-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
****OFFICIAL**** Lara vs Tendulkar Debate Thread
- Thread starter aussie
- Start date
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
FTR, I find Lara's batting similar to Laxman in the aesthetic sense in that they both have the ultra-precise control over the ball with their wrists and can manipulate it at will. Obviously Lara is a lot more flamboyant, scores quicker and can bat forever when he gets going.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
So was Azharuddin, especially in his earlier years (aesthetically)...
Azhar's 190-odd in Newzealand against Hadlee and co., or his 150-odd in England, or his century in South Africa in '97 series were superb treats (as well as some of his Warne-smashing and Murali-smashing innings in the subcontinent)...
Don't know if those are available on youtube...
Spark
Global Moderator
Yeah they're amazing.
smash84
The Tiger King
Indeed. Azhar was a very aesthetically pleasing batsman to watch. Very very stylish. Just that he isn't talked about as much anymore due to his antics
nsniks
State Vice-Captain
All hail great Rob!!!
YouTube - Mohammad Azharuddin 163* vs Australia 2nd test 1998
YouTube - Mohammad Azhrauddin 179 vs England 2nd test 1990
Even the azhar innings against SA is also available on youtube, cant seem to find it right now. The innings against SA in cape town along with his innings against England in Lords are the 2 of the best innings of Azharuddin.
Too bad there is no footage available of his amazing 62 ball hundred against new zealand, always wanted to see it
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Thanks.
I think his 192 in Newzealand against Richard Hadlee deserves a mention, too?
HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
Some of his Warne-slauterings were of elite-class. Here is an example when he scores 163 and Warne returns with figures 42-4-147-0.
HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
Muralitharan rates him as the 3rd best batsman he ever bowled to (after Lara and Tendulkar). There are many centuries he scored against Murali. Here is one:
HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
That used to be in the second half of his career. He was sublime in the 80s, and was touted as the next big thing in Indian batsmanship after Gavaskar retired (and before Sachin came). Gavaskar, for one, used to rate him very very highly.
The burden of captaincy, along with some off-field activities and his complacency (After becoming the captain, he had the 'I've done it all' attitude, it seemed.) killed the great batsman in him, except those sudden great innings like '97 Cape Town and those Warne, Murali dominances.
Last edited:
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Lara also has in his favour, his ability to produce Godly knocks. Tendulkar doesn't have those. So can totally see why some would still go for Lara, even though I wouldn't.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
but he was way too inconsistent as a top batsman.
It is hard to argue longevity against Lara. One would never know how he would have performed had he continued playing. It wasn't as if he faded away as he aged and then retired. I guess, both he and the WICB had enough of each other. Lara should also have made his debut earlier. Was kept out of the side for a looong time. Viv Richards, the then WI captain, seemed to prefer his Leeward-Islands-mate Keith Arthurton instead.
I recall a brilliant 92 that an 18 year old Lara made for T&T against Barbados on a dangerous pitch against Marshall & Garner in 1987-88 season, after which Mike Holding said something to the like "If I were the team selector, I would pen Lara's name down first and then select the rest of the batsmen". Lara never played Test match cricket until Richards was there.
IMO, between Sachin and Lara, it really seems to be a personal preference. Even the greatest bowlers of their era, who bowled to both in Test match cricket, seem to disagree on this. Donald & Warne rate Tendulkar as the best while McGrath, Waqar, Gillespie and Murali rate Lara as the best.
I give the edge to Lara simply because he has a superior statistical record against most of the greatest fast bowlers of their era, especially McGrath and Donald. And, I have seen him take the battle to these bowlers in Test match cricket more often than Sachin (and still he ended up with better stats against them than Sachin).
Lack of a stand-out, stellar series against any one of McGrath/Donald/Akram and his modest stats and relatively poor consistency against all of them is one minor thing (for me) that counts against Sachin in this case. This is not to diss Sachin or anything like that. It is just my preference.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
seems like you've got it completely the other way around. All the stats, consistency etc are in Sachin's favour, but he does not have that extravagant style. This is the main reason why some people still pick lara over tendulkar.
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
Didn't Lara actually score more runs per innings than Tendulkar?