****OFFICIAL**** Lara vs Tendulkar Debate Thread

[Smudge]

none of the above 3 bowlers are actually test standard,franklin is about as good as pathan, oram is straight up and down, and mills has the accuracy of a 1970s bowling speedometer

Have you actually seen him bowl in test cricket in the last year?

 

[tooextracool]

Lets see how he goes against the 4 prong England attack of today. Odds are in him failing as he has consistently done so against quality attacks on seaming pitches as he has before in SA and Australia - 99 in Aus and SA, 2001 SA, plus against Pak when the two WW's were still going round

are you serious? SA bowling attack of 2001 was quality? it consisted of pollock and 3 other rubbish bowlers. if you want to look at Dravid in SA against a quality bowling attack go back to 96-97.

 

[tooextracool]

Have you actually seen him bowl in test cricket in the last year?

how many has he played in the last year? 2? hes played far more ODIs and hes definetly been innaccurate for a lot of them

 

[Smudge]

how many has he played in the last year? 2? hes played far more ODIs and hes definetly been innaccurate for a lot of them

So the answer was no. Thanks.

 

[tooextracool]

To say he flopped last summer is a bit OTT. An average of 40 for an Aus batsmen was pretty decent in that series, if you compare that to the rest of our lineup - Hayden, Martyn, Gilly who were in the 20's.

and could it be because 2 out of those 3 got worked out while the 3rd not only had plenty of poor decisions against him but was also in horrible form?
Clarke averaged nearly as much as ponting in that series(despite being far inferior as a batter) and Langer averaged in the 40s.

 

[tooextracool]

So the answer was no. Thanks.

he was accurate for a whole 2 tests then?
give him a medal.

 

[aussie]

Not really. I still rate the Zimboks attack of that period to be atleast on par with the Kiwis of that era.

Why not really?, Zimbabwe just had Streak & Strang, if you compare them to the bowling attacks of the other major nations:

Australia - McGrath, Warne, Dizzy, Fleming. Reifell, MacGill etc

S.Africa - Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, Kallis, McMillan, Klusener, Symcox

England - Gough, Caddick, Gough, Mullally Tufnell, Croft

Pakistan - Wasim. Waqar, Akhtar, Mahmood, Saqlain, Arshad, Mustaq

India - Srinath, Kumble, Prasad

New Zealand - Allot, Cairns, Doull, Nash, Vettori

How could a Zimabwe attack of the 90s which just had 1 world-class bowler & one good one compare to the rest of the world during that time?

Oh he's cashed in too- which is why i rate Dravid below Lara and Tendulkar as well.
But a 50 ave ----> 57 ave facing the same alsorans plus McGrath-Warne-Gillespie is nowhere as much of 'cashing in' as 42-43 ave------> 58 ave as Ponting or 41-42 ave--->56 ave as Kallis.

What i dont understand is why Ponting superb-record should be under-rated just because he is Australian & he doesn't have to face his own bowlers, thats just a fact you have to live with it Ponting should not be under-rated for it.Plus its not as if Dravids record vs Australia was superb in that it helped him to average 50+, if you take out his games vs ZIM & BAN, Dravid, Kallis & Ponting all become pretty even.

Why not use that same argument to say bowlers like Akram, Donald, Pollock, Waqar & Ambrose where better than McGrath because they didn't have to bowl to Australia's batsmen from 95-2002 (while even though India had the stronger looking batting on paper) Australia during this period proved to be the most consistently strongest batting line-up in world cricket with the Waugh's, Taylor etc..?

Or why not say Gavaskar was a better batsman than Richards because Richards didn't have to face his own fearsome bowlers or Hadlee, Lille or Imran Khan were definately better bowlers than Marshall because he didn't have to bowl to his superb batsmen?

This type or argument is very flawed and one i totally disagree with

The South Africa attack is a pretty poor one- an excellent Ntini with next to nobody with him( pollock has faded so much that it aint funny). The English attack is good today but still behind the WI-RSA-PAK-AUS attack of 90-2001 or so.
Just putting it into perspective.

Ponting is a great bat, but in the list of 'alltime great batsmen', his name is somewhere near the bottom of the pile as far as i am concerned.

.
Come on yo there is absolutely now way that the SA attack that Ponting & Australia faced in 6 test just concluded was poor. Nitni yes was superb all the way, Nel was very good as well if you say the MCG & SCG spells you would realise that, plus Nel has been very good since the 2004/05 England series.

Pollock has declined yes in the sense that since the faisalabd test of 2003 up to his recent test his 5 wicket halls have dried up but he has still taken 8 5 fors & as trasformed into to a good support bowler to Ntini whre he has averaged 31
which isn't horribel but definately below the superb standards he has set over the years.

