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

[Sanz]

I think he's nowhere near as good as made out to be, and still has to prove he can handle strong attacks on wickets that seam. To say he's better than Ponting on such wickets is pure fantasy. There are too many wholes in his resume ie. consistent poor results overall V SA and Aus when things haven't been easy batting wise

Oh so now you have switched from England to Australia and SA. So now no comparing Ponting/Dravid records in England ?

Who are you kidding Ricky averaged <40 against WI when Ambrose and Walsh played.

He flopped for the most part in the only series he played against Wasim/Waqar/Akhtar.

He flopped against the English attack of last summer.

 

[parttimer]

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.

Punter averages 65 in SA, Dravid 42. Not sure where your going with that one!

Re WI: He didn't fare too badly against them, but an avg around 40, playing in conditions tailored to their attack is not too bad, esp in one of your first series. After those innitial blunders there was no stopping him..
Re Pak He had a couple of bad tests against them in Aus, other than that he made he's made hundreds galore against them. There isn't any pattern of weakness against the moving ball like there is with Dravid

 

[C_C]

I think he's nowhere near as good as made out to be, and still has to prove he can handle strong attacks on wickets that seam. To say he's better than Ponting on such wickets is pure fantasy. There are too many wholes in his resume ie. consistent poor results overall V SA and Aus when things haven't been easy batting wise

Performance against Australia ?
Well pray tell- how much has Ponting faced McGrath or Warne ?

On wickets that have movement in them, i'd pick Dravid over Ponting...on wickets that are usually hard and bouncy, i'd pick Ponting....on wickets that take spin, its Dravid rather handily.

 

[parttimer]

...but if you're going to use that as a mark against Dravid, why not use the same against Ponting? Consistently been very very poor in India, hasn't been able to score much against England, or score a great deal in seaming conditions.

Anyway, I think it's your bias showing through here...Dravid has obviously been absolutely brilliant on seamers if you've actually watched him play. But then again, you'd probably think Hodge is a better batsman than Dravid....

Ponting has been very poor in India, yes. But the arguement is who's better againt pace and movement.

 

[C_C]

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.

Punter averages 65 in SA, Dravid 42. Not sure where your going with that one!

Re WI: He didn't fare too badly against them, but an avg around 40, playing in conditions tailored to their attack is not too bad, esp in one of your first series. After those innitial blunders there was no stopping him..
Re Pak He had a couple of bad tests against them in Aus, other than that he made he's made hundreds galore against them. There isn't any pattern of weakness against the moving ball like there is with Dravid

In my opinion, Ponting is the only 'great' batsman in the current Aussie lineup. he's behind Lara/Tendulkar/Richards/Chappell/Sobers/Gavaskar/Border/Miandad etc. for me but he's nonetheless, in the great category.Batsmen like Martyn, Gillchrist, Hayden are all 'good' batsmen who've cashed in against some of the weakest bowling lineups ever and caught the tail-end of the great bowling era.

I would rate them in the Richardson-Doug Walters-Ian Chappell category.

 

[parttimer]

In my opinion, Ponting is the only 'great' batsman in the current Aussie lineup. he's behind Lara/Tendulkar/Richards/Chappell/Sobers/Gavaskar/Border/Miandad etc. for me but he's nonetheless, in the great category.Batsmen like Martyn, Gillchrist, Hayden are all 'good' batsmen who've cashed in against some of the weakest bowling lineups ever and caught the tail-end of the great bowling era.

I would rate them in the Richardson-Doug Walters-Ian Chappell category.

Fair enough. I haven't seen that much 70's cricket so i really can't say. Probably have him in front of Border tho. If he keeps performing the way he is atm and has some success in India, I think it'd be unfair to exclude him permanently from that 'great' group.

 

[honestbharani]

Sachin didn't come into that bad an ODI side, and Lara's ODI side wasn't all that significantly better either. Adams, Arthurton, Simmons, Richardson, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Harper is a very mixed list, just like the INdian list.


And CC, I think you are doing Lara a great disservice by continuing to disregard the amazing 5 year run he had in ODIs by only taking of things since 1996. It is not like Lara and Sachin weren't expected to contribute before that. Sachin peaked later than Lara in ODIs. Simple as that. And while I do think Sachin is definitely better than Lara in ODIs, the margin isn't as big as you suggest and Sachin himself has admitted that. If I give Sachin 100%, I would put Lara at 90%.

 

[honestbharani]

Handled rubbish England bowlers, yes. The current lineup? Yet to be seen

And when he does well against this lot, you will again say that it was because they were in bad form.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, in India

The ball doesn't swing in INdia, right? And you didn't watch any of these games, right?


Dude, just give up, the ball swung bananes, esp. reverse swing in this current series in India. Guys like Pathan, Patel, Hoggard and Flintoff and Anderson were a constant threat for this particular reason.

