control, once they've analysed you for chinks in your armor, given that you are no longer an unknown quantity.
Jimmy Adams was a perfect example of that ( ofcourse, the fact that he took a nasty blow to the head should also be taken into consideration).

To illustrate my point, imagine someone who scores 1500 runs from 20 innings with 5 not outs in his first season or two with an average of 100.00.
For the next 5 seasons, he accumulates 3600 runs from 80 dismissals at a 'good' average of 45.00...his overall career tally would read 5100 runs @ 53.68 and vault him to 'greatness'.
Lara, to an extent, shows this pattern until recently. He didnt play much Test cricket till 1993 but for the next 3 years, he dominated and then did very little of note for the next six(apart from that one monster series vs OZ) as bowlers suddenly found a weak spot to exploit.

 

[Sanz]

not completely true...lara's average was in the 60s in the 90s for quite some time when he made those huge scores, 375, 277* etc...

This is a myth which has been told on this forum every time the genius of Lara has been discussed. The fact is that Lara's average in 60s has lasted only 6 innings or a total of 4 tests in his entire career.
* When Lara made 277, his avg. shoot upto 57.88 from 30.50.

* Lara was averaging around 50 before he made 375 after which his avrage shoot up to 62.61 and lasted only two innings (including the one where he scored 375) .

* Lara's avg. shhot up to 60 again when he scored 179 against England @ oval in 1995 and that lasted only 4 batting innings (including the one where he scored 179).

he then had a serious slump which saw the average drop below 50 and has resurrected himself in the 2000s as you mentioned...

Incorrect, In 90s Lara's average never went below 50 (except for one series in SA in 1998/99) where really struggled with the bat and it lasted for only 3 tests. It was only in 2000s that his average dropped to 47 (his avg. was below 50 for almost 20 tests in 2000s). Its only since his 400 against England he has been awesome.

but lara's genius with the bat has more often than not overcome these shortcomings...i remember when he came on his first tour to india...he failed with the bat in the first two tests and was not able to adjust to indian spinners in spinner-friendly conditions...in the final test, he made a superb 91, he did not even use much footwork, just stood there and blasted the indian bowlers to all parts of the ground, an awesome display of his genius....

Couldn't agree more.

 

[roseboy64]

Oh boy.....Not again. They've started already.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Lara is slightly ahead of Sachin as a test batsman, but both are so great that it is no shame for either of them to be the second best to the other.

 

[Jono]

Currently Lara.
Overall nothing to split them IMO.

Yep, I completely concur with that.

 

[sledger]

i'm not stating my argument on just what Chappel said, he has made much sense... & i think u missed the point their sledger, i didn't say the probability of Sachin getting a hundred is erased i am saying (or ian chappell is saying ) that when sachin gets to a hundred he doesn't always carry on to make big hundreds like Lara does.

Btw since we have been arguing over this, who do you think is better

you cant compare them imo, they are the two best batsman in the world, (debatebly) and thats where it ends for me, to say one is better than the other is pretty much nonsense to me.

 

[Shane Warne]

you cant compare them imo, they are the two best batsman in the world, (debatebly) .

Not really debateable.

 

[sledger]

well, when they are both in top form, there are none that can match them.

 

[aussie]

well, when they are both in top form, there are none that can match them.

fair enough mate....

 

[Legglancer]

Definitely Lara for me ...... He seems to play so many innings for WI when the chip are down and their is a magical quality about his batting that can transcend all the laws of gravity and physics. Some of the shots he attempts are almost beyond belief !

 

[aussie]

I wont argue my point too much (because i've already done it to death before) but The reason i consider Tendulkar to be overall superior to lara are these:

1. Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara
2. Tendulkar averages better than Lara against good/great attacks.
3. Tendulkar is far more versatile than Lara overall and this is indicated by the fact that while their home averages are about the same(with Lara having a slight advantage), Tendulkar has a vastly superior away average.
4. Tendy averages 14 pts more than lara in AUS, 23 pts in England, 24 pts in Pak and 11 pts in SL. Lara averages more than Tendy by 4 pts in RSA and 3 pts in NZ. Suffice to say Tendy vastly outstrips Lara in foreign conditions
5. Lara has NEVER averaged 40+ away from home against a great attack. He never averaged 40+ in Pakistan when Wasim-Waqar were playing, never averaged 40+ in AUS when McWarne were playing and never averaged 40+ in RSA when Donald-Pollock were playing. Tendy has against two of the three abovementioned attack in their backyard.

6. Lara failed to score a single ton against Donald-Pollock or Wasim-Waqar. Tendy has done that against both of them

7. Lara's average has crossed the 50+ barrier and he's done superlatively well in the 2000s- when the pitches were getting flatter and half of the good-great attacks had retired.

8. Tendy has faced a superior bowling opposition throughout his career than lara has. The only worldclass/great bowlers that lara has faced but Tendulkar hasnt over the span of a full series is Kumble and Srinath. The worldclass/great bowlers that Tendy has faced but Lara hasnt are Ambrose, Walsh, Imran Khan,Ian Bishop, Abdul Qadir and Richard Hadlee.

