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

[Pratters]

I'm going to cherish next year's WC.

Yeah, cherish my ass. Any ways, he will be playing in 2011 you know.

 

[Pigeon]

Tendulkar can't play those super classic innings.
He can't.
He has always worried about his average,getting the red ink.

5th Test: Australia v India at Perth, Feb 1-5, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com



All at 18 years of age.

 

[asty80]

ANd Nadal is 13-7 vs Federer if u all knew ne thing about Tennis. And Tendy has failed vs full strength Oz attacks.

And if you know anything about tennis, Federer has 15 grand slams and Nadal has a wobbly knee.

 

[aussie]

TBF, FC matches have to be looked at closely. Once players establish themselves at Test level they kinda don't give a tit about the domestic competition.

Exactly.

 

[aussie]

no way was 99 even. That was Lara Vs the whole Aussie bowling line up and Lara won!!!

It was that big IMO. Having watched the series in little spells, where Mcgrath hit Lara on the helmet in Barbados & almost had him caught by Warne at the end - in Antigua where early on was almost caught in the gully by S Waugh - or in Trinidad where McGrath first innings bowling performace he really tested Lara.

I always felt McGrath held his own in that series. Unlike Lara batting vs Murali in 2001, where Murali really had no answer to Lara.

And why is that McGrath being out of form wont be considered and Lara being woefully out of form in 96 with all those disputes with the board and Richie Richardson will be considered?

This argument is old & i dont believe Lara was out of form from 96-2000. He just was worked out technically by AUS, PAK, SA. The only period Lara was truly out of form was the 2000 tour to ENG when he came back after a period out of the game & had some eye problem, thus forcing him to bat with shades.

Then for majority of 2002, because of that dislocated shoulder problem.

Fact is:

95 in Windies - Even
96 in Aus - McGrath easily (that dead rubber hundred happens to be one of the greatest knocks of Lara. It was the last of the really quick Perth pitches and he was head and shoulders above the other batsmen in that test)
99 - Lara
2000- McGrath
2003- Lara

2005 - Lara

I cant see how 95 was even. McGrath found Lara outside off-stump weakness in that series, he scored no centuries.

2003 needs to be discounted, McGrath was in no sort of form in those 2 test he played.

2005, as i said although Lara got bad decisions in those first 2 tests. He wasn never on top McGrath & company it was 96/97 & 2000/01 all over again TBH.

 

[aussie]

If you are not counting 2003 as McGrath was out of form, why count 1996 and 2000 when Lara was woefully out of form as well? And I think you are missing the point, McGrath was as succesfull against Tendulkar as he was against Lara. Lara was dismissed 15 times in 24 tests, Tendulkar 6 times in 10 tests.

Except Pigeon didn't exposed any technical flaw in Tendulkar's game.

Except that Lara and Tendulkar ended up with pretty much the same records against these attacks.

Lara at his peak never scored a hundred vs PAK/SA in their own back-yards when Wasim/Waqar - Donald/Pollock where playing.

 

[Cruxdude]

Well everyone seems to be repeating the same thing again and again now. We seem to have run out of things to say regarding their batting now.

 

[Sanz]

36.77. 32 at home and 46 away

No wonder McGrath rated Lara as the best batsman he bowled to slightly ahead of Tendulkar.

I personally think that this is just a co-incidence. Based on those stats, One can also make an argument that Tendulkar Played Mcgrath better than Lara in Australia and hence the better player against Mcgrath. Tendulkar played two full series against Mcgrath and he did very well in both the series.

See that is the reason I do not like stats. While it its perfectly okay to prefer one over the other , some people use these stats to make that argument that one is better than the other is pure silly.

 

[Pratters]

I personally think that this is just a co-incidence. Based on those stats, One can also make an argument that Tendulkar Played Mcgrath better than Lara in Australia and hence the better player against Mcgrath. Tendulkar played two full series against Mcgrath and he did very well in both the series.

See that is the reason I do not like stats. While it its perfectly okay to prefer one over the other , some people use these stats to make that argument that one is better than the other is pure silly.

