Who is better- Lara or Tendulkar?

[aussie]

gee i'm tired but i still got the energy for one last assault mate

I never said any of those english attacks were great but in all fairity your right i have dismissed Tendulak's runs in 2002 due to the fact the Englands attack then wasn't anything special but what i'm saying is that the Englsih attack that Lara would have faced had the likes of Gough & Caddick & Fraser englands proper bowlers at that time while Sachin faced the county trundlers in 96. But we could now finalize that Lara in his 3 tours to England only faced a good/great attack in 2004 while Sachin has never really been challenged by any English attack on neither of his 3 tours to the UK to date, but India are coming here in 2007 and he will definately be facing a top notch England attack then lets so how he fears then, fair enough???

No i'm not mixing up 95 with 99/00, I Know lara never said he treatened to quit in 2000 but if you remember while WI were playing home series againts ZIM & PAK Lara was away playing golf & people weren't sure whether he was going to play for WI again due to the stress he was under after a horrific run as captain. Yes Tendular was under pressure has skipper but i dont think Tendulakr recieved any tremendous critisim from the public has Lara did.

With reference to the runs they scored againts AUS againts Pigeon/Warne i'm not considering that fact anymore all i'm considering good bowling attacks that they would have played so we have to consider McDermott/Hughes, Reid, May/Warne that they both would have faced in the early 90s. So Lara overall record in AUS will remain 40.11 but Sachin u will have to take out that SCG test againts a aussie attack that was had all sorts of problems where he plundered runs which would help his OVERALL average againts Australia. So we could conclude that Tendulkar only faced a good/great aussie attack in 92/93 & 99 but his average in those 2 series is 47.21. So i'll agree that Tendulkar has a better average in AUS.

I want to go back to an argument that i misssed to bring up before with their contrasting records againts SA when Donald/Pollock or a good SA attack were playing. Sachin played 3 series againts them scoring 636 @42.4 but Lara only had than one series in 98/99 s where he averaged 31. Tendular averaged onlly 33 in his first tour their againts Donald/McMillian/Matthews but he redemed himself on his next 2 tours. Lara never and will never get the chance to even the scores againts them in their own backyard.

Well CC i'm signining out at 1:10 Uk time, ur in canada so i'll be back around 5:00 tomoro UK time to argue back with u so u can check what time to meet me up.

Good night mate

 

[Anil]

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).



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.

you are probably right...it was an impression i had from watching cricket in the 90s and not based on stats analysis....maybe between 55 and 65 in the 90s is a more accurate reflection......still, maintaining that average in a decade which saw so many magnificient bowlers emerge/flourish shows his greatness....in any case, i was not comparing sachin and lara here....at different points in their career, they have both been better than the other(example: lara has hit a purple patch right now and sachin has lost some of his consistency and is having longer lean patches than at any other point in his career....), even if you take the overall picture, each have their strong and weak points....i just know that they are head and shoulders above the rest in this era and are all-time greats...

 

[Anil]

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.

at this point in their career, lara has 30 100s and 46 50s to sachin's 34 and 41...slightly more 3-figure scores for sachin and slightly more scores >50 for lara....there is really not much to it right now so you could say lara's huge scores have even more significance when you also consider that he has played 6 less tests....

...and i am not even arguing here that lara is definitely better, just that your argument about consistency is debatable right now....

 

[C_C]

Englsih attack that Lara would have faced had the likes of Gough & Caddick & Fraser englands proper bowlers at that time while Sachin faced the county trundlers in 96. But we could now finalize that Lara in his 3 tours to England only faced a good/great attack in 2004 while Sachin has never really been challenged by any English attack on neither of his 3 tours to the UK to date, but India are coming here in 2007 and he will definately be facing a top notch England attack then lets so how he fears then, fair enough???

Good/great ?
Mate, great attacks are like the WI fourprong, Lillee-thommo, Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain, Imran-Wasim-Qadir, Donald-Pollock-deVilliers, McGrath-Warne-Dizzy etc.

England attack has not been a 'great' attack since the heydeys of Trueman-Statham.

And I simply dont get it how you can say Lara did excellently against England an attack consisting of a total newbie Gough ( SEVEN matches- thats like Flintoff category when Sachin faced him, mate), Fraser with 20-odd matches and Caddick did not play.
That is hypocrasy from your part, mate.
And when he came up against a decent English home attack ( Gough-Caddick-Fraser), he flopped bigtime.

Tendulakr recieved any tremendous critisim from the public has Lara did.

Eh?
Tendulkar's insipid captaincy was the first(and only) time Tendulkar has been roundly criticised.
Read the indian media, mate.