 

[honestbharani]

The argument is about who's better against the moving ball, so whether Dravid performed against that attack in India is irrelevant, the ball doesn't move around there.

Averages from series 5 years ago are not relevent. While England's attack may have been similar, facing them in 02 is a very different proposition from now.

did u watch ANY of these matches that you claim to be oh-so-knowledgable about?

 

[honestbharani]

I think he's nowhere near as good as made out to be, and still has to prove he can handle strong attacks on wickets that seam. To say he's better than Ponting on such wickets is pure fantasy. There are too many wholes in his resume ie. consistent poor results overall V SA and Aus when things haven't been easy batting wise

Ponting's amazing average in India shows us what, then? He is absolute crap against spinners, right? But then again, since he is an Aussie, he doesn't have to prove himself to be great, right? You calling him great is enough. After all, who cares about the players and the ex-players think? PartTimer's opinion is all that matters.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Punter averages 65 in SA, Dravid 42. Not sure where your going with that one!

Re WI: He didn't fare too badly against them, but an avg around 40, playing in conditions tailored to their attack is not too bad, esp in one of your first series. After those innitial blunders there was no stopping him..
Re Pak He had a couple of bad tests against them in Aus, other than that he made he's made hundreds galore against them. There isn't any pattern of weakness against the moving ball like there is with Dravid

Try comparing Dravid's averages vis-a-vis his team mates in all these series that you are talking about? He has been very good as well, esp. in relation to his team mates performances on those tours.

 

[honestbharani]

Ponting has been very poor in India, yes. But the arguement is who's better againt pace and movement.

It doesn't matter much in the end analysis. The discussion was about who is the better batsman between the two. AT least Dravid doesn't average in the teens in certain conditions.

 

[C_C]

And CC, I think you are doing Lara a great disservice by continuing to disregard the amazing 5 year run he had in ODIs by only taking of things since 1996. It is not like Lara and Sachin weren't expected to contribute before that. Sachin peaked later than Lara in ODIs. Simple as that. And while I do think Sachin is definitely better than Lara in ODIs, the margin isn't as big as you suggest and Sachin himself has admitted that. If I give Sachin 100%, I would put Lara at 90%.

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.

 

[marc71178]

I can.

What, because it suits your argument?

He didnt get freebies from the current-lot zimboks or bangladeshis either.

Relevance to the period up to 31/12/01?

 

[marc71178]

Same bowlers, dear boy, same bowlers!

So where are Caddick and Tudor now then?

Not to mention that lack of a Cooley.

 

[Benny2k1]

Lara in the early 90s was a significantly better player than Tendulkar was. But overall in their careers, ( 96-2002 period),

your using 96-2002 as reference to there careers :S thats 6 years, lara made his debut in 1990, so how can you say sachin is better over the bulk, by your logic, lara was better in the first 6 lara better in the second 6 years.....? it seems ur picking a date from when sachin is good for the start of a career!

 

[roseboy64]

True...but as i demonstrated, Tendulkar doesnt have more runs proportionate to more matches- he doesnt have like 3600 runs more in 90-odd innings with an average a couple of points more than Lara in that period. He has over 5000 runs at nearly 60 (!!) average more than Lara.... and please check how often batsmen hit 50+ scores in ODI cricket....you'd find that its around 30% of the time ( ie, 1 outta 3 innings)....but in those extra 90 innings, Tendulkar as 42 more scores in excess of 50 - thats a staggering 50% of the time!)
And an opener has more chances to make centuries ?
Pray tell then- how come Viv Richards, Ponting, Lara, Kallis, etc. have a higher frequency of scoring centuries than mostl ODI openers ?

And no, you dont explain a 20 differential in strike rate between position 1 and 3/4 down to 'batting position'.

It is pretty clear that Tendulkar comprehensively outshines Lara ( and anyone else for that matter with the exception of Bevan) in ODIs over the last 10 years or so.

1. Fair point.
2. The openers simply weren't good enough. If you have 200 runs to make and no one gets out then obviously if you're batting at 3 you wouldn't get a chance to make a century even if soemone gets out with say 150 on the board.
3. Batting position can be related to match situation. When you mostly open you'd rarely get the opportunity to bat in a match situation that dictates your strike rate. Also, depends on your teammates and their skills. You'd perhaps be more willing to be care free if you know that whoever's coming after you is reliable.

 

[tooextracool]

I can't see how the likes of Franklin, Oram and Mills can be coupled with someone with 68 wickets from 30 Tests as a team's second seamer...

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

 

[tooextracool]

But over the last year or so Ponting has faced some good attacks in England & South Africa in testing condtions & has done well, something that i think you should consider

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.