Over all if we look at the stats, Lara played better than Tendulkar v McGrath if I remember correctly. Often how a bowler feels a batsman is based on how the batsman played him. That's how they rate contemporaries IMO and so Lara's stats v McGrath and Tendulkar's stats versus McGrath (reflective to an extent to how they played him) would tilt McGrath's bias. We have to also look at ODI stats and I believe Tendulkar lags behind Lara in ODIs v McGrath remembering how often McGrath got the better of Tendulkar. This is why Warne rates Tendulkar above Lara and Murali rates Lara above Tendulkar- Tendulkar played Warne better while Lara played Murali better once Murali had evolved his doosra. I am not saying that this would be the only factor but this would be a very important factor.

Stats used to prove x or y is stupidity. Stats taken in context to see things is not blindly following stats. Viv Richard's average of 47 is a stat which is reflective of how great he was as a one day player. It doesn't explain the sheer destructiveness or is the only criteria to judge him by, hell Michael Bevan would be regarded as a better player than Richards if we only looked at the one day average stat. It is indicative that Richard did some thing right though.

 

[subshakerz]

Except Pigeon didn't exposed any technical flaw in Tendulkar's game.

So what? He was still as successful in getting him out. Are you trying to suggest that Tendulkar was technically faultless? I recall Tendulkar having a flaw a few years back when he used to get bowled repeatedly attempting to drive an outswing delivery. Abdul Razzaq exploited it quite well.

Lara at his peak never scored a hundred vs PAK/SA in their own back-yards when Wasim/Waqar - Donald/Pollock where playing.

Tendulkar never scored a hundred in Pakistan against WW either. And what's the point of scoring a hundred when you fail for the rest of the series, as he did against Pakistan in India in 1999. The fact is, in the final analysis, he didn't do better than Lara against those attacks.

 

[0RI0N]

5th Test: Australia v India at Perth, Feb 1-5, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com



All at 18 years of age.

that was a good innings no doubt,but I am talking about an innings of pure brilliance,one that could have made the Wisden 100 best Innings in tests.
He can't.
Oh and inb4 hundred vs Eng in Chennai(weak bowling and flat track)

 

[honestbharani]

this guy knows what he is talking about.
That 97 WACA pitch had wide cracks and bounce.
The last of the brutal WACA pitches.
Lara's 132 should of M0M'ed.
CEL Ambrose got that award.
Tendulkar can't play those super classic innings.
He can't.
He has always worried about his average,getting the red ink.
Lara crashed a double hundred in a day in 0Z(Adelaide 05),this after
a) getting bad decisions
b) being out of form
c) coming in at 19/2 on a pitch that was offering help to bowlers.
SRT takes 2 day to score 240 odd facing a weaker bowling attack.

Massive player though is SRT but
Lara greatest amongst his peers

Mate, I can understand you why might think Lara > Sachin but it is not like Sachin always played for the red ink... He is as much a team player as anyone in the history of the game... The main reason I was responding so much to Precam was that he was basically hurling out stupid stuff on Lara to make his point that Sachin was better. And now you are pretty much doing the opposite.. Cant we guys just state one is better than the other in our opinion without trying to belittle the other's achievements and credentials?

 

[honestbharani]

It was that big IMO. Having watched the series in little spells, where Mcgrath hit Lara on the helmet in Barbados & almost had him caught by Warne at the end - in Antigua where early on was almost caught in the gully by S Waugh - or in Trinidad where McGrath first innings bowling performace he really tested Lara.

I always felt McGrath held his own in that series. Unlike Lara batting vs Murali in 2001, where Murali really had no answer to Lara.



This argument is old & i dont believe Lara was out of form from 96-2000. He just was worked out technically by AUS, PAK, SA. The only period Lara was truly out of form was the 2000 tour to ENG when he came back after a period out of the game & had some eye problem, thus forcing him to bat with shades.

Then for majority of 2002, because of that dislocated shoulder problem.



I cant see how 95 was even. McGrath found Lara outside off-stump weakness in that series, he scored no centuries.

2003 needs to be discounted, McGrath was in no sort of form in those 2 test he played.

2005, as i said although Lara got bad decisions in those first 2 tests. He wasn never on top McGrath & company it was 96/97 & 2000/01 all over again TBH.

Dude, if Lara was worked out in that period, then concede that McGrath was worked out by Lara in that 2003 series.. You are just talking stupid stuff ATM...