With reference to the runs they scored againts AUS againts Pigeon/Warne i'm not considering that fact anymore all i'm considering good bowling attacks that they would have played so we have to consider McDermott/Hughes, Reid, May/Warne that they both would have faced in the early 90s. So Lara overall record in AUS will remain 40.11 but Sachin u will have to take out that SCG test againts a aussie attack that was had all sorts of problems where he plundered runs which would help his OVERALL average againts Australia. So we could conclude that Tendulkar only faced a good/great aussie attack in 92/93 & 99 but his average in those 2 series is 47.21. So i'll agree that Tendulkar has a better average in AUS.

I am sorry but if McDermott- Hughes-Reid qualify as a 'good attack', Gillespie- Lee-McGill most definately does, considering that McGill was streets ahead of any spinner in the pre-warne OZ in the 90s and Gillespie is better than any of those.

Overall, Tendy has a good 14 pts lead in OZ compared to Lara and when comparing the creme-de-la-creme attack ( McWarne), Tendy has a 13-14 pts lead over Lara as well.

Tendular averaged onlly 33 in his first tour their againts Donald/McMillian/Matthews but he redemed himself on his next 2 tours. Lara never and will never get the chance to even the scores againts them in their own backyard.

Umm..in his first tour, Tendy was 18 years old. 18 !!
Thats when Lara made his FC debut.....if Tendy wasnt fast-tracked but allowed to develop like Lara, he most likely would've averaged 60+ currently.
Second, redeem or not, that is irrelevant. You make of what opportunities you get.
Tendy might never get a chance to smash around McWarne again after his injury-plagued series against them in 2004.
Tough shyte. What could've might've is irrelevant.
Whats relevant is what actually happened.

And gnite to you too.

 

[C_C]

at this point in their career, lara has 30 100s and 46 50s to sachin's 34 and 41...slightly more 3-figure scores for sachin and slightly more scores >50 for lara....there is really not much to it right now so you could say lara's huge scores have even more significance when you also consider that he has played 6 less tests....

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

 

[Slats4ever]

Lara eats Tendulkar for breakfast.

Tendulkar these days is so overrated... Lara's the bomb

 

[Anil]

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

that is true, lara has 5 more hundreds in the new millenium but there is an argument the other way around as well...ie tendulkar has hit all his 200+ scores after the advent of flat pitches and decline in bowling....

 

[Anil]

Lara eats Tendulkar for breakfast.

Tendulkar these days is so overrated... Lara's the bomb

such a balanced, perceptive view...

 

[honestbharani]

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


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

 

[Dasa]

Lara has one huge advantage though over Tendulkar - Antigua.

 

[honestbharani]

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

 

[Anil]

I can tell you one thing as an Indian who has basically watched almost every innings of Sachin, he has higher no. of not outs (due to all those test matches in India when Kumble and Co. do the job so well in the first innings that Sachin needs to play for declaration..)

that is true, sachin has 21 n.o to lara's 6....that is a significant difference....

 

[aussie]

Good/great ?
Mate, great attacks are like the WI fourprong, Lillee-thommo, Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain, Imran-Wasim-Qadir, Donald-Pollock-deVilliers, McGrath-Warne-Dizzy etc.

England attack has not been a 'great' attack since the heydeys of Trueman-Statham.

And I simply dont get it how you can say Lara did excellently against England an attack consisting of a total newbie Gough ( SEVEN matches- thats like Flintoff category when Sachin faced him, mate), Fraser with 20-odd matches and Caddick did not play.
That is hypocrasy from your part, mate.
And when he came up against a decent English home attack ( Gough-Caddick-Fraser), he flopped bigtime.



Eh?
Tendulkar's insipid captaincy was the first(and only) time Tendulkar has been roundly criticised.
Read the indian media, mate.



I am sorry but if McDermott- Hughes-Reid qualify as a 'good attack', Gillespie- Lee-McGill most definately does, considering that McGill was streets ahead of any spinner in the pre-warne OZ in the 90s and Gillespie is better than any of those.

Overall, Tendy has a good 14 pts lead in OZ compared to Lara and when comparing the creme-de-la-creme attack ( McWarne), Tendy has a 13-14 pts lead over Lara as well.



Umm..in his first tour, Tendy was 18 years old. 18 !!
Thats when Lara made his FC debut.....if Tendy wasnt fast-tracked but allowed to develop like Lara, he most likely would've averaged 60+ currently.
Second, redeem or not, that is irrelevant. You make of what opportunities you get.
Tendy might never get a chance to smash around McWarne again after his injury-plagued series against them in 2004.
Tough shyte. What could've might've is irrelevant.
Whats relevant is what actually happened.