9. Aesthetically speaking(which is least important in my books), Tendy is considerably better than lara. Tendy never had a glaring technical flaw in his batting like Lara did throughout the 90s, when he didnt know where his offstump was and ended up giving the slip cordon regular catching pratice off balls pitched just short of goodlength and moving out a tad. Tendy by contrast, has only been occasionally vulnerable to the incutter.
Tendy's technique is superior to Lara's.

10. Lets not even bother going to ODIs, as the only batsmen comparable to Tendy in the history of ODIs are Viv and Bevan.

well you are going to have to go to the death wih me CC mate, cause i am with Lara 100 % & have reason to diagree with you:

1.You say Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara which is true but Lara is more destructive & drives more fear into the opposition.Look at this example when Sachin comes out to bat and he gets a 100 or 150 he it would a classy well organised innings but with Lara we are talking about 150 in a run ball or just basically at a phenomenal rate, he would have the opposition bowlers & skipper absolutely dumbfounded with his strokeplay.That is also shown by the fact the Lara has scored 3 centuries in a series on 3 ooccassions 95 in ENG, 99 in WI vs AUS & 2001 in SRI a feat that Sachin can only dream of.

The only innings that Tendulkar has played that i can remember that is similar to that was his 177 in chennai in 98.

4.Its true that Lara has averaged 40 plus againts any good/great attack away from home, but lets look at his record in PAK first when he played his debut series their he didn't establish himself in the west indian side has yet let alone recognised has one of the premier bastmen in the world at that time, but he didn't do much in 97 so that doesn't help my arguement much.But when Sachin played over their in last year his average in PAK was boosted by his 194, he ended up with barely 205 runs in the end, so if u take out that innings his average in PAK goes down to where Brian is....

Sachin averages 14 more points in Australia shockingly , but since your looking at runs scored againts great/good attacks lets take out the sydeny test when he scored 301 runs hs average goes down to an even 40 in AUS with Lara , some may say take out the whole series and then Tendulkar would average 46 in AUS. But then i'll argue during the 2000 series againts AUS it was Lara 1st year back into international cricket and he didn't look his dominant self in either the preciding UK tour nor that tour Down under, but he showd glimpses that the genius still had what it takes with his 112 right here at Old Trafford & his blistering 182 in adelaide.

Its also true that he averages more over here (another shock).First lets analyze this key factor in my view of Lara's performace in 95 to Tendulkar's of 96. He had a superb series in 95 scoring 765 runs in 6 test @ 85 while Sachin had 428 in 3 test also at 85. But the bowling that Tendulkar faced was much more mediocre to the one Lara faced a year early with the likes of Mullally, Martin, Patel, Irani, Lewis, Eahlam & Cork(who was probably the only dangerous bowler since he was only effective in English conditions) while Lara had to content with a much better looking test match attack Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Malcolm, DeFraitas & Illingworth. Now if Lara had go the attack Tendulkar had boy he could have scored 1000 runs in that series . Plus if you want you can ask all the English bowlers that have bowled to Lara & Tendular in the last decade & i'll bet you all will unnanimously go for Lara.

lets come more recent now. Lara did fail in 2000 but has was the reason for his failure down under that same year it was because it was his fist year back in international cricket & was getting back into the grooze of things plus if you watched that series you would remember him having to bat with shades due to a eye problem that he had. Last year Lara without doubt faced the most disciplined English bowling attack in his career and struggled while in 2002 Sachin plundered runs againts an England attack consisting off promising good young bowlers (Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff) & a veteran fast bowler who was a shadow of himself (Caddick) again i say if Lara could have faced that attack he would have plundered as much or even more.

As soon has i saw that you had his record in sri was higher than Lara 's i knew immediately that something was wrong .Sine we r sticking to runs made againts good/great attacks i'll take out Brain's only innings in 93 where he scored 18 & stick with his 688 a@ 114 in 2001, while OVERALL Sachin has 493 runs @ 70.

The facts do show that Tendulkar outstrips Lara in foreign conditions, but these facts is a fantastic case of the old cricket saying ``Stats dont tell the whole truth``

Lara may not have scored a century againts Donald-Pollock or Wasim-Waqar but how much does that actually prove???

I think Lara's average was over 50 before the turn of the mellinim and u say that he ahs done superlatively well in the 2000s when pitches were getting flatter & the have of the good attacks of the 90s had retired but its Sachin would have faced those same bowlers during the last 5 years but he hasn't scored has mcuh runs no what does that tell ya???

I wouldn't consider Srinath/Kumble ``world-class`` bowler during the 90s at all its obvious Tendulkar woudn't have faced them in a full test series & Lara wouldn't have faced Ambrose, Walsh & co because their the blokes individual team mates duhhhhh sam. Lara never faced Hadlee but he did face Qadir on his test debut.So i dont know how you could say that Tendulkar has faced a superior bowling opposition to Lara in his career.

Well if Lara had such a glaring technical flaw throughout the 90s expalin how he scored all those runs with such big scores??? and how did you analyze all of Tendulkars dismissals throughout the 90s before you came to the conclusion that he was OCCASSIONALLY vulnerable to the incutter or you just came flat out and said that.Their is no doubt that that Tendulkar technique to Lara's but has my father said ``You cant compare technique to superior class`` for example the two best batsmen of the 80s were Sir Viv & Miandad and undoubtebly Miandad had a better technique but he wasn't in the same class with the master blaster.

