ReallyCrazy
Banned
for the last 2 years Lara but for their whole careers in total...then tendulkar
-
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.
lara vs tendulkar
- Thread starter thehellraiser
- Start date
tooextracool
International Coach
probably one billion reasons as to why......
tooextracool
International Coach
whether you're being sarcastic or not, all of that is the truth.Anil said:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Well as I said,( I personally feel ), its a personal opinion. As to why?Anil said:
Well let me see.
First of all, I think Richards dominated all bowling on all conditions and rarely had periods of self-doubt that seem to plague both Lara and Sachin.
Secondly, I personally rate the bowling in Richards' time to be better than today at least as far as the pace bowling is concerned. I know this will be argued but again its my opinion. And this is saying something for I am talking of pace bowlers outside the Windies in Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand etc.
Thirdly, I think Richards dominated the world stage as THE leading batsman of his time. Lara and Tendulkar have shared this between themselves and at other times other batsmen have been ranked by some as the 'best'. We all know the batsmen I am talking off. Richards was peerless in his time.
That should do I think.
Once again its my personal opinion and you or others can differ and I respect that.
Thirdly,
C_C
International Captain
I think the bowling standard overall in the 70s and 80s was better but that is largely due to the bowlers from the WI.
From Richards' perspective, can you justify why you think bowlers HE faced are better than the ones Lara-Tendy faced ?
For bulk of Richards' career Pakistan really had two great/good bowlers- Imran and Qadir.
For bulk of Tendulkar-Lara's career, Pakistan had Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain-Shoaib-Mustaq.
Richards didnt have to face Donald-deVilliers-Pollock-Ntini.
Tendy and Lara have had to
While Richards faced Lillee-Thommo for half of his career, Lara-Tendy have faced McGrath-Gillespie for most of theirs.
Granted, Richards had to face Kapil,Hadlee,Botham and Willis (the bowlers who NZ,IND and ENG never replaced)
but he didnt have to face Warne or Murali.
He didnt have to face Kumble(as in Lara's case) or Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop (in Tendulkar's case).
I think overall, Tendulkar and Lara have faced better bowlers than Richards did even though the bowling strength of his era was better. But that is largely due to his own team.
And we are talkin career prespective, not the deterioration of bowling for the past 3-4 years.
Well if you check the ratings(something i dont pay much attention to but is relevant in this case), you will see that Miandad had the upper hand on Richards from mid-late 80s onwards and Gavaskar/G.Chappell had the upper hand till early 80s or so.
So Richards too had to share it with other batsmen or sometimes was behind other batsman- ratings wise. Now, if you are talking reputation, then yes he was peerless but so are Lara and Tendulkar
And besides, whether or not he shared the tag with someone else is a poor thing to rate someone with.
You can be as good as you want but if you got another awesome player lining up against you, does that reduce your quality ?
This is like saying if there was another bradman in his era, it would've reduced bradman's worth.
As per as this thread goes, I rate Bradman, then daylight and then tendulkar.
Actually the top 10 i rate are as follows:
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Gavaskar
Lara
Sobers
Greg Chappell
Dravid
Allan Border
Ken Barrington
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
sure, your personal opinion is what i asked for....SJS said:Well as I said,( I personally feel ), its a personal opinion. As to why?
Well let me see.
First of all, I think Richards dominated all bowling on all conditions and rarely had periods of self-doubt that seem to plague both Lara and Sachin.
Secondly, I personally rate the bowling in Richards' time to be better than today at least as far as the pace bowling is concerned. I know this will be argued but again its my opinion. And this is saying something for I am talking of pace bowlers outside the Windies in Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand etc.
Thirdly, I think Richards dominated the world stage as THE leading batsman of his time. Lara and Tendulkar have shared this between themselves and at other times other batsmen have been ranked by some as the 'best'. We all know the batsmen I am talking off. Richards was peerless in his time.
That should do I think.
Once again its my personal opinion and you or others can differ and I respect that.
