Brian Lara vs Sunil Gavaskar (Away from home)

[subshakerz]

You seem very emotionally charged on this topic

Lol not taking the bait

I didn't say we should ignore the entire late 90s for Lara, I'm just pointing out how Sachin played great attacks at his peak and still averaged 30 against, 32 against the saffers, 42 with a frontline Australia etc.

Again, I conceded Sachin is better against fast bowling than Lara in the post you're quoting, it's just that getting out to Cronje and Donald yeilds the same result ---> IE, neither is actually accomplished against great pace attacks, one way or the other. Nobody is saying "Lara and Sachin are equal against great fast bowling" but moreso that their output and results against attacks with great bowlers is relative, one way or the other.

I never argued that Tendulkar was great against Donald and 2Ws, just that he shouldn't be grouped with Lara who actively struggled against those bowlers. So we can more or less agree.

And unfortunately we do have posters here who have said that Lara and Tendulkar struggled the same against these pacers which is just factually untrue.

 

[subshakerz]

No. He played 4 games in the 1970 ROW XI in Australia series and averaged 27, total he played 7 games against Lillee in Australia and averaged 23, never made a hundred, actually not even a 75.

Overall that would be 7 games against each other:

Gavaskar - 307 runs @ 23.62 (HS 70)
Lillee - 45 wkts @ 20.76 (6.4 WPM)

credit to @Qlder, why do you think I said 25 instead of 20

Then definitely Lara.

 

[Johan]

I never argued that Tendulkar was great against Donald and 2Ws, just that he shouldn't be grouped with Lara who actively struggled against those bowlers. So we can more or less agree.

And unfortunately we do have posters here who have said that Lara and Tendulkar struggled the same against these pacers which is just factually untrue.

sure, don't categorise Sachin with Lara as having an issue with great bowlers, but one can and (imo) must recognise that even at the very peak of his powers, Sachin did not have the output against great attacks he should and could've, it might not be due to struggling with their spearhead but it's still objectively a problem.

 

[subshakerz]

It's relevant though, 5 dismissals against Donald and 5 against Cronje, in the 11 games he played with Donald, Sachin was dismissed by Donald 5 times, only averaged 32.90 and most of these games came during Sachin's peak, that's an issue no matter how much you want to pretend it's not.

It's relevant to know how he did against SA not Donald.

Sure, but generally struggling against great bowling lineups when you're at the bottom of your career is worse than struggling against great bowling lineups when you're at the peak of your career.

It pretty much is the same as long as you are in your career prime years and not injured.

Back to point A, you don't play singular bowlers, it doesn't mean much if you play Marshall well if you get out to Clyde Butts, your ability doesn't actually transform into anything relevant in Cricketing context against the top bowlers at that point.

the point of being great against good fast bowlers is outputting runs against great attacks, even if you play Bumrah well and get out to Siraj, you're not achieving anything inherently superior to what someone who gets out against Bumrah and scores against the rest.

We are evaluating how their skills are against high quality fast pace bowling, in that context Hansie and Saqlain are irrelevant. You can knock points off for Tendulkar not maxing against them but that isn't the same thing as saying he actively struggled against those bowlers, since he played them fine but struggled against others.

I don't see where? I said I'm willing to ignore Sachin's 2004 if you are willing to ignore Lara's failiures in 2000.

Ok with me.

42, which is decent.

He had that lame test in 96 and two very good series in 99 and 2001 averaging 46 and 50. It's very nitpicky to say he had output issues against McGrath.

 

[subshakerz]

sure, don't categorise Sachin with Lara as having an issue with great bowlers, but one can and (imo) must recognise that even at the very peak of his powers, Sachin did not have the output against great attacks he should and could've, it might not be due to struggling with their spearhead but it's still objectively a problem.

Lara did actually have issues with Donald and 2Ws and anyone who watched him in the 97 and 98 series could see that because of a problem with his game. He was playing away from his body too often, very loose with his strokes and struggling with Donalds bounce.

And Tendulkars output against McGrath, Ambrose and Steyn is very good for me. Would add Pollock too who was worldclass when Tendulkar excelled against him. Just below par vs Donald and 2Ws but not specifically because of those bowlers.

 

[Johan]

It's relevant to know how he did against SA not Donald.

that's my point, the point of performing against great bowlers is performing against great attacks, you can't do that if you get out to Saqlain and Cronje

It pretty much is the same as long as you are in your career prime years and not injured.

I disagree, atleast in your prime you should be expected to perform against the greater bowling attacks, one way or the other.