Finally you'te right not to go to ODI's because has we all know ODI are for entertaiment but test cricket is where the true qualities of a batsman is tested so that was the right move mate....

 

[aussie]

2nd team innings - Lara 38.47, Sachin 46.48.

all this proves that he is more consistent which doesn't say much in my view because their are many top batsmen out their today & that have retired that have similar ratio's....

 

[C_C]

1.You say Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara which is true but Lara is more destructive & drives more fear into the opposition.Look at this example when Sachin comes out to bat and he gets a 100 or 150 he it would a classy well organised innings but with Lara we are talking about 150 in a run ball or just basically at a phenomenal rate, he would have the opposition bowlers & skipper absolutely dumbfounded with his strokeplay.That is also shown by the fact the Lara has scored 3 centuries in a series on 3 ooccassions 95 in ENG, 99 in WI vs AUS & 2001 in SRI a feat that Sachin can only dream of.

True, Lara is more destructive...but then again, nobody is as destructive as Shahid Afridi on song.... as per drives more fear into the opposition, i disagree. You are going by current form while i am going by career performance. Of neutral bowlers that've bowled to them ( ie, take Indian bowlers and WI bowlers outta the picture due to obvious reasons), you'd find that more good/great bowlers think Tendulkar is a harder challenge to bowl to. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Vaas, Akram, Saqlain, Donald, Pollock and Caddick thinks that Tendulkar is a harder challenge...the ones who've picked Lara over Tendulkar are Murali, McGill, Vettori and Fraser.
While i wouldnt use the term 'fear', i would deduce from the abovementioned fact that the prevalent opinion amongst bowlers who've bowled to them both is that Tendulkar is better.
As per Lara scoring 3 centuries in a series, all but one has come in series involving 5 test matches....I think Tendulkar has played 5 test series only 3 times while Lara has played 5 test series 11 times.

4.Its true that Lara has averaged 40 plus againts any good/great attack away from home, but lets look at his record in PAK first when he played his debut series their he didn't establish himself in the west indian side has yet let alone recognised has one of the premier bastmen in the world at that time, but he didn't do much in 97 so that doesn't help my arguement much.But when Sachin played over their in last year his average in PAK was boosted by his 194, he ended up with barely 205 runs in the end, so if u take out that innings his average in PAK goes down to where Brian is....

I know that Tendulkar has never averaged 40+ in Pakistan when Wasim-Waqar were present( the only series he played there was in 1989 in his debut series at the age of 16 against Imran Khan, Abdul Qadir, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis....that is quiete the lineup to average 40+ against in the debut series when yer just a 16 year old pup.
But Tendulkar has done it against Donald-Pollock and McGrath-Warne.

Sachin averages 14 more points in Australia shockingly , but since your looking at runs scored againts great/good attacks lets take out the sydeny test when he scored 301 runs hs average goes down to an even 40 in AUS with Lara , some may say take out the whole series and then Tendulkar would average 46 in AUS. But then i'll argue during the 2000 series againts AUS it was Lara 1st year back into international cricket and he didn't look his dominant self in either the preciding UK tour nor that tour Down under, but he showd glimpses that the genius still had what it takes with his 112 right here at Old Trafford & his blistering 182 in adelaide.

Err, if you look at series played in Australia when McWarne were bowling, Tendulkar averages 46.33 - that is back in 1999.
Under the same guideline, Lara averages 32.47 ( 96-97 and 2000/01)

And 2000/01 was not Lara's first series back into international cricket ( after his hamstring and elbow injuries). He played OZ in OZ between 23rd Nov 2000 and 6th Jan 2001. Before that, he played England in England between July and September 2000 and before that he played NZ between Dec 1999 and Jan 2000.
Lara sustained his injury in 2001 and he missed around 8-9 months before returning against SL in SL in style.

Last year Lara without doubt faced the most disciplined English bowling attack in his career and struggled while in 2002 Sachin plundered runs againts an England attack consisting off promising good young bowlers (Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff) & a veteran fast bowler who was a shadow of himself (Caddick) again i say if Lara could have faced that attack he would have plundered as much or even more.

You would be wrong to assert that. Tendulkar has dominated England in England against the very same bowling attacks which Lara did just good against ( his average in England is under 50).
I see no reason to assume that Lara would've handled that attack better in England when historically, Lara hasnt handled England very well in England (compared to Tendulkar that is) and has bullied them in home conditions.

Sine we r sticking to runs made againts good/great attacks i'll take out Brain's only innings in 93 where he scored 18 & stick with his 688 a@ 114 in 2001, while OVERALL Sachin has 493 runs @ 70.

Those were actually two seperate points - ie, performance overseas overall and performance overseas against good bowling attacks.
And i dont know where you are getting Sachin having 493 runs @ 70.00 in SL... he played 3 series in SL averaging 101, 96 and 177. If you wanna consider against good bowling attacks, then its the last two series where he's scored 467 runs @ 116.75

old cricket saying ``Stats dont tell the whole truth``

They say far more truth than just hype and prefference. For nomatter what, someone who averages 50 against McGrath-Warne has done better than someone who averages 30.

