Rank the 10,000 club

[Burgey]

Tendulkar had to do it all under so much pressure. I know it’s a meme but that counts for a bit too imo.

The Last Stand gives some nice insight into how public pressure can **** you up.

 

[Daemon]

That actually looks a bit like Ponting

 

[Burgey]

The bloke who did it all under enormous pressure, including not shirking the captaincy and not being a selfish arsehole? Yeah it does look a bit like him.

 

[Daemon]

ah yes the pressure of having the best bowler ever, the best spinner ever and the best keeper batsman ever in your lineup. must've been a tough gig.

 

[pardus]

He was a literal child at the time though.

The fact that a literal child was thrown up against Wasim, Waqar, Hadlee, Donald etc and he scored multiple centuries is still pretty impressive though isn't it? Numbers without context.

Of course it's impressive. Nobody is saying Tendulkar was a useless batsman in those initial years. Again let's not get touchy here. This is not about pointing how bad Tendulkar was etc.. We are comparing the best of the best in the aspect of consistency throughout their careers. We are comparing consistency of Tendulkar and Lara here. The question here is - over the entire course of their careers, was Lara's consistency really that bad when compared to Tendulkar's?

One other thing, we can't have it both ways. If we include Tendulkar's initial years (and final years) as part of his long, consistent years, then facts will be pointed out to show otherwise.

Im replying to your specific point, which does not consider this, so clearly I havent.

Having 3 troughs is more consistent than one big one. See two bats who go:
100, 100, 100, 0, 0, 0 vs
100, 0, 100, 0, 100, 0

This said, I'm not sure it matters if a bat has one trough or 3. I do think it matters that the troughs came at different ages though- Lara would have had 3 as well if active for the same number of years, including his notably worse middle one.

Sorry man, it was you who came up with absurd (and rather fudged) numbers of Lara being inconsistent for 1/3rd of his career and Tendulkar being inconsistent for only 1/7th of his career. Those numbers are as false as they can get. , And for sure you included their entire career length when you came up with these numbers.

Lara had 1 long trough in the middle of his career (from Nov 1996 to Nov 2001). Tendulkar had 1 equally long trough (from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007) and 1 relatively short (2.5 years) but very deep trough at the end of his career.

This said, I'm not sure it matters if a bat has one trough or 3. I do think it matters that the troughs came at different ages though- Lara would have had 3 as well if active for the same number of years, including his notably worse middle one.

Tough luck. Lara retired when he retired. He had an amazing last 4-5 years of his career. He really signed off on a high note. That's about it. It is what it is. In this comparison - it is absurd to penalize Lara for imaginary troughs if he had played on till he was 40.

If you are really being honest with your numbers - Tendulkar has to be penalized for lack of consistency in his final years (and some part of his initial years - taking 4+ years and nearly 30 Test matches to get his career Test average above 50 is not a short time), as well as his slump from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007
You can suit yourself but for me Tendulkar's slump from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007 was just as worse as Lara's slump from Nov 1996 to Nov 2001.

My whole point is, overall career-wise there's not much difference between the two when it comes to consistency. Lara would never have such comparable overall figures if he were not as consistent. They both were neck and neck in every category. Conversely, overall Tendulkar's peaks weren't lower than Lara's either - there are 9 Test series where Tendulkar averaged 100+ (Lara has only 2 in comparison).

Lara's peaks are remembered more probably because they came against great attacks. Lara also played far fewer matches than Tendulkar against weaker teams (Bangladesh/Zimbabwe - 4 matches for Lara vs 16 matches for Tendulkar), and even mid-level teams (Sri Lanka & New Zealand - 19 matches for Lara vs 49 matches for Tendulkar).

 

[harsh.ag]

Tendulkar's post 2003 slump was injury related, qualitatively different from Lara's 90s slump

 

[vcs]

Of course it's impressive. Nobody is saying Tendulkar was a useless batsman in those initial years. Again let's not get touchy here. This is not about pointing how bad Tendulkar was etc.. We are comparing the best of the best in the aspect of consistency throughout their careers. We are comparing consistency of Tendulkar and Lara here. The question here is - over the entire course of their careers, was Lara's consistency really that bad when compared to Tendulkar's?

One other thing, we can't have it both ways. If we include Tendulkar's initial years (and final years) as part of his long, consistent years, then facts will be pointed out to show otherwise.



Sorry man, it was you who came up with absurd (and rather fudged) numbers of Lara being inconsistent for 1/3rd of his career and Tendulkar being inconsistent for only 1/7th of his career. Those numbers are as false as they can get. , And for sure you included their entire career length when you came up with these numbers.

Lara had 1 long trough in the middle of his career (from Nov 1996 to Nov 2001). Tendulkar had 1 equally long trough (from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007) and 1 relatively short (2.5 years) but very deep trough at the end of his career.



Tough luck. Lara retired when he retired. He had an amazing last 4-5 years of his career. He really signed off on a high note. That's about it. It is what it is. In this comparison - it is absurd to penalize Lara for imaginary troughs if he had played on till he was 40.