We are evaluating how their skills are against high quality fast pace bowling, in that context Hansie and Saqlain are irrelevant. You can knock points off for Tendulkar not maxing against them but that isn't the same thing as saying he actively struggled against those bowlers, since he played them fine but struggled against others.

I conceded Sachin is a better player of fast bowling multiple posts ago, you're really going on a tangent there, my point was that one way or the other, Sachin's output against great attacks is hampered, which is true and you pointed the reason for it, he survived the rock (Ws, Donald) but got defeated by the twig (Cronje, Saqlain).

Ok with me.

Great.

He had that lame test in 96 and two very good series in 99 and 2001 averaging 46 and 50. It's very nitpicky to say he had output issues against McGrath.

why would I ignore the 1996 test? 42 is the bottom line, take it or leave it.

Lara did actually have issues with Donald and 2Ws and anyone who watched him in the 97 and 98 series could see that because of a problem with his game. He was playing away from his body too often, very loose with his strokes and struggling with Donalds bounce.

again, the conversation regarding Tendulkar is his output against great attacks, not just his output against great bowlers, sure Tendulkar was a better player of fast bowling and a better player in general, but one way or the other the actual output they achieved against great attacks is relative, be it by getting out to Donald or by getting out to Cronje, the effect remains the same regardless of the cause.

And Tendulkars output against McGrath, Ambrose and Steyn is very good for me. Would add Pollock too who was worldclass when Tendulkar excelled against him. Just below par vs Donald and 2Ws but not specifically because of those bowlers.

Against McGrath it's decent, Ambrose is just one series AFAIK on the deadest wickets ever where he was not bowling much, but Yeah his output against Steyn is great and is what allowed him, to in my mind, transcend Lara. My point is mostly about the 1990s and early 00s attacks as Lara never played Steyn and wouldn't have been successful anyway likely.

 

[subshakerz]

that's my point, the point of performing against great bowlers is performing against great attacks, you can't do that if you get out to Saqlain and Cronje

Then just say Tendulkar didn't outscore Lara against SA during that time and we wouldn't have issues.

I disagree, atleast in your prime you should be expected to perform against the greater bowling attacks, one way or the other.

Part of the reason Lara wasn't in form was because of those bowlers though.

I conceded Sachin is a better player of fast bowling multiple posts ago, you're really going on a tangent there, my point was that one way or the other, Sachin's output against great attacks is hampered, which is true and you pointed the reason for it, he survived the rock (Ws, Donald) but got defeated by the twig (Cronje, Saqlain).

Just say those teams, don't need to even say great attacks because Hansie isn't really a great bowler. I am only quibbling about how it's framed. But I agree he was below par in that phase in output.

why would I ignore the 1996 test? 42 is the bottom line, take it or leave it.

Never said ignore it, just again the context is two full series his output was very good.

again, the conversation regarding Tendulkar is his output against great attacks, not just his output against great bowlers, sure Tendulkar was a better player of fast bowling and a better player in general, but one way or the other the actual output they achieved against great attacks is relative, be it by getting out to Donald or by getting out to Cronje, the effect remains the same regardless of the cause.

Again, I would just say SA. But we agree on the overall point. He didn't score against that great attack end of the day.

Against McGrath it's decent, Ambrose is just one series AFAIK on the deadest wickets ever where he was not bowling much, but Yeah his output against Steyn is great and is what allowed him, to in my mind, transcend Lara. My point is mostly about the 1990s and early 00s attacks as Lara never played Steyn and wouldn't have been successful anyway likely.

McGrath is more than decent. He was MOS in 99 and excellent in 2001. He doesn't become decent just because of one poor 96 test, in which McGrath dismissed him as India were chasing 46.

Also fair to mention that Tendulkar has an overall high output record against Shoaib. Though again Lara never faced him in tests.

 

[Johan]

Then just say Tendulkar didn't outscore Lara against SA during that time and we wouldn't have issues.

Great attack = South Africa.

Part of the reason Lara wasn't in form was because of those bowlers though.

Nah he was in general not making runs at all, averages in the 30s against Sri Lanka and England which were not good attacks, output against great attacks being low at peak is a bigger problem, not in comparison to Lara who even at peak didn't play that many great attacks but in comparison to people he's often compared to.

Just say those teams, don't need to even say great attacks because Hansie isn't really a great bowler. I am only quibbling about how it's framed. But I agree he was below par in that phase in output.

Disagree, Cronje for a fourth bowler was pretty good, and Great! you agree with me, only if you had bothered focusong on what's being said two pages ago.