With England they may not be good as some of the superb bowlers from WI/PAK/SA on a player vs player basis but they have to be the most lethal pace attack since the West Indies.

Dravid is very very good- much better than Ponting against spin ( who is at best decent on the most favourable conditions for him and dismal in spinning conditions. Dravid played a lot in spinning conditions and has done excellently).

How is Dravid very very good againts spin?, here is a list of series where Dravid has played againts a quality spinner/spinners on turning tracks/spinner friendly conditions:

1.vs Australia 98 - had a good series but of my very good recolection of the series since it was the 1st ever Aussie foreign tour i ever saw he didn't dominate Warne like the other Indian batsmen

2.vs Pakistan 99 - struggled againts Saqlain

3.vs Australia 2001 - dominated Warnie while he was stuggling

4.vs Sri Lanka 2001 - best batsman on a tough tour for India

5.vs Australia 2004 - well covered by Warne & the enitre aussie bowling attack

6.vs Pakistan 2005 - he faced Kaneria who by 2005 after the Australian tour was starting to show he is top class spinner in the making.

7.vs Sri Lanka 2005 - average 2 test

For Ponting:

1.vs India 98 - poor series

2.vs Sri Lanka 99 - topped the batting averages playing Murali especially very well

3.vs India 2001 - we all know what happened here

4.vs Sri Lanka 2004 - even though not a sensational series compared to his stuggles down in India in 2001 they way he played the spin in this series was very good.

Overall Dravid has played in these conditions, facing top spin more than Ponting for obvious reason & has has mixed results nothing `excellent` has you are stating.Ponting overall had 1 excellent series, 2 shockers and 1 average series.

So i would agree that Dravid is still the slightly better of spine even though he hasn't that fantastic himself he hasn't had such struggles as Punter in India.

Ponting is better when the ball is bouncing but Dravid again, is better when the ball is moving around.

Yes Ponting is better when it bouncing around but what makes you so sure that Dravid is better when its moving around? i'm not so sure about that at all..

 

[parttimer]

and could it be because 2 out of those 3 got worked out while the 3rd not only had plenty of poor decisions against him but was also in horrible form?
Clarke averaged nearly as much as ponting in that series(despite being far inferior as a batter) and Langer averaged in the 40s.

That two of Australia's and the worlds best bats were 'worked out' emphasises the quality with which England bowled, and of course that conditions were difficult enough to help them exploit their weaknesses ruthlessly. That if anything is a good reflection on Punter, that he was able to have relative success, despite being seen as the biggest wicket. He also had a poor decision go against him plus a ridiculous runout so his avg could have easily been 50. You can't ignore his OT innings aswell, one of the best seen for years. To say he flopped is OTT.

Langer was a collosas in that series and has been for the last few years, and probably played his best cricket ever. Clarke is a precocious talent capable of flashes of brilliance, but also lost his wicket at very crucial times (Edgebaston 2nd innings), so that he had a decent avg overstates his contribution

 

[vic_orthdox]

If I were Langer, I'd be disappointed with my series - he was hardly a "colossus" (sp). Too many starts and not going on with it when he appeared to be on top of the attack, going out at crucial times and only kicked on once in the series.

 

[aussie]

i wouldnt consider averaging a shade under 40 with 1 really good innings in the entire ashes series as playing well. he was better than the rest of the aussie side yes, but he wasnt anything special.

well think about it this way, since 2001 up to the ashes series Ponting along with Kallis & Dravid faced much mediocre attacks then he came up vs England & had to adjust averaging a below par 39 with jsut 2 good innings. But he faced good attacks in the super test & vs SA home & away and showed that he could also score runs againts good attacks in testing condtions.

 

[tooextracool]

That two of Australia's and the worlds best bats were 'worked out' emphasises the quality with which England bowled, and of course that conditions were difficult enough to help them exploit their weaknesses ruthlessly. That if anything is a good reflection on Punter, that he was able to have relative success, despite being seen as the biggest wicket. He also had a poor decision go against him plus a ridiculous runout so his avg could have easily been 50. You can't ignore his OT innings aswell, one of the best seen for years. To say he flopped is OTT.
Langer was a collosas in that series and has been for the last few years, and probably played his best cricket ever. Clarke is a precocious talent capable of flashes of brilliance, but also lost his wicket at very crucial times (Edgebaston 2nd innings), so that he had a decent avg overstates his contribution

no hayden flopped in the last ashes series in england as well, as such everyone a fair number of people predicted he would fail long before the series even started. Gilchrist was done with good bowling yes, but the point is that hes was worked out by a plan that had rarely been tried and executed to such perfection. AFAIC, the fact that Langer and Clarke both of whom arent considered to be anywhere near the class of Ponting managed to do just as well as Ponting suggests that Pontings performance was hardly anything special, and that he could have done better than that. further, i never claimed that Ponting flopped, but to say that he came out of the series successful is pushing it, when he had 1 great inning and 1 ok inning in a 5 test series.
and as has been stated earlier, Langer was hardly a colossus, much like Ponting he was inconsistent throughout the entire series.