I wouldn't consider Srinath/Kumble ``world-class`` bowler during the 90s

You would consider wrong then. Srinath before his shoulder injury was most definately world class and Kumble is an alltime great bowler. True, he is ordinary outside the subcontinent, but inside the subcontinent, i would take him over Warne any day of the week. Not to mention, you are talking about the second best leggie and third best spinner undisputed, if i might add, since 1990.

Lara never faced Hadlee but he did face Qadir on his test debut.So i dont know how you could say that Tendulkar has faced a superior bowling opposition to Lara in his career.

Just the same way one says Dravid has faced superior bowling opposition than Ponting, since Ponting doesnt have to face McWarne.
Lara didnt play against Qadir in a full series like Tendulkar did.
The simple fact that Tendulkra has faced Imran Khan, Qadir, Hadlee, Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop of the bowlers whom Lara hasnt faced and Lara has faced only Kumble-Srinath amongst the good/great bowlers Tendy hasnt proves that Tendy has faced overall superior bowling opposition than lara has.

I think Lara's average was over 50 before the turn of the mellinim and u say that he ahs done superlatively well in the 2000s when pitches were getting flatter & the have of the good attacks of the 90s had retired but its Sachin would have faced those same bowlers during the last 5 years but he hasn't scored has mcuh runs no what does that tell ya???

It tells me that when pitches are tailormade for batsmen, there isnt much to pick and choose from between lara/Tendy but when wickets are favouring the bowlers, Tendy does significantly better.

Well if Lara had such a glaring technical flaw throughout the 90s expalin how he scored all those runs with such big scores???

Good hand-eye coordination. His faulty technique was the reason why he bolloxed up ever so often against good bowling attacks. Having a faulty technique doesnt mean that you will bollox up every single time but that you will most likely bollox up more often than someone with picture-perfect technique.

and how did you analyze all of Tendulkars dismissals throughout the 90s before you came to the conclusion that he was OCCASSIONALLY vulnerable to the incutter or you just came flat out and said that.T

Because i've watched Tendulkar play since the early 1990s and there are very few innings concerning Tendulkar or Lara that i havn't seen. Incutter to him early on is probably the best bet, but nowhere as good a bet as a ball short of goodlength just outside off stump that moves away a bit to Lara.

the two best batsmen of the 80s were Sir Viv & Miandad and undoubtebly Miandad had a better technique but he wasn't in the same class with the master blaster.

Ehhh ????
Which planet do you live on ? Did you even watch Viv and Miandad or are you taking your dad's opinion ?
Viv had an excellent technique...he wasnt a slogger....A more appropriate comparison would've been Viv and Gavaskar in terms of technique and success(though i think Gavaskar did better than Viv overall). Miandad was a great batsman, but his technique was nothing hoo-haa. His technique against the short pitched one into the body was pretty poor and his batting relied much more on cheeky improvisation than technical brilliance...he practically invented and popularised the reverse sweep and slice over the slip cordon.
Yes, technique doesnt mean you are better but that is the exception, not the norm.

all this proves that he is more consistent which doesn't say much in my view because their are many top batsmen out their today & that have retired that have similar ratio's....

So consistency doesnt mean much to you but brilliance over a single innings does.Interesting.
Which one do you think is harder to maintain ? A consistent superiority over an entire decade or more or an innings of utter brilliance that lasts a dozen hours or so ?

 

[aussie]

True, Lara is more destructive...but then again, nobody is as destructive as Shahid Afridi on song.... as per drives more fear into the opposition, i disagree. You are going by current form while i am going by career performance. Of neutral bowlers that've bowled to them ( ie, take Indian bowlers and WI bowlers outta the picture due to obvious reasons), you'd find that more good/great bowlers think Tendulkar is a harder challenge to bowl to. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Vaas, Akram, Saqlain, Donald, Pollock and Caddick thinks that Tendulkar is a harder challenge...the ones who've picked Lara over Tendulkar are Murali, McGill, Vettori and Fraser.
While i wouldnt use the term 'fear', i would deduce from the abovementioned fact that the prevalent opinion amongst bowlers who've bowled to them both is that Tendulkar is better.
As per Lara scoring 3 centuries in a series, all but one has come in series involving 5 test matches....I think Tendulkar has played 5 test series only 3 times while Lara has played 5 test series 11 times.



Err, if you look at series played in Australia when McWarne were bowling, Tendulkar averages 46.33 - that is back in 1999.
Under the same guideline, Lara averages 32.47 ( 96-97 and 2000/01)

And 2000/01 was not Lara's first series back into international cricket ( after his hamstring and elbow injuries). He played OZ in OZ between 23rd Nov 2000 and 6th Jan 2001. Before that, he played England in England between July and September 2000 and before that he played NZ between Dec 1999 and Jan 2000.
Lara sustained his injury in 2001 and he missed around 8-9 months before returning against SL in SL in style.



You would be wrong to assert that. Tendulkar has dominated England in England against the very same bowling attacks which Lara did just good against ( his average in England is under 50).
I see no reason to assume that Lara would've handled that attack better in England when historically, Lara hasnt handled England very well in England (compared to Tendulkar that is) and has bullied them in home conditions.



