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

[nookie_lk]

Its LARA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No argument !!!!!!

 

[luckyeddie]

There's plenty of times Tendulkar HASN'T choked and just because he failed a few times under the pump doesn't mean he's a choker, he's just human.

Noob.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Well, I was talking to aussie when he said that there was some form of credibility to that argument, even though it was obvious you were joking.

 

[howardj]

Prove It!!

Someone did a few weeks ago.

Huge break down of B.C's stats in dead-rubber games - really quite prolific.

Magnificent batsman though

Cant split Lara and The Sach.

 

[age_master]

i would take Lara any day of the week.

 

[aussie]

Well, I was talking to aussie when he said that there was some form of credibility to that argument, even though it was obvious you were joking.

well if it think about it there is truth to both sides, in lara's case there has been few times in his career that he has failed in the opening matches but made big hundreds in the dead-rubber matches. But it cant be that much since only the The 400 vs ENG, 237 & 132 at adelaide in 2005 & 96 immediately come to mind come to mind. But i don't know if this proves much TBH..

But with Tendulkar when India have been under pressure to win a test i can't remember him playing a match-winning knock. The only one that comes close is the 136 vs PAK in chennai 99. This though is more significant since Lara has shown he can bat well under extreme pressure & win games for his team.

This doesn't say Tendulkar is a choker as you said he is only human but it does prove that under pressure Lara is better & is more of a match-winner than Tendulkar

 

[silentstriker]

This is going to get ugly.


/And I'll be leading the charge.

 

[Matt79]

But with Tendulkar when India have been under pressure to win a test i can't remember him playing a match-winning knock. The only one that comes close is the 136 vs PAK in chennai 99. This though is more significant since Lara has shown he can bat well under extreme pressure & win games for his team.

I have no strong attachment to either one or the other in a head to head comparison. They were clearly the best batsmen of their day, and in their pomp they were magnificent. It's probably fair to say that Lara has faded more gradually than Tendaulkar, but there are probably reasons for that.

In regards to your specific point, could it be that in many cases when Tendaulkar plays well, India seldom end up under pressure to win a test?

I guess points should go to Lara given he's carried the Windies a lot more than Tendaulkar has had to carry India, especially recently, with players like Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman, Sehwag. Lara's had Gayle and Chandrapaul....

 

[silentstriker]

, but seriously i think there is more truth in refering to Tendulkar as a choker than Lara a dead rubber basher. Who cares anyway they are both superb..

So how do you explain the higher average of Tendulkar in a winning test? I'd much rather have a consistent scores of 50-60 (with a LOT of centuries to boot), which help turn the tide of matches than 0, 10, 1, 400*, 1, 2, 6, 12.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara by the slightest possible bit imaginable, for me. But I agree, this thread is gonna get ugly. Let us hope the fact that these two gentlemen are very good friends and have always been magnanimous in their praise for each other makes sure that the members here don't get over excited and start treating this personally.

 

[aussie]

In regards to your specific point, could it be that in many cases when Tendaulkar plays well, India seldom end up under pressure to win a test?

I guess points should go to Lara given he's carried the Windies a lot more than Tendaulkar has had to carry India, especially recently, with players like Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman, Sehwag. Lara's had Gayle and Chandrapaul....

Well i cant say for sure if India in the last 15 years have had that issue. Lara up until 2002 or so had Hooper & in his early days had Adams (who was phenomenal in the mid 90s) & Richardson. While Tendulkar had Azharuddin & Sidhu also. So they have had pretty good batting support during the 90s but i reckon Lara still had to carry the windies batting more than Tendulkar has had to carry India's..

 

[aussie]

So how do you explain the higher average of Tendulkar in a winning test? I'd much rather have a consistent scores of 50-60 (with a LOT of centuries to boot), which help turn the tide of matches than 0, 10, 1, 400*, 1, 2, 6, 12.

Tendulkar averaged 59 in matches won & Lara 57, really that isn't much of a difference. Its not as if i'm doubting Tendulkar is more consistent anyway that was my first point in the thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Well i cant say for sure if India in the last 15 years have had that issue. Lara up until 2002 or so had Hooper & in his early days had Adams (who was phenomenal in the mid 90s) & Richardson. While Tendulkar had Azharuddin & Sidhu also. So they have had pretty good batting support during the 90s but i reckon Lara still had to carry the windies batting more than Tendulkar has had to carry India's..

AS someone who has watched both of them almost every time, I think I can safely say that Sachin has had better batting suppor than Lara, at least at home. Away from home, both had very little back up. But then again, DRavid > Chanderpaul.

 

[Jono]

I don't believe that Sachin is a choker, nor do I believe that Lara is a 'dead-rubber basher', however aren't they one and the same?

If a player doesn't perform when the series is alive, but only performs when the series is long gone in what is, basically a match for pride, then isn't he also a choker?

I don't see how a player who apparently fails often when there is a specific situation of immense pressure during a match, for eg. 5-180 needing a target of 290 to win, is any different from a player who fails when the series is alive, whether they come in in 'pressure situations' like is mentioned above or not.

They are one and the same IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

u know, I keep wondering why the scribes around the world keep asking Sachin about comparing himself with Lara and Lara about comparing himself with Sachin. These guys are very good friends and unlike Murali and Warne, actually know how to conduct themselves with a bit of grace when asked about their competitors. But they still keep trying, and failing.

 

[Sanz]

i would take Lara any day of the week.

I am sure you will, Given Sachin's record against Australia.

 

[steds]

The prospect of this thread makes me cringe.

It makes me cry.

 

[silentstriker]

Tendulkar averaged 59 in matches won & Lara 57, really that isn't much of a difference. Its not as if i'm doubting Tendulkar is more consistent anyway that was my first point in the thread.

So then how can you say he chokes [even a little bit], if he scores more than Lara in games won?



Plus Lara is a cheat and a liar, he only cares about money. Lara shouldn't even be in the game, he's a disgrace. He is only even considered in the same league as Sachin because he is from WI and historically we all know how WI players have been overrated in comparison to their contemporaries.


/Just kidding

 

[Pratters]

It makes me cry.

It scared me so much that I didn't open it till now despite seeing on CC. I finally gained the courage. I am weak again though.

*runs away meekly*

 

[aussie]

So then how can you say he chokes [even a little bit], if he scores more than Lara in games won?

This stats shows that in games won Tendulkar averages better, but it would be interesting if one is to break down Tendulkar's & Lara 25/24 games before 2001 which they won to see how many cases where India & West Indies were in 4th innings chases.

For Lara in matches chasing targets he averages 61, Tendulkar averages 54. Again not a big difference, but i still rate Lara's ability as a match-winner higher than Tendulkar.