 

[tooextracool]

well think about it this way, since 2001 up to the ashes series Ponting along with Kallis & Dravid faced much mediocre attacks then he came up vs England & had to adjust averaging a below par 39 with jsut 2 good innings. But he faced good attacks in the super test & vs SA home & away and showed that he could also score runs againts good attacks in testing condtions.

well whatever it is, his performances against England dont prove anything other than the fact that he was ordinary against a quality pace bowling attack.

 

[aussie]

well whatever it is, his performances against England dont prove anything other than the fact that he was ordinary against a quality pace bowling attack.

Fair enough..

 

[aussie]

while the 3rd not only had plenty of poor decisions against him but was also in horrible form?

wouldn't say that Martyn was in bad form, he had just come of a superb series in NZ & a superb year, a fairly good Natwest ODI series, had a good 2nd innings knock at lord's, then in the next 4 test had a mixture of poor decisions & bad shots on his part.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean no disrepect to Lara- as i said before, he is a great ODI batsman and would most likely make my alltime ODI XI.I think while we can debate between Lara, Mark Waugh, Ponting, Kallis, Anwar, Inzamam etc., Tendulkar, Viv and Bevan standout as the three best ODI batsmen ever. Lara in the early 90s was a significantly better player than Tendulkar was. But overall in their careers, ( 96-2002 period), i think that Tendulkar has overshadowed Lara. While in Tests i think the margin is small, in ODIs, its significant. As significant as say between Ponting and Gillchrist. And since thats the bulk of their careers, i'd say that Tendulkar has been better for the bulk of his career than Lara in ODIs.

To give an idea, i would rate Sachin-Viv-Bevan-Haynes in the 95+ range with Lara-Ponting-Mark Waugh-Inzy at 80-85 range.

Well, that is about the same gap as I have between those two in ODIs. I guess you just worded it wrong the first time.

 

[Arrow]

What kind of twisted and biased thread is this? This blatantly biased thread starter conveniently stops the comparision at 2001, right when Lara got his second wind and when Tendulkar started his decline. Really pathetic really.
If you want to judge players to need to look at their ENTIRE career. You cant just pick and choose what part you want.
And im very surprise that you lot swallowed his skewed comparision critera. After 5 pages, no one questioned his 2001 cut off.

 

[Sanz]

What kind of twisted and biased thread is this? This blatantly biased thread starter conveniently stops the comparision at 2001, right when Lara got his second wind and when Tendulkar started his decline. Really pathetic really.
If you want to judge players to need to look at their ENTIRE career. You cant just pick and choose what part you want.
And im very surprise that you lot swallowed his skewed comparision critera. After 5 pages, no one questioned his 2001 cut off.

Okay, Sachin Avg. - 55.39, Lara 53.02

..and rest

 

[Jono]

Its their away records that is most striking really. Funny how people conveniently ignore that stat when it doesn't suit their argument, but boy do they harp on it when it suits them.

Once again not that Lara's is poor by any stretch, but there's a big gap between his home and away record.

 

[aussie]

What kind of twisted and biased thread is this? This blatantly biased thread starter conveniently stops the comparision at 2001, right when Lara got his second wind and when Tendulkar started his decline. Really pathetic really.
If you want to judge players to need to look at their ENTIRE career. You cant just pick and choose what part you want.
And im very surprise that you lot swallowed his skewed comparision critera. After 5 pages, no one questioned his 2001 cut off.

WTF, instead of stupidly calling me biased you could have at least asked why the cut of was made. On this forum at least it is an established and a correct generalization that by the end of 2001 most of the top-bowling attacks that most of the major sides had in the 90s were gone thus since then other than Australia most attacks in the world were not that good. Plus most pitches around the world have become extremely flat.

So cutting it off up to 2001 is to show that when most of the pitches around the world were not so flat as it has been since 2001 & most bowling attacks around the world were good Tendulkar was better than Lara overall, its not that hard to understand and obviously most of the members here who read the post understood this its only you with you absoulely brainless bashing of me calling me biased cant grasp that concept.

I agree that its best to judge players over their entire careers but still that hasn't stopped countless Murali vs Warne arguments & Dravid vs Ponting at various points of their careers. Also if you actually took some time to read my intial post in the thread my overall aim is to when the careers of Lara & Tendulkar come to and end one can make an overall comparison of them.

 

[aussie]

hopefully Tendulkar goes to the Caribbean for the upcoming test series, it will be great to see Lara/Tendulkar batting together on opposite sides in a test seires for possibly the last time.