Those were actually two seperate points - ie, performance overseas overall and performance overseas against good bowling attacks.
And i dont know where you are getting Sachin having 493 runs @ 70.00 in SL... he played 3 series in SL averaging 101, 96 and 177. If you wanna consider against good bowling attacks, then its the last two series where he's scored 467 runs @ 116.75


They say far more truth than just hype and prefference. For nomatter what, someone who averages 50 against McGrath-Warne has done better than someone who averages 30.



You would consider wrong then. Srinath before his shoulder injury was most definately world class and Kumble is an alltime great bowler. True, he is ordinary outside the subcontinent, but inside the subcontinent, i would take him over Warne any day of the week. Not to mention, you are talking about the second best leggie and third best spinner undisputed, if i might add, since 1990.

It tells me that when pitches are tailormade for batsmen, there isnt much to pick and choose from between lara/Tendy but when wickets are favouring the bowlers, Tendy does significantly better.

Good hand-eye coordination. His faulty technique was the reason why he bolloxed up ever so often against good bowling attacks. Having a faulty technique doesnt mean that you will bollox up every single time but that you will most likely bollox up more often than someone with picture-perfect technique.

Because i've watched Tendulkar play since the early 1990s and there are very few innings concerning Tendulkar or Lara that i havn't seen. Incutter to him early on is probably the best bet, but nowhere as good a bet as a ball short of goodlength just outside off stump that moves away a bit to Lara.



Ehhh ????
Which planet do you live on ? Did you even watch Viv and Miandad or are you taking your dad's opinion ?
Viv had an excellent technique...he wasnt a slogger....A more appropriate comparison would've been Viv and Gavaskar in terms of technique and success(though i think Gavaskar did better than Viv overall). Miandad was a great batsman, but his technique was nothing hoo-haa. His technique against the short pitched one into the body was pretty poor and his batting relied much more on cheeky improvisation than technical brilliance...he practically invented and popularised the reverse sweep and slice over the slip cordon.
Yes, technique doesnt mean you are better but that is the exception, not the norm.



So consistency doesnt mean much to you but brilliance over a single innings does.Interesting.
Which one do you think is harder to maintain ? A consistent superiority over an entire decade or more or an innings of utter brilliance that lasts a dozen hours or so ?

1.Afridi coule be the mot destructive batsman in world cricket on his day but he could never display that same ability in test cricket againts any good bowling attack that lara has done at any time.While those bowlers may have said Tendulkar is a harder challenge that Lara because of the ``consistency factor`` that he has over Lara since because Tendulkar plays with conservative elegance. I'm sure if McGrath, Dizzy & Warne were asked who was more destrcutive they would definately say Lara because Tendulkar has never destroyed the Australian attack when they were playing in any destructive way as Lara would have done.Plus their is no test innings probably that Tendulkar has literally taken an attack to the cleaners other than the one i mentioned before (177 in Chennai 98).

Maybe fear is a bit of a strong term what do you think about conscious??? The opposition bowlers is more conscious of the fact due to the destructive way Lara plays he is more likely to come off at any time. eg if Lara plays a 5 tes series and fails at the begggining they darn well know that Lara will come back with a bang .

Tendulkar may only have played a 5 test series 3 times but that isn't Lara fault , scoring those runs over a 5 test series is much more difficult than scoring in a 3 test series

I never said the 2000/01 tour down under was his 1st series back it it his 1st year back into international cricket after taking a break a little break after the NZ tour in 99, while i think his break before the SRI tour was a bit less than 8-9 months but i'm not so sure.but my argument is that even though Tendulkar statistically averages 54 to Lara shcoking 40 in AUS. Tendulkars 54 average was boosted by his 301 runs in the SCG test againts an aussie attack that was undecooked & Pigeon/Warne Less his average would go down below 40.44.

Tendulkar didn't really play the same bowling attack in 96 that Lara faced in 95.Look at the bowling Tendulkar faced with novices like Martin, Chris Lewis, Mullally, Irani, Patel & Cork (has i said before was probably the only dangerous bowler since he was only effective in English conditions) he didn't even face englands 3 best bowlers in Gough, Caddick & Fraser now thats a huge factor in my view. When we come to series they played in 2004 & 2002 has i said before the English bowling attack Lara faced in 2004 was the best organised English bowling attack he would have faced in his career (he said that himself after he made the 400) and judging by the form Sachin was in last year i doubt whether he would have made too many runs if he had faced them either. While in 2002 he faced a very mediocre English bowling attack with has i said before he plundered runs againts an England attack consisting off promising good young bowlers (Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff) & a veteran fast bowler who was a shadow of himself (Caddick) and again.

Maybe Lara hasn't handled England very well over here but you got to read between the lines CC...., that was principally due to the fact that in 2004 he came up againts a pretty darn good english attack better than any English attack that sachin would have faced in english conditions & he 2000 it was his 1st series back in international cricket & was now getting back into the groove of things in international cricket....

It was a mistake by me saying he averaged 70, i dont know where ur getting 3 series from Tendulkar has only played 2 series in SRI (93/94 & 97) and has a total of 493 runs at 82.