And gnite to you too.

Agreed that the English attack may not have been great since the days of Treuman/Statham but during the 80s & 70s with the lives of Snow, Lever, Old, Underwood, Botham, Foster, Dilhey it only been during the 90s that England attack has reached truly mediocre standards. But going back the the point i never said that the attack that Lara faced in 95 were great/good test match bowlers but it was better than the bowles tendulkar faced in 96 (with the exception of cork who proved in that series to be good in english conditions) even though they (Fraser, Gough, Caddick) might not have played much test cricket. Come on look at the attack Tendulkar faced in 96 with jokers like Eahlam, Irani, Mullally, Lewis, Patel & Martin compared to Fraser, Gough, Caddick, Defraitas (even though he was probably old at that time was definately better than those jokers sachin faced in 96).But what i'm saying is that the only time Lara faced a good ENG attack in his career was last year & based on what your saying about the english bowling throughout the 90s Tendulkar is yet to face an english attack with any great credentials in home conditions, but he will get that chance in 2007 for sure if he plays.

So overall even though the plain stats show that Tendulkar averages more than Lara over here, little details like the scenario he was in before the 2000 tour (which included an eye-problem which forced him to bat with shades) plus it was a good attack during the (2000 series) & the fact that he faced a good/english attack (in 2004) that worked him out superbly played a huge part in his average being only 46.96. While Tendulkar has plundered runs against mediocre english bowling attack in all his tours here, Lara only got that chance to do so in 95.

BTW who are you referring to when you say``And when he came up against a decent English home attack (Gough-Caddick-Fraser), he flopped bigtime.``

At that time no…… I wouldn't consider Dizzy/Lee & MacGill to be a good test attack compared to the attack of McDermott/Hughes & Reid that Tendulkar faced in 91 because of a few reasons:

-During that series Dizzy was full of injuries during that series and was bowling no where has good as he is capable of in tests cricket. Dizzy is probably better than Reid or Hughes but not McDermott....

-Lee was also coming off an injury law-off and wasn't anything special in Tests then and even now he hasn't yet proven himself has a good-enough test match bowler (though he showed great signs at Lord's de other day).

Has i posted before we could conclude that Tendulkar only faced a good/great aussie attack in 92/93 & 99 but his average in those 2 series is 47.21. So I agree that Tendulkar has a better average in AUS no debates here.

Tendulkar was 18 during his 1st tour to SA but Lara had already made his FC debut since 1987/88 for Trinidad, maybe the fact that Lara was allowed to plunder runs (i assume) in the WI domestic competitions for 3 years up to debut in 1990 in respect to Tendulkar making his FC debut the same here he made his test debut is a factor, but we can say that honestly for sure, cause lets take the examples of Pup & KP two batsmen who could probably be batting greats in the future. Since KP started playing CC for the Notts in 2001 he has plundering runs in CC before getting a chance in the english team this year but Clarke has never plundered runs for NSW in state cricket but his superb nature talent & flair (i'm guessing thats the same reasons Sachin was picked so early in 88) plus some very good innings in ODI got him selected in the AUS team last year...

I agree that you make of what oppurtunities you get and Lara will never get another another chance to make runs in SA againts Donald/Pollock but what i'm saying is that stats show Tendulkar averages 42.40 to Lara 31 thats 10 more points than Lara in SA againts the great Donald/Pollcok but the fact that Lara only played againts them once in SA says that one cant just say assume randomly that ``Tendulkar has averaged 40 in SA when Donald/Pollock where playing & Lara only 31 so Tendulkar is has done well againts a great SA bowling attack in their own backyard but Lara hasn't``.

The thing with Lara is that he has never been a perfectionist of Technique but in cricket ``Batting Maestros has Lara never needed any great Technique``, Lara is all about great hand-eye co-ordination, utter brilliance, powerful, stamina, a huge appetite for runs & an the temperament for the big occasion. So if the Lara did have as sound a technique has Tendulkar, geeee one wonders what more he could have done.

When a crowd comes to see Lara bat and he gets out for a low score, they know they have missed a ``BATTING TREAT``, but with Tendulkar if he gets out they know that they would have just missed a batsman making runs but not a ``BATTING TREAT```.

 

[aussie]

that is true, sachin has 21 n.o to lara's 6....that is a significant difference....

oh yes that is significant....

 

[marc71178]

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 ?

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

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

 

[Sanz]

I think CC needs to give up on this... I can tell you one thing as an Indian who has basically watched almost every innings of Sachin, he has higher no. of not outs (due to all those test matches in India when Kumble and Co. do the job so well in the first innings that Sachin needs to play for declaration..)