Thirdly,
why i feel the above reasons are arguable:
richards did not consistently have to face the bowlers from the windies who were clearly the leading pace bowlers of his era(not forgetting lillee, thommo, imran, botham, willis, hadlee here....). in domestic competitions, i've heard that he didn't fare all that well against them...again this is just something i've read somewhere and don't have any stats to back this up.
lara and sachin draw comparisons based on people's evaluations of their greatness and are imo head and shoulders above the rest of the batsmen of their time...the fact that richards dominated his era(at least for a major portion of his career), could it be because there was no one at that level for him to compete with?(i know there were a lot of great batsmen in his time, but only one masterblaster...only one who had quite that effect..). also sachin has faced ambrose, walsh, donald, pollock, mcgrath, akhtar, akram, younis et al just to mention pace and lara has faced all the non-west indian bowlers in that list....not a bad list is it?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I would put Lara ahead in tests and Sachin ahead in ODIs. I always have and the past year has only confirmed my feelings.
dudeurfriend
School Boy/Girl Captain
Yes agreed ......honestbharani said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Without debating the actual content of your list (a significant amount of which I actually agree with), I'm curious about something. Quite a number of people on this board defend vigorously their use of statistics as the primary method of comparing players (as opposed to say written record), and yet whenever a list like this pops up it is inevitably bereft of Australians from the current side, with the occasional exception of S. Waugh.C_C said:
As far as I can see, there can be little doubt that this Australian side has the strongest batting lineup of all time, if your primary standard of measurement is statistical. There have been two recent Australian sides that spring to mind that had five of the top seven batsmen in the lineup averaging over 50. These sides are the one which faced Zimbabwe in 2003, with Hayden, Ponting, S. Waugh, Lehmann and Gilchrist all averaging over 50 at the time, and Hayden and Gilchrist breaking 55, and the side which faced Pakistan a year later, which had Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke and Gilchrist in that group, with Hayden and Ponting averaging over 55. Considering only 32 players ever have completed their careers (or have them in progress currently) with an average over 50, and only 16 over 55, this is quite remarkable.
Meanwhile, players from the same era such as Dravid, or players from a similar era with inferior averages such as Lara tend to make these lists.
So, do you discount these batsmen because you think they have earned their averages plundering inferior bowling attacks, or do you rate them highly but simply not consider any of them part of the top 10, or perhaps you ignore them because their careers are not finished yet? I'm curious, since this would seem a fairly obvious contradiction to use of statistics as your primary method of measuring a player's worth. Surely at least, if you rely mostly on statistics, and your argument about the inferior quality of bowling that Richards faced compared to some players recently, you would have to consider Ponting a better batsman than him?
Last edited:
dudeurfriend
School Boy/Girl Captain
Australia has a good batting line up. but not the greatest.. This Australian side's key to success has been their consistency. These players are a very good bunch of players... Team work Aystarlia's #1 strength.....
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Hayden smashing the Nehras, Samis, Dillons, and other players from sub-standard attacks is much less of an accomplishment than Dravid, Sachin, Lara and co. scoring amazing tons against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and co.FaaipDeOiad said:Without debating the actual content of your list (a significant amount of which I actually agree with), I'm curious about something. Quite a number of people on this board defend vigorously their use of statistics as the primary method of comparing players (as opposed to say written record), and yet whenever a list like this pops up it is inevitably bereft of Australians from the current side, with the occasional exception of S. Waugh.
As far as I can see, there can be little doubt that this Australian side has the strongest batting lineup of all time, if your primary standard of measurement is statistical. There have been two recent Australian sides that spring to mind that had five of the top seven batsmen in the lineup averaging over 50. These sides are the one which faced Zimbabwe in 2003, with Hayden, Ponting, S. Waugh, Lehmann and Gilchrist all averaging over 50 at the time, and Hayden and Gilchrist breaking 55, and the side which faced Pakistan a year later, which had Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke and Gilchrist in that group, with Hayden and Ponting averaging over 55. Considering only 32 players ever have completed their careers (or have them in progress currently) with an average over 50, and only 16 over 55, this is quite remarkable.
Meanwhile, players from the same era such as Dravid, or players from a similar era with inferior averages such as Lara tend to make these lists.
So, do you discount these batsmen because you think they have earned their averages plundering inferior bowling attacks, or do you rate them highly but simply not consider any of them part of the top 10, or perhaps you ignore them because their careers are not finished yet? I'm curious, since this would seem a fairly obvious contradiction to use of statistics as your primary method of measuring a player's worth. Surely at least, if you rely mostly on statistics, and your argument about the inferior quality of bowling that Richards faced compared to some players recently, you would have to consider Ponting a better batsman than him?
That is why these players are so highly held.
And I don't think its fair holding Clarke's average of over 50 alongside other players' averages such as Lara. He's been playing test cricket since October, and though he has been absolutely spectacular, its still silly to compare it to a player that has played as long as Lara
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Jono said:
exactly, if we want to go down the road of comparing averages then this means that strauss must be the best batsman in the world considering he must currently have a test average over 60 which i am sure nobody else has. not taking anything away from strauss though as there is no doubt in my mind that he is a world class player just not to the same extent of tendulkar or lara.......yet