And no... the hype & preference is justified since their are little details that help his average up like the SCG test, has i posted before if you take that one test out (which we have to since we are looking at good/great attacks he only averages 40 as well.

Still regardless of how Srinath was before his shoulder injury whenever touting him has world -class is a bit over the top dont u think.

i'm agreeing now that Tendulkar has faced superior opposition than Lara, lucky ******* you won one .

You say that when the wickets have been assiting the bowlers Tendulkar has done significantlly better, can i have some facts to support please.......

I agree with ur analysis on Lara techinique so you've won 2, rats.....

I know Lara may have had that weakness expsed especially by McGrath throughout the 90s but i'm not convinced that Tendulkar has only be occassionally exposed to the incutter even though has u said u watched him since his early days, i think u understand the game well CC but i got to do me own check up on that, ok mate

well that analysis their on miandad was all on my own that would make daddy shake his head but i'll make another comparison again with Viv & Gavaskar, i saw clips of Sir Viv and i dont think his technique was that fantastic but what i saw of Gavaskar on clips is a good sound technique perfect for the pefect opener that he was.I reiterate Viv & Gavaskar where the 2 best bastmen of the 80s similar to Lara/Tendulkar being te best in the 90s to present but Gavaskar's technique couldn't have been comapred to the superior class of Viv Richards...

Finally i dont think Tendulkar was consistently superior to Lara during the 90s he was just more consitent, but the individual brilliance that Lara produced in those innings made him better than Sachin in my book

 

[C_C]

While those bowlers may have said Tendulkar is a harder challenge that Lara because of the ``consistency factor`` that he has over Lara since because Tendulkar plays with conservative elegance. I'm sure if McGrath, Dizzy & Warne were asked who was more destrcutive they would definately say Lara because Tendulkar has never destroyed the Australian attack when they were playing in any destructive way as Lara would have done.

Look, i am not discussing as to who is more destructive or who is more flamboyant- the bottomline is that all those bowlers concerned think that Tendulkar is a superior batsman to Lara.
And the 'consistency factor' is what seperates the cream from the crop. It aint that hard to do something once in a while...it is a helluva lot harder to do it consistently.

Plustheir is no test innings probably that Tendulkar has literally taken an attack to the cleaners other than the one i mentioned before

You obviously havnt watched much of Tendulkar then, have you ?
Why dont you check his 119* against an english attack comprising of Malcolm, Fraser, Hemmings and Lewis, at the age of 18 in just 189 balls ?

What about his 148* in 213 balls against McDermott, Hughes, Reid and Warne ?
what about his 114 in 161 balls against McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel and Whitney ?
What about his 122 in 177 balls against Lewis-Cork-Irani,et al ?
What about his 155* in 170 balls against OZ ?
There are many many more examples where Tendulkar has absolutely annihilated opposition bowling attacks

The opposition bowlers is more conscious of the fact due to the destructive way Lara plays he is more likely to come off at any time.

Mate, destructiveness isnt the only thing that preys on a bowler's mind. infact, being a bowler, i am much more wary of the one who scores the most RUNS than one who scores runs at a fast clip.

Tendulkar may only have played a 5 test series 3 times but that isn't Lara fault , scoring those runs over a 5 test series is much more difficult than scoring in a 3 test series

Erm, scoring runs in a 5 test series is no more difficult than in a 3 test series...just that owing to more # of tests in the series, one will have a higher propensity of aggregate series scores. In short, it is utterly irrelevant that lara has scored a lotta runs in a particular 5 test series or so, simply because he scored those runs on the back of more tests played.

but my argument is that even though Tendulkar statistically averages 54 to Lara shcoking 40 in AUS. Tendulkars 54 average was boosted by his 301 runs in the SCG test againts an aussie attack that was undecooked & Pigeon/Warne Less his average would go down below 40.44.

Incorrect. In matches played in OZ where both McGrath and Warne have played, Tendulkar averages 46 ( 4 match series in 1999, only time Tendy has faced both McGrath and Warne simultaneosly in OZ). And if you wish to consider McGrath and Warne's presence only, then Lara's average drops to 32-33 in Australia.

Tendulkar didn't really play the same bowling attack in 96 that Lara faced in 95.Look at the bowling Tendulkar faced with novices like Martin, Chris Lewis, Mullally, Irani, Patel & Cork (has i said before was probably the only dangerous bowler since he was only effective in English conditions) he didn't even face englands 3 best bowlers in Gough, Caddick & Fraser now thats a huge factor in my view.

Umm. Tendulkar has faced every single one of them, apart from Gough, in England through his test career - and he's absolutely smashed the entire lot. So your point is irrelevant, because you are arbitarily just picking one series for lara and one for Tendy, when i am looking at their entire career in England.

While in 2002 he faced a very mediocre English bowling attack with has i said before he plundered runs againts an England attack consisting off promising good young bowlers (Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff) & a veteran fast bowler who was a shadow of himself (Caddick) and again.

Ummm.... pretty much the SAME bowling lineup he and Lara faced.

he 2000 it was his 1st series back in international cricket & was now getting back into the groove of things in international cricket....

Look mate, Lara took a 1 month vacation after NZ series, after which he returned to matchpractice. If being inactive for 1 month qualifies as 'getting back into the groove', then practically every series Tendlkar has played with 2-3 months gap between series is 'getting back into the groove'.