Why does CC or anyone who thinks that Sachin is slightly better batsman than Lara needs to give up his opinion ? Just because Sachin had couple of notouts in tests ? Michael Bevan had 67 notouts in ODIs, and if you remove those Bevan's average reduces to 35, does that make him any less great or worse than anyone ? IMO No. In your opinion it may.

As for the your logic about Sachin being not outs in those innings where Kumble had done damage in previous innings, here are some facts for you :-

* Out of those 21 not outs, 6 were in the first innings of the team. (So No Kumble damage really). That leaves us with 15 innings.

* In 6 of the remaining 15 he has scores like 119*, 104*, 155*, 124*, 126*, 60* (So Regardless of Kumble damage those innings would have been required). That leaves us 9 more innings.

* Out of the remaining 9 innings, 11* in NZ, 15* in WI, 36* in Zim, 22* in SA had no Kumble damage in previous innings, that leaves us with 5 more

* Out of those 5, Sachins scores were 9*, 0*, 44*, 32*, 16*

Which means Sachin still averages 56 without any Kumble,Harbhajan,Srinath etc damage.

So my advice - Next time you post something like this, make sure you have done your homework.

 

[Sanz]

thirdly, I have never heard McGrath say "Tendulkar is better than Lara" during the past 4 years... IT was all before that and if you want to take that as a criteria, Steve Waugh felt Laxman was every bit as good as Sachin in 2001... And by the same token, I have heard both Murali and Wasim claim Lara was better than Sachin at different points in time. And I know Lara has mentioned Sachin as the best batsman he has seen, but then, so has Sachin in an interview to Trinidad Express in 2002 when India were there...

If you are really going make that claim, then please quote Wasim and Murali as well, here is what Wasim and Murali have said about Sachin and Lara :-

Wasim Akram: “I have bowled to both Tendulkar and Lara and I have found Lara more attacking. Tendulkar has a tighter technique, no doubt, but Lara can single-handedly win the game for his team. I am not saying Tendulkar cannot do it but Lara has maybe done it more often than him. If you are asking me who the best batsman I have bowled to is, then it's not Tendulkar and not Lara as well. It's Martin Crowe... he was an amazing batsman. Regarding Tendulkar and Lara, I would love to have both in my team! Who wouldn’t?”

Muthiah Muralitharan: “I have played a lot of cricket against Tendulkar compared to what I have played against Lara. While both are difficult to bowl to, I think Lara plays me better than Tendulkar. That Lara is a left-hander is an advantage to him, but the great thing about him is he launches into the attack straightaway. He uses his feet well against me while Tendulkar relies more on the sweep, I feel. I find Lara tougher.”

Glenn McGrath: “For me, it's Tendulkar. Both are class acts but I am saying this because I have had more success against Lara than I have against Tendulkar. I think I have a fair idea of what Lara likes and doesn't like and I feel I can make his life at the crease very uncomfortable. He is vulnerable outside the off-stump early on and is not as tight as Tendulkar in defense. I would go for Tendulkar as the best in the world.”

Waqar Younis: “Unfortunately, I have not bowled enough to Tendulkar in Test matches but there is no doubt about his class. I have bowled against Lara and I have had some success against him. I think over the years I would say I have been fifty-fifty against both Tendulkar and Lara. I have got them a few times and they have got runs against me as well. I can never forget a 16-year-old Tendulkar batting on after being struck on the nose by a fast bouncer from me. I think Tendulkar is mentally tougher than Lara.”

Saqlain Mushtaq: “Both have their good qualities but I feel Tendulkar doesn't give as many chances as Lara does. Lara, once he settles down, can be a better player to watch because of the left-hander's grace and also because he plays more shots. He has played more match-winning innings compared to Tendulkar because he finished off the job once he is in. But Sachin is more compact and puts a heavy price on his wicket. It is more difficult to dislodge Tendulkar compared to Lara.”

Jason Gillespie: “In my opinion it’s Tendulkar who is ahead of the two. Mentally stronger than Lara, he has a better technique as well. Tendulkar doesn't get worked up like Lara when the opposition has a few words to say to him. Lara on his day can be destructive, but you have to look at consistency and I think Tendulkar is definitely more consistent than Lara.”

 

[Sanz]

and I am sure we all know what Warnie thinks of Tendulkar's batting

 

[aussie]

Waqar said he thinks Tendulkar is mentally tougher than Lara, i think he needs to check that back....

 

[Jono]

Waqar said he thinks Tendulkar is mentally tougher than Lara, i think he needs to check that back....

Gillespie said it too. Should he check his mullet?