good article on lara v. tendulkar

[Jono]

Originally Posted by masterblaster

Yeah agreed Social. It's amazing how some people have such short term memory, not too long ago Tendulkar was ripping apart Shane Warne and other top international bowlers. At one time he was the most feared batsman in world cricket.

Everybody goes through a bad patch, and for Tendulkar this bad patch was very much overdue. From 1989 up until 2002, one can say he was at the peak of his powers. Thats a long time to be consistently in top form. I think the form slump was overdue and Im confident that he will be back to an extent, but with his injury and age and all that time playing the game, I dont think he'll ever be the player he once was.

Exactly. Its safe to say Sachin is going through his bad patch now, but what's amazing is how long it took him in his career to finally hit that patch. Most players have their period of absolutely woeful form much earlier in their career. It took over a decade for Sachin to finally be seen as mortal.

[aussie]

lara had a similar bad patch when he return from cricket in 2000 in series over here & in australia that year, so i'll back tendulkar to get over this miserable run soon

[veeru2810]

I will have to go with Sachin. He used to be more entertaining than Lara during the '90s. He used to play so aggressively and hit every bowler out of the park. If Sachin scored a 100, you could expect he would have hit 5 sixes in it. Just watch the '96 world cup to see how entertaining he was. In '97, Lara himself said in an interview that there was nobody to beat Sachin. Tendulkar was more entertaining to watch during those days than Lara is today. Tendulkar has changed his game since then. He has become older and perhaps cannot do what he once could or perhaps with the advent of Sehwag he feels he doesn't need to.

At the moment, Lara is certainly better but we have to realise Lara's amazing run of form started around only 2002. From 1992 to 2002, there was no competition for Sachin at all. Lara used to have the odd amazing innings but he was equally poor in other matches. Tendulkar was reliable throughout this period, you could always expect a 50 from him.

At this stage of time, Lara is better than Tendulkar slightly but with total careers taken into account, I have no hesitation in picking Sachin. I hope Sachin comes back with a bang but I don't think he'll be as good as he once was coz he's been playing intl' cricket for 16 years now, since he was 16.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by veeru2810

I will have to go with Sachin. He used to be more entertaining than Lara during the '90s. He used to play so aggressively and hit every bowler out of the park. If Sachin scored a 100, you could expect he would have hit 5 sixes in it. Just watch the '96 world cup to see how entertaining he was. In '97, Lara himself said in an interview that there was nobody to beat Sachin. Tendulkar was more entertaining to watch during those days than Lara is today. Tendulkar has changed his game since then. He has become older and perhaps cannot do what he once could or perhaps with the advent of Sehwag he feels he doesn't need to.

At the moment, Lara is certainly better but we have to realise Lara's amazing run of form started around only 2002. From 1992 to 2002, there was no competition for Sachin at all. Lara used to have the odd amazing innings but he was equally poor in other matches. Tendulkar was reliable throughout this period, you could always expect a 50 from him.

At this stage of time, Lara is better than Tendulkar slightly but with total careers taken into account, I have no hesitation in picking Sachin. I hope Sachin comes back with a bang but I don't think he'll be as good as he once was coz he's been playing intl' cricket for 16 years now, since he was 16.

Although I don't entirely agree with you, that's an excellent post. Welcome to the CricketWeb boards.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by veeru2810

Lara's amazing run of form started around only 2002. From 1992 to 2002, there was no competition for Sachin at all

really...., i dont think its fair to say that their was no competiotion for tendulkar at all throughout those ten years that nonsense mate, because Lara was has good or even better, 2002 you sure about... that Lara played againts IND & NZ in the WI & didn't score that heavily & he wasn't on tours to pakistan & India his consistency started more in 2003 if your trying to say that that run of good scores started from 2003 ur wrong because he has been very consistent throughout his career up until 2000 when he came back into the WI team after a break where he barely managed 2 centuries here in manchester & at adelaide in 10 test between AUS & ENG respectively

[veeru2810]

Originally Posted by aussie

really...., i dont think its fair to say that their was no competiotion for tendulkar at all throughout those ten years that nonsense mate, because Lara was has good or even better, 2002 you sure about... that Lara played againts IND & NZ in the WI & didn't score that heavily & he wasn't on tours to pakistan & India his consistency started more in 2003 if your trying to say that that run of good scores started from 2003 ur wrong because he has been very consistent throughout his career up until 2000 when he came back into the WI team after a break where he barely managed 2 centuries here in manchester & at adelaide in 10 test between AUS & ENG respectively

Probably I got my dates mixed up but Lara's average was below 49 (i think) in 2000.

[veeru2810]

Originally Posted by Jono

Although I don't entirely agree with you, that's an excellent post. Welcome to the CricketWeb boards.

thanks Jono

[Adamc]

Although I make no secret of the fact that I rate Lara higher than any other contemporary batsman, I don't think it is possible to make a productive comparison between him and Tendulkar. Both play for very different teams in very different circumstances, and both, IMO, fulfil their respective roles very effectively.
e.g.
Scenario 1: If I was in charge of a team at 105/5 on a difficult 5th day pitch chasing 308 to win against a strong bowling lineup, I would want Lara in over Tendulkar every time (gee, I wonder if that scenario has ever actually happened );
Scenario 2: If, however, my team was in a comfortable position at say 2/150, I would back Tendulkar more often than Lara to consolidate that advantage by scoring a century.

Which is not to say that Tendulkar never performs well under pressure, or that Lara never scores centuries unless the pressure is on; both do so, but in varying degrees. The point is, because Lara has generally been part of a fairly weak batting lineup, he has had to play the role required in Scenario 1 more often than Scenario 2, and he's done so very effectively. Conversely, Tendulkar has been part of a (usually) very strong batting lineup, and has had to play the role in Scenario 2 more often, and has also been very effective in doing so.

Basically, I don't think there is much point debating who is better than whom; I think everyone can accept that both play different roles and they both play those roles extremely well.

[aussie]

i'm not so sure about scenario 2 on tendulkar onhim coming in on an average score of 150/2 because for most of tendulkar's career india have never had a stable opening partenship so that scenario would happen on very few occasions

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Adamc

Conversely, Tendulkar has been part of a (usually) very strong batting lineup, and has had to play the role in Scenario 2 more often, and has also been very effective in doing so.

Hmm not really. Maybe at home that can be seen as true, but as already suggested, India haven't had a solid opening partnership throughout the 90s (during Sachin's dominance). Granted I too would pick Lara in scenario one over Sachin (but I'd pick Sachin over most others players though, possibly the only ones I wouldn't who are currently playing would be Dravid and Kallis), but I just think that Sachin has scored his centuries in various ways at various times, whereas its much clearer that Lara has been under pressure whilst coming to the crease so many times in his career, both home and away, and has delivered, that the perception is he performs best in those situations. That may be true as well.

This is of course assuming we're discussing tests, which the scenarios were based on.

Either way I have never actually given an answer as to who is better because I always feel like I've sinned, whether I claim its Sachin or Lara. Either way they're the two best batsman I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing play the game.

Also interesting to note that Wasim Akram said neither Lara nor Tendulkar was the best batsman he's ever bowled too. Rather he said Martin Crowe. Comments like those make me wish I saw more of Crowe than I did.

[honestbharani]

Crowe had a horrible start to his career but since his comeback, he averaged around 55, I think. Has to be a rather underrated batsman.

[smalishah84]

Tendy has outlasted Lara by a pretty long time by now

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Tendy has outlasted Lara by a pretty long time by now

[smalishah84]

WAC