It was a mistake by me saying he averaged 70, i dont know where ur getting 3 series from Tendulkar has only played 2 series in SRI (93/94 & 97) and has a total of 493 runs at 82.

You are forgetting the Asia Cup match in SL.

Still regardless of how Srinath was before his shoulder injury whenever touting him has world -class is a bit over the top dont u think.

No it isnt 'over the top' because he was quiete good for an extended period of time.... calling him 'great' would be over the top.

I know Lara may have had that weakness expsed especially by McGrath throughout the 90s but i'm not convinced that Tendulkar has only be occassionally exposed to the incutter even though has u said u watched him since his early days, i think u understand the game well CC but i got to do me own check up on that, ok mate

Okay...watch more matches through the 90s involving Tendulkar then...he was very occasionally vulnerable.... thats the deduction you will make if you watch his innings throughout the 90s and view it in an objective fashion - nowhere as close to the predictable vulnerability Lara had.

Finally i dont think Tendulkar was consistently superior to Lara during the 90s he was just more consitent, but the individual brilliance that Lara produced in those innings made him better than Sachin in my book

Mate, one swallow doesnt make a summer. You contradict yourself by saying Tendulkar was more consistent than lara but not consistently superior.
At the end of 1999, Tendulkar had a superior average against every single nation and had a superior average in every single year apart from 94-95. Plus he had an almost 10 pt lead in overseas averages.
That is pretty comperhensive to me!

 

[aussie]

Firstly do those bowlers think Tendulkar is a superior bastsman in every aspect or he's just harder to dislodge when bowling to him. I'm not qustioning why these bowlers said but if you look at it CC the bowlers who regarded Tendulkar higher are bowlers that would have bowled to Sachin more than they would have bowled to Lara e.g Warne, Wasim, Vaas and Saqlain. I would see why the likes of Mcgrath, Donald & Pollock may say Lara but it puzzles how Caddick would say Tendulakar & Fraser would say Lara since the big somerset lad would have played in all those series when Lara plundered all runs againts England in the 90s while he would had hardly bowled to Tendulkar in test cricket during that same period.

well out of all those innings you posted i saw that 155 in 98 (which i have been mistakenly posting has 177 ) but maybe its a bit over board to say he has never plundered any attacks into submission but other than those 2 cneturies he scored againts a good aussie atttack in the early 90s those next 2 were scored againts 2 mediocre looking english attacks especially that one in 96. While Lara has big runs againts good/great attacks:

277 vs Aus with the likes of McDermott, Hughes, May, Warne etc
375 agiants the likes of Fraser, Caddick, Tufnell, Lewis
3 big centuries in 95 series againts ENG - Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Cork
213 vs Aus - McGrath, Dizzy, Warne & MaCgilla
221 vs SRI - Vaas & Murali

None of Sachins innings that you have their other than the 155 in Chennai have been remembered or spoken about until now in the same extent of how people talk about these big scores Lara has scored againts good/great attacks, now that should tell you something mate.....

That may be your phylosophy since your a bowler but thats a true factor i'm sure preys on opposition bowlers when they bowl to Lara, its got to be i have heard the likes of Ian Chappell, Benaud, Holding, Boycott say that many times...

I agree thats it more likely to score more runs in a 5 test series than in a 3test but its definately harder to maintain your form 5 test, a fact that we'll never know if Sachin has since he hasnever played much 5 test series.

ok with reference to runs both of them scored in AUS it was a mistake by me their to base it primarily of McGrath/Warne's presence what i meant was runs in AUS againts a good/great attack which Lara has faced on all his 3 previous tours to AUS, while Tendulakr only faced that in 92/93 & 99 while he faced messed up one that was either out of form or injury proned during the 2003/04, so if you take out that 301 runs @ the SCG his average goes down to 40.44 againts a good/great attack in AUS pretty similar to Lara.

I am looking at both Tendulkar's & Lara entire career record in ENG but what i;m saying as was the case with his record in AUS Tendulkar facing a very poor english attack in 96 (that was minus the likes of their 3 BEST bowlers in Fraser, Caddick & Gough) help skyrocket his average above Lara's who in his 3 tours over here has always faced a proper looking test match attack. The only tour of Sachin 3 over here that he really faced a good English attack was in 1990 while in 96 he plundered runs againts jokers like Lewis, Mullally, Martin, Eahlam & Patel.

In 2002 the attack was the same that Lara faced last year yes but u got to read between the lines Harmison & Jones where young tearaways in their 1st series & handled established themselves as yet, Harmison in 2004 had come age as a World-Class bowler, while Jones was a much more mature bowler, Flintoff in 2002 was now starting to bowl properly in test cricket, while the Freddie Lara faced was a come age test bowler for sure (that could be showed by the fact that he was able to expose one of Lara old weaknesses).

The situation Lara was in after the 99/00 NZ tour was very complex, he gave up the captaincy after a horrible run of resluts & form and he decided to take a break from the game and for a period no one knew whether he would play for WI again, so when he came back for the tour of the UK its was like a new beggining for the great man & during the 2 remainding series that year he was trying to discover the form that made him such a world-beater, and has i said before his 2 series in the respective series showed then that he hadn't lost it at all.