If you are really being honest with your numbers - Tendulkar has to be penalized for lack of consistency in his final years (and some part of his initial years - taking 4+ years and nearly 30 Test matches to get his career Test average above 50 is not a short time), as well as his slump from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007
You can suit yourself but for me Tendulkar's slump from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007 was just as worse as Lara's slump from Nov 1996 to Nov 2001.

My whole point is, overall career-wise there's not much difference between the two when it comes to consistency. Lara would never have such comparable overall figures if he were not as consistent. They both were neck and neck in every category. Conversely, overall Tendulkar's peaks weren't lower than Lara's either - there are 9 Test series where Tendulkar averaged 100+ (Lara has only 2 in comparison).

Lara's peaks are remembered more probably because they came against great attacks. Lara also played far fewer matches than Tendulkar against weaker teams (Bangladesh/Zimbabwe - 4 matches for Lara vs 16 matches for Tendulkar), and even mid-level teams (Sri Lanka & New Zealand - 19 matches for Lara vs 49 matches for Tendulkar).

Tendulkar took to Test cricket like a duck to water, it was ODIs that he took much longer to figure out (around 80 matches to hit his first century). He played 20 out of his first 21 Tests in Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Australia and South Africa when he was a teenager, scoring 4 centuries. His average started "correcting" itself as soon as he started playing against easier opponents and more home fixtures.

 

[pardus]

Tendulkar's post 2003 slump was injury related, qualitatively different from Lara's 90s slump

I agree, but as Aussie Tennis great Rod Laver once said - "If you show up to play, you are fit to play". It's tough but that's how it is.
Otherwise it is grossly unfair on your opponents, and on your team-mates as well.

And BTW Lara's slump in late 90s too had physical reasons. Just open below link

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Sport

Let me highlight from the above link what Lara said (skipping Zimbabwe tour) -
"It’s a right hamstring injury, which I picked up in England last year (June 2000)" Lara said. "I should have had it seen to earlier but the challenge of playing against Australia (in November 2000) and South Africa (in March 2001) was too much to pass up.
I was never more than 80 per cent fit at any time, but I’m still hopeful of making a good recovery and returning to the team when they go to Kenya in August."

Lara batted nearly 30 Test innings during that time - in England, in Australia and at home against South Africa (and he averaged a miserable 33 over the course of those 30 innings - and scoring just two 100s over those 30 innings).

He suffered from the same hamstring injury even in his iconic series against Australia in 1999. He willed himself through the Test matches and completely collapsed in the ODI series that followed.

It was a recurring injury that he carried from 1997, and didn't attend to until mid 2001.

But no excuses for Lara, and no excuses for Tendulkar either.

 

[Line and Length]

i forgot only matches against australia and england count

Don't be sarcastic Flem. Because the three I was comparing (Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis) come from 3 different countries it would have been inappropriate to compare their stats against those 3 countries. I looked at England and Australia as those were countries they played a lot of games against. All three gain considerably (in terms of averages) when they have played against minnows such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh with Kallis averaging 169.75 against Zimbabwe and Tendulkar 136.67 against Bangladesh.
Lara is by far the most consistent against the 7 nations they all came up against. He averages over 50 against all but New Zealand with his best against Sri Lanka (86.54).
Tendulkar averages over 50 against all but New Zealand and Pakistan while Kallis only averages over 50 against the 2 aforementioned minnows, Pakistan and New Zealand. Against the other 3 nations he averages a modest 42.11 and it is on that basis that I rank both Tndulkar and Lara above him when I came to selecting a hypothetical batting order.

 

[Flem274*]

im the first on the anti-longevity train but opposition should focus on test spam rating players who only ever achieved good, fine or even just 'good enough' to make the team.

being a gun cricketer as a child (a literal legal child in FLOPdulkar's case) and as a geriatric (not quite so literal) counts for something. even if FLOPdulkar was inconsistently gun as a teenager (i cbf looking tbh) this puts him miles ahead of every other atg as a child, because children are almost always bad test cricketers.

 

[Flem274*]

Don't be sarcastic Flem.

im not, it's sooooo cw 2007 to start hucking out records against the less fashionable sides.

now let's look at the bowling figures

kallis makes a top 6 selected from this group every time in a real selection situation. it would be insane to give up an atg batsman combined with a test class bowler.

 

[Coronis]

Don't be sarcastic Flem. Because the three I was comparing (Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis) come from 3 different countries it would have been inappropriate to compare their stats against those 3 countries. I looked at England and Australia as those were countries they played a lot of games against. All three gain considerably (in terms of averages) when they have played against minnows such as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh with Kallis averaging 169.75 against Zimbabwe and Tendulkar 136.67 against Bangladesh.
Lara is by far the most consistent against the 7 nations they all came up against. He averages over 50 against all but New Zealand with his best against Sri Lanka (86.54).
Tendulkar averages over 50 against all but New Zealand and Pakistan while Kallis only averages over 50 against the 2 aforementioned minnows, Pakistan and New Zealand. Against the other 3 nations he averages a modest 42.11 and it is on that basis that I rank both Tndulkar and Lara above him when I came to selecting a hypothetical batting order.