McGrath is more than decent. He was MOS in 99 and excellent in 2001. He doesn't become decent just because of one poor 96 test, in which McGrath dismissed him as India were chasing 46.

Also fair to mention that Tendulkar has an overall high output record against Shoaib. Though again Lara never faced him in tests.

I don't think he deserved the MOS in 1999 and always thought it was given more as of a consolation prize for the 2-3 wrong decisions he got, anyway, two good serieses and one bad match, overall 42, it's decent/good but nothing amazing.

Eh, 41.60 and that is due to the Multan knock after Sehwag's rampage, overall it's decent but I'd generally expect more

 

[capt_Luffy]

No. He played 4 games in the 1970 ROW XI in Australia series and averaged 27, total he played 7 games against Lillee in Australia and averaged 23, never made a hundred, actually not even a 75.

Overall that would be 7 games against each other:

Gavaskar - 307 runs @ 23.62 (HS 70)
Lillee - 45 wkts @ 20.76 (6.4 WPM)

credit to @Qlder, why do you think I said 25 instead of 20

Wasn't Tests though

 

[Johan]

Wasn't Tests though

"Unofficial" Tests, and you've agreed the 1970 England series and 71 Australia is directly translateable to Tests.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sunny has Dennis Lillee and Michael Holding as his critics on fast wickets, not the same thing.

Sunny played Lillee 3 times.
Lara played Donald like 10 times.

Sunny scored 5 centuries against Michael Holding.

 

[DrWolverine]

If Sunny is poor against Lillee because of one series, by the same logic Lillee is one of the worst fast bowlers because he took 6 wickets in 3 Tests in Asia.

 

[Johan]

Sunny played Lillee 3 times.
Lara played Donald like 10 times.

Sunny scored 5 centuries against Michael Holding.

7 Games, averaged 23, no hundreds.

averages 45 with Holding, which is good.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah he was in general not making runs at all, averages in the 30s against Sri Lanka and England which were not good attacks, output against great attacks being low at peak is a bigger problem, not in comparison to Lara who even at peak didn't play that many great attacks but in comparison to people he's often compared to.

I don't see any value excuse to downplay those series. I just take all series on face value unless there is a reason to exclude.

I don't think he deserved the MOS in 1999 and always thought it was given more as of a consolation prize for the 2-3 wrong decisions he got, anyway, two good serieses and one bad match, overall 42, it's decent/good but nothing amazing.

Disagree. 99 and 2001 were against ATG McWarne attacks. Overall we can't consider Tendulkar as less than good, I would say very good against McGrath.

So in terms of output, ATG against Steyn, bottomline good or very good against McGrath, Ambrose, Pollock, Shoaib. Below par against Donald and 2Ws.

Would have been interesting to see Lara against more pacers but he didn't do particularly impressive against Bond and Flintoff/Harmison so I am skeptical how he would do against Shoaib and Steyn.

 

[Johan]

also, I said "critics" as in both Holding and Lillee have questioned Sunny's ability on fast pitches, same way Subs does with Lara against fast bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

If Sunny is poor against Lillee because of one series, by the same logic Lillee is one of the worst fast bowlers because he took 6 wickets in 3 Tests in Asia.

He isn't but he he can't claim success against Lillee. Where Lara at least has one good series against McWarne in 2005.

 

[Johan]

7 whole games.

 

[Johan]

Disagree. 99 and 2001 were against ATG McWarne attacks. Overall we can't consider Tendulkar as less than good, I would say very good against McGrath.

So in terms of output, ATG against Steyn, bottomline good or very good against McGrath, Ambrose, Pollock, Shoaib. Below par against Donald and 2Ws.

Would have been interesting to see Lara against more pacers but he didn't do particularly impressive against Bond and Flintoff/Harmison so I am skeptical how he would do against Shoaib and Steyn.

against those bowlers

Steyn (56)
McGrath (42)
Shoaib (41)
Pollock (39)
Donald (32)
2 Ws (30)

fast bowlers, Ambrose I represented my problem with earlier. Overall his output against great bowlers is decent but not too dissimilar to the output that Lara had against most of the crew, and that was my point that in one way or another, the output against top level attacks is similar.

 

[subshakerz]

7 Games, averaged 23, no hundreds.

averages 45 with Holding, which is good.

What are you guys arguing about? You both agree Sunny is better than Lara against high quality pace.

 

[DrWolverine]

He isn't but he he can't claim success against Lillee.

Obviously.

But it isn’t like they played much. It was just one test series.