Ok i missed that Asia Cup match but again the good/great bowler scenario comes back Murali didn't play while the only proper bowler in the SRI line-up was Vaas Lara scored those many runs in 2001 againts both Vaas & Murali.

Mate calling Srinath World-Class or Great based on his performaces in the 90s is over the top good is the best i can do for Big Javagal...

Maybe at the end of 99 Sachin was averaging higher than Lara in many aspects but on what i've researched those stats dont tell the whole truth

 

[C_C]

I am sorry mate but you give me the impression that you are a rather new watcher of cricket.
For one, Tendulkar's most memorable knock-and unquestionably that is- is his 136 against Pakistan, which is just a shade worse than Lara's 153*.

And its interesting how you slam Tendulkar by saying 'he only scored against mediocre attacks' and then name the very same attacks in the case of Lara.
Apparently Tuffnell, Lewis, Ealham and Cork are utter rubbish but Tufnell, Lewis, Caddick and Fraser are top notch.
Which planet do you live on ?
None of the english bowlers were topnotch in the 90s. Not a single one.
True, lara has scored bigger scores than Tendy.
But scoring 2 centuries in 2 occasions benifits the team FAR more than 1 double ton followed by a duck.

The only tour of Sachin 3 over here that he really faced a good English attack was in 1990 while in 96 he plundered runs againts jokers like Lewis, Mullally, Martin, Eahlam & Patel.

And he decimated that attack.
So whichever way you look at it, Tendulkar ahs been far more successful in England than Lara.

And quit twisting my words mate- McGrath, Donald and Pollock see TENDULKAR as the best, not Lara.
I dont care who is more explosive, who is more orthodox and what not, the point is, when asked who is the best batsman they've faced, they answered Tendulkar. Not Lara.
That automatically bears in mind that they are talking overall and not just one aspect.

And no, you are totally confusing 1999 NZ with 1995 England. Lara didnt threaten to quit in 1999, he did in 1995. Lara took a 1 month break from cricket and then returned immediately afterwards.
And yes, he was under incredible pressure. But you think Tendulkar was under any less pressure when he was captain ? You'd find that Tendulkar handled the pressure pretty well and didnt just go sulk off like Lara has.

In anycase, Lara was not out of practice for the OZ series in 2001 and neither was he injured. he bolloxed up. Plain and simple. Much like he bolloxed up in Australia in 96.

You keep trying to twist facts to suit your pro-Lara agenda.
I said Lara averages OVERALL 40 in OZ and Tendulkar averages 54 OVERALL in OZ.
Tendulkar averages 46.33 in Australia when both McGrath and Warne are present.
Not 40.
You immediately take that and equate it to ' well Tendulkar isnt all that far apart from Lara in OZ when McGrath-Warne are playing..he only averages 40 or so'.
Not only is that inaccurate, that is wrong interpretation of statistics.
For Lara does NOT average 40 in OZ when McGrath-Warne are playing.
When McGrath-Warne are playing, Lara averages 32-33 in OZ while Tendulkar averages 46. Again,Tendulkar does HUGELY better when McWarne are present and is not just benifitting from alsoran bowling as you claimed.

Lara has averaged 50+ in England only once(1995) and its interesting that you dismiss Tendulkar's efforts against Flintoff-Harmison by saying that they were newbies but forget that at the start of WI's tour in ENG in 1995, Gough had played a grand total of 7 matches, Cork was making his debut, Fraser had played a grand total of 24 matches, Illingworth had played 2 matches, Caddick didnt play, Mike Watkinson was making his debut and only bowler with any semblance of experience was Devon Malcolm.

So i fail to see how you can dismiss Tendulkar's success against Flintoff-Harmison-Hoggard because 'they were newbies' but assert that Lara's 95 tour against England was against worldclass bowling attack(nevermind that the English attack in the 90s was never worldclass) given that they were a bunch of newbies as well.

What is the core fact, is that Sachin has been more successful not only overall, but against good/great bowling attacks as well.

He and Lara are hard to seperate against SL, Sachin was better against Donald-Pollock and McGrath-Warne away from home as well as Wasim-Waqar.

Not to mention, Lara had the luxury of not playing the vaunted WI attack through the 90s, where Ambrose-Walsh were terrorising batsmen and not only did Tendulkar play them, he mastered them.
Not to mention, He's also played against Imran Khan and Hadlee, two alltime great bowlers.

True, Lara has a lot bigger scores, but bigger scores mean jack diddly squat, or else Lawrence Rowe is a better batsman than Viv Richards.
Its much harder to score centuries day in day out on various conditions instead of scoring a massive 250 or 300 when conditions are JUST RIGHT. How is one a better player if he scores 400, 4,5,4,4,3,4,30 instead of 110, 120, 70, 80, 50, given that the latter's score has helped the team every single time while the former has helped the team only once ?

There is lot more to cricket than just big scores mate. And the toughest part is consistency. That is why people like Viv, Gavaskar, etc, are considered great while Rowe is not. Ofcourse, Lara is pretty consistent but not as consistent as Tendulkar- atleast, not against good/great attacks.