Idk looks like Kallis was the only one who could stand up to the might of NZ.

 

[honestbharani]

Even in 89-94 he was managing a hundred in every series he played. The only ones he didn't were the first two series where he was 16 and a couple of of one off tests. Overall in his teenage years he averaged 44 without any massive series/scores like Lara did but almost always made a significant score in every series. The consistency argument between Tendulkar and Lara has always been higher highs and more massive 500+ run series for Lara and reliable hundred in most every series for Tendulkar. I don't see how that's a myth.

Saying "Sachin was more consistent than Lara" or saying "Lara was better against the best bowlers than Sachin" are not myths but they are meme arguments that do not go beyond the surface level and ignores almost all the nuances of cricket itself. And yes, it is a myth when "Sachin was more consistent than Lara" mutates to "Lara was inconsistent" and "Lara was better against the best bowlers" mutates to "All Sachin had was longevity", which is basically what happens and why they all just become myths at the end of the day.

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar's post 2003 slump was injury related, qualitatively different from Lara's 90s slump

Not really.. Lara sustained a chipped elbow/wrist bone in the 98 RSA series and took ages to fully recover. There was the eye problem that was correced too, a bit like Ross Taylor recently.

 

[harsh.ag]

Didn't know that. Makes more sense now. Never bought the "he didn't handle fame and money well" reasoning.

 

[ankitj]

Chop the first 4 and last 4 calendar years off of Sachins career (giving him typical ATG active years) and you end up with the highest run scorer in history, averaging 59, with 61(!) away, 45+ in every country, and 40+ against every opponent.

Sounds a bit like the only thing standing in the way of him being recognised as clearly the second best bat ever is his longevity.

Not that I am a fan of hacking careers into slices that suit a narrative, as was mentioned earlier in the thread you either need to recognise that his longevity gives him a huge boost, or look at how good he was over a more normal time period.

That sort of also answers why Tendulkar can be and is legitimately rated higher than Kallis or Sangakkara who finished with better averages. But in his middle ~18 years Tendulkar averaged 59 which means on sheer output he has beat them all! With Sanga there is also the record in SENA countries which while good is not comparable to Tendulkar's.

Lara is a different comparison though. He had some dream knocks (every time you do a top 100 innings list he tends to get lot of entries) on which none of his contemporaries or even anyone in history (bar Bradman) can beat him. So if you give lot of weight to that, it's justified that he is regarded better.

 

[ankitj]

Tendulkar had to do it all under so much pressure. I know it’s a meme but that counts for a bit too imo.

The Last Stand gives some nice insight into how public pressure can **** you up.

Even as a long timer here how could you make pressure argument?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

1. Brian Lara
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Rahul Dravid
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Ricky Ponting
6. Jacques Kallis
7. Allan Border
8. Kumar Sangakkara
9. Steve Waugh
10. Younis Khan
11. Shivnarine Chanderpaul
12. Alastair Cook
13. Mahela Jayawardene

This would sound crazy for 95%+ people here but the fact that Dravid did his job so well made things easy for Sachin imo.

Lol
Sachin averaged 74 in 3 years period 1993-95
Dravid came in 1996

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That sort of also answers why Tendulkar can be and is legitimately rated higher than Kallis or Sangakkara who finished with better averages. But in his middle ~18 years Tendulkar averaged 59 which means on sheer output he has beat them all! With Sanga there is also the record in SENA countries which while good is not comparable to Tendulkar's.

Lara is a different comparison though. He had some dream knocks (every time you do a top 100 innings list he tends to get lot of entries) on which none of his contemporaries or even anyone in history (bar Bradman) can beat him. So if you give lot of weight to that, it's justified that he is regarded better.

Yes..Sachin, Lara ( and Gavaskar )a cut above the rest

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Chop the first 4 and last 4 calendar years off of Sachins career (giving him typical ATG active years) and you end up with the highest run scorer in history, averaging 59, with 61(!) away, 45+ in every country, and 40+ against every opponent.

Sounds a bit like the only thing standing in the way of him being recognised as clearly the second best bat ever is his longevity.

Not that I am a fan of hacking careers into slices that suit a narrative, as was mentioned earlier in the thread you either need to recognise that his longevity gives him a huge boost, or look at how good he was over a more normal time period.



Im replying to your specific point, which does not consider this, so clearly I havent.

Having 3 troughs is more consistent than one big one. See two bats who go:
100, 100, 100, 0, 0, 0 vs
100, 0, 100, 0, 100, 0

This said, I'm not sure it matters if a bat has one trough or 3. I do think it matters that the troughs came at different ages though- Lara would have had 3 as well if active for the same number of years, including his notably worse middle one.

100% agreed