And about that 99 series... You only watched it in little spells.. I watched the bloody entire thing and I KNOW that Lara was head and shoulders above the rest in that series. McGrath almost never looked like getting him out, inspite of what I consider to be his best spell on a last day track in Barbados where he got his fifer.. He induced one edge and that went low and wud have bounced befor first slip but Healy dived... It would have been a super catch had he taken it.


And FTR, Lara cover drove the next ball after he was hit on the helmet for a boundary. And in Barbados, he pulled him away for a four after he was hit.. Trust me, Lara EASILY won that series....

 

[Pigeon]

Except Pigeon didn't exposed any technical flaw in Tendulkar's game.

Erm, not exactly. McGrath indeed exposed the then flaw in Tendulkar's game, namely his tendency to waft at good length deliveries just outside off stump.

To Tendulkar's credit, he rectified it subsequently. I really regret we did not see much of McGrath vs Tendulkar post 2004, when they both really matured.

 

[Pigeon]

that was a good innings no doubt,but I am talking about an innings of pure brilliance,one that could have made the Wisden 100 best Innings in tests.
He can't.
Oh and inb4 hundred vs Eng in Chennai(weak bowling and flat track)

Wisden's list was parochial. It carries no value in my books as it is just another exercise in arm chair punditry.

Considering the age, the situation, the attack and the conditions, it was as legendary as any Perth 100.

 

[Pigeon]

that was a good innings no doubt,but I am talking about an innings of pure brilliance,one that could have made the Wisden 100 best Innings in tests.
He can't.
Oh and inb4 hundred vs Eng in Chennai(weak bowling and flat track)

Wisden's list was parochial. It carries no value in my books as it is just another exercise in arm chair punditry.

Considering the age, the situation, the attack and the conditions, it was as legendary as any Perth 100.

 

[Pratters]

Good morning Precambrian.

 

[honestbharani]

It was that big IMO. Having watched the series in little spells, where Mcgrath hit Lara on the helmet in Barbados & almost had him caught by Warne at the end - in Antigua where early on was almost caught in the gully by S Waugh - or in Trinidad where McGrath first innings bowling performace he really tested Lara.

I always felt McGrath held his own in that series. Unlike Lara batting vs Murali in 2001, where Murali really had no answer to Lara.



This argument is old & i dont believe Lara was out of form from 96-2000. He just was worked out technically by AUS, PAK, SA. The only period Lara was truly out of form was the 2000 tour to ENG when he came back after a period out of the game & had some eye problem, thus forcing him to bat with shades.

Then for majority of 2002, because of that dislocated shoulder problem.



I cant see how 95 was even. McGrath found Lara outside off-stump weakness in that series, he scored no centuries.

2003 needs to be discounted, McGrath was in no sort of form in those 2 test he played.

2005, as i said although Lara got bad decisions in those first 2 tests. He wasn never on top McGrath & company it was 96/97 & 2000/01 all over again TBH.

u got no idea what you are talking about.. He was playing McGrath so easily in that whole series... Never looked in any sort of trouble at all. It was the most solid he had ever looked in any series AFAIC...

 

[honestbharani]

Except Pigeon didn't exposed any technical flaw in Tendulkar's game.




Lara at his peak never scored a hundred vs PAK/SA in their own back-yards when Wasim/Waqar - Donald/Pollock where playing.

he played ONE series of 3 tests against Pak in their home when W & W were playing... And again only one series in 98 against Donald/Pollock where he was found wanting but really is that all what you you got against him?

 

[honestbharani]

Except Pigeon didn't exposed any technical flaw in Tendulkar's game.




Lara at his peak never scored a hundred vs PAK/SA in their own back-yards when Wasim/Waqar - Donald/Pollock where playing.

And just get hold of one fact.. You CANNOT have the sort of success Lara had if you were FOUND OUT... That is stupidity of the highest order.


Wanna talk about being found out.. Get a hold of the interview where the Saffies thought they can always get Sachin out with quick inswingers from just outside offstump as he always brought his bat down late or his foot went to the line slightly late... Didn't get him to be their bunny though.. They are amongst the all time greatest batsmen for a reason... So seriously please stop this stupidity about being "found out" now.. Even McGrath didn't think he "found him out"... And that 95 series in the Windies, I am almost sure Lara got at least one hundred. Need to check out the stats again.