...is Sachin better because he has, for example, scores of 240*, 248*, 201* and 194*as opposed to scores of 277, 226, 221 and 213 by Lara? Lara as we know has 400* but not much after that. Infact, the difference in average can almost entirely be put down to the fact that Tendulkar has 10 not out scores of 100+ whereas Lara (even though he makes bigger hundreds) only has 2 not out scores of over 100. So Sachin's average is better for making scores of 130 odd not out compared to Lara making 200 dismissed.
Firstly, I have to say that a very good reply. Well researched stuff. I suppose the first thing I'd bring up is that Sachin has only made three double centuries by my reckoning... add two of them together, leaving one, and you have a score that's similar to Lara's 400*. His 400* shouldn't be just thought of as one innings while Sachin's three are skewering. His 400* holds the same not out value of two of Sachin's innings combined. Over a long career Sachin's not out aren't skewering.
% of scores over 20:
Lara - 58.88%
Sachin - 60.12%
The first question I have regarding this stat is - does this percentage mean any score over 20 runs, or all scores inbetween 20 and 30 runs? Because if Tendulkar is getting 45 and Lara 25 and so on, then it becomes a skewering fact. If
% of scores of 50+ runs:
Lara - 36.00%
Sachin - 37.81%
Again, I ask the same question, because there's a difference between making 60 and 95.
The best stat is averages because they show how often one gets out. Of course it's not fool-proof because there's not out innings. Perhaps the best stat would be what each batsman innings average is, not batting average. Maybe batsmen getting not out should be applauded since they were good enough not to get out. Stats are a wierd thing. There are different ways to read them...
% of scores of 50+ runs:
Lara - 36.00%
Sachin - 37.81%
Non-century average:
Lara - 32.25
Sachin - 32.10
Consider this stat one could argue Sachin gets higher scores once he gets past 50. But probably the most important fact is that the longer a career goes, the difference in percentage becomes bigger. For instance, Adam Gilchrist had an avergae close to 55 earlier in 2005, then it dropped below 50 for one week. Why the sudden drop in figures? It wasn't just bad form, it was the fact that Gilchrist, at number #7, doesn't have that many innings under his belt as compared to Ponting. It's harder for Ponting's average to drop because he has so many innings behind him, 28 of them, centuries.
If both Lara and Tendulkar have an average close to equal in terms of making centuries, that small difference means a lot in a long career. It's been said that an average over 50 after a long career means more than a high fifty in a short caeer. Allan Border himself went about 60 innings without making a century, yet his average never dropped below 50 because he was co consistent.
I personally thin avergae, in spite of not outs, are a more telling facts because they can be more concise.
So as you can see, there really is very little between them all. The notion that Lara gets 200 followed by 5 failures and then 200 followed by another 5 failures is obviously BS.
This is why average is so important. There's no mathematical way someone can have such an average after making 400* without going out. Kallis and Martyn were the best batsmen of 2004 because they made the most runs. We can tinker with averages though and pretend the 400 and all Sachins doubles were out innings.
While Lara reaches 30 more often than Sachin, Sachin reaches 50 more often. But both by margins of less than 2%. So the notion that one is much mroe consistent than the other is more than probably false. IMO the difference in average isnt due to more conistent scores, but as i said - 10 not out scores of 100+ for Sachin compared to 2 for Lara. Lara may score bigger hundreds but funnily enough as averages go, i reckon Sachin's average is improved more than Lara's due to him having 5 times as many not out scores of 100+.
To be honest, one could argue since Lara clearly has the bigger ability to make double centuries (he's made 8 I think) his average is only close to Tendulkar's because he makes big scores. I know that sounds silly that one should chastise a cricketer because he makes big scores. But Tendulkar is a more prodigious century maker. After a few bad years with the bat, Sachin has 35 (36?) centuries off 206 innings. Lara 31 off 5 more innings. So Tendulkar was quite a way ahead before his drop in form.
I'd also argue Tendulkar was more consistent for a longer time. His consistentcy stats might be skewered by the fact he hasn't been that great since 2003. While Lara remains hit and miss... Tendulkar is more miss after a long period of greatness.
Non-century average:
Lara - 32.25
Sachin - 32.10
This was the most solid stat of them all. Definitely better than the others. The ironic thing about it though is that no batsman has an average of above 50 without making centuries, I know you know that. My point is that if Tendulkar has a better average because he makes more centuries. His not outs really aren't that much more skewering than one huge Lara innings of 400*. Centuries are really what it's about because centuries are the defining batting contribution in cricket. Nobody's going to be remembered as a great for having a non century average below 35.
Most importantly, in a long career, although double centuries do and always will have a good impact on score, without them, Tendulkar would still probably average over 55. Stats become harder to skewer over long careers.
I might go more in depth on your stats later... it's just important to know how to read stats. And especially considering that before 2003, Tendulkar was actually quite a way in front of Lara... and this was before his double hundreds, it's important to remember that Tendulkar probably has had a longer period of not being so great while Lara may be hit and miss for a longer time.
As I mentioned in my very first post. I'm not as big a believer in stats as others. Viv Richards, on stats, isn't comparable. Yet all who saw him rank among, if not the, single most impacting batsman or his era... in fact the best batsman not named Bradman.
Consider Lara in Australia last, he made a huge double century... but that was after a string of low scores... I know he got some terrible decisions, but I'm sure people don't count the ammount of bad Tendulkar decisions. How many MOTS awards have each men won, that would measure their impact on game. The two Lara series that stick as with him as the best in the series were in 1999 - against the Aussies. And Sri Lanka in 2001 - and I'm not sure if he got MOTS... though he probably did.
Whereas, Tendulkar may have more MOTS. Then again, it may be hard for Lara to get MOTS when his team is floundering.
There are just so many different ways to read facts. As someone who's seen both men for their entire career, by my eyes alone, I'd say it's clearly Tendulkar, but not by a great margin.