good article on lara v. tendulkar

[Top_Cat]

"I'll take 'Pedantic English Moderators' for $500, Ken"

 

[aussie]

i reckon Tendulkar is a better batsman than Lara... Both have great records... But Tendulkar is much more enterteining to watch... Plus he makes it look so easy... And is always in control of his shots...

what doesn't lara make it look easy as well, but its a waste of arguing who is better i think lara is others will think the same and otherwise, no doubt both will go down in history has alltime greats but at this stage i give lara the edge

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm also of the opinion they can't be separated. I'll just re-iterate what I've said on this before; Lara is the ultimate stylist whereas Sachin is the ultimate technician. If they were artists, Sachin would give you a perfect rendering of an amazing landscape with exquisite attention to the most minute detail. Lara would paint you an impressionist picture of a child in Iraq, kick it over and then unrinate on it to make a poltical point about American imperialist aggression.

That's one of the more colourful extended metaphors I've read lately....

Lara for me, BTW; no more glorious sight in cricket than Brian Charles in full flow with his wonderfully exaggerated backlift. Sachin more orthodox and less prone to sulks, but you don't see him utterly flay an attack like Lara does.

 

[aussie]

I'm also of the opinion they can't be separated. I'll just re-iterate what I've said on this before; Lara is the ultimate stylist whereas Sachin is the ultimate technician. If they were artists, Sachin would give you a perfect rendering of an amazing landscape with exquisite attention to the most minute detail. Lara would paint you an impressionist picture of a child in Iraq, kick it over and then unrinate on it to make a poltical point about American imperialist aggression.

this is a pretty neat piece topcat, makes me want to cry

 

[social]

Judging by the opinions of many on this forum (not this thread), Tendulkar is in danger of becoming one of the most underrated players in cricket.

Unfortunately for him, he has suffered from a debilitating injury for more than 12 months and naturally, when combined with his age, his performances have suffered.

I look forward to seeing him recapture some magic so that the more naive posters amongst us can be reminded of why he is held in such high esteem by the greats of the game.

 

[masterblaster]

Yeah agreed Social. It's amazing how some people have such short term memory, not too long ago Tendulkar was ripping apart Shane Warne and other top international bowlers. At one time he was the most feared batsman in world cricket.

Everybody goes through a bad patch, and for Tendulkar this bad patch was very much overdue. From 1989 up until 2002, one can say he was at the peak of his powers. Thats a long time to be consistently in top form. I think the form slump was overdue and Im confident that he will be back to an extent, but with his injury and age and all that time playing the game, I dont think he'll ever be the player he once was.

 

[Sehwag309]

Its all in the Mind, I guess he is trying to fight his own demons. Amazingly he could still manage a mere 248* v.s Bangladesh recently even in this bad patch

Luck also plays a big role, Sehwag seems to have lot of that

 

[psxpro]

Both great batsmen but I'd say Lara is better.
REally though the argument is old As Ricky Ponting is a better batsman than them both imo.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

REally though the argument is old As Ricky Ponting is a better batsman than them both imo.

 

[honestbharani]

I rate Lara over Sachin by a teeny tiny bit in Tests and Sachin over Lara in ODIs by the same teeny tiny bit.


BTW, in that article the author said something about Lara not sweeping the spinners........Sorry, but has the guy ever watched Lara bat? I have seen him sweep and sweep the best amongst all left handers since the day he started out in test cricket. The only shot he doesn't play is the reverse sweep and that is because he has all the other shots and perhaps doesn't need it to score against the spinners...


P.S: To me, Lara is easily amongst the best batters to watch in world cricket, if not the best.

 

[Jono]

Yeah agreed Social. It's amazing how some people have such short term memory, not too long ago Tendulkar was ripping apart Shane Warne and other top international bowlers. At one time he was the most feared batsman in world cricket.

Everybody goes through a bad patch, and for Tendulkar this bad patch was very much overdue. From 1989 up until 2002, one can say he was at the peak of his powers. Thats a long time to be consistently in top form. I think the form slump was overdue and Im confident that he will be back to an extent, but with his injury and age and all that time playing the game, I dont think he'll ever be the player he once was.

Exactly. Its safe to say Sachin is going through his bad patch now, but what's amazing is how long it took him in his career to finally hit that patch. Most players have their period of absolutely woeful form much earlier in their career. It took over a decade for Sachin to finally be seen as mortal.

 

[aussie]

lara had a similar bad patch when he return from cricket in 2000 in series over here & in australia that year, so i'll back tendulkar to get over this miserable run soon

 

[veeru2810]

I will have to go with Sachin. He used to be more entertaining than Lara during the '90s. He used to play so aggressively and hit every bowler out of the park. If Sachin scored a 100, you could expect he would have hit 5 sixes in it. Just watch the '96 world cup to see how entertaining he was. In '97, Lara himself said in an interview that there was nobody to beat Sachin. Tendulkar was more entertaining to watch during those days than Lara is today. Tendulkar has changed his game since then. He has become older and perhaps cannot do what he once could or perhaps with the advent of Sehwag he feels he doesn't need to.

At the moment, Lara is certainly better but we have to realise Lara's amazing run of form started around only 2002. From 1992 to 2002, there was no competition for Sachin at all. Lara used to have the odd amazing innings but he was equally poor in other matches. Tendulkar was reliable throughout this period, you could always expect a 50 from him.

At this stage of time, Lara is better than Tendulkar slightly but with total careers taken into account, I have no hesitation in picking Sachin. I hope Sachin comes back with a bang but I don't think he'll be as good as he once was coz he's been playing intl' cricket for 16 years now, since he was 16.

 

[Jono]

I will have to go with Sachin. He used to be more entertaining than Lara during the '90s. He used to play so aggressively and hit every bowler out of the park. If Sachin scored a 100, you could expect he would have hit 5 sixes in it. Just watch the '96 world cup to see how entertaining he was. In '97, Lara himself said in an interview that there was nobody to beat Sachin. Tendulkar was more entertaining to watch during those days than Lara is today. Tendulkar has changed his game since then. He has become older and perhaps cannot do what he once could or perhaps with the advent of Sehwag he feels he doesn't need to.

At the moment, Lara is certainly better but we have to realise Lara's amazing run of form started around only 2002. From 1992 to 2002, there was no competition for Sachin at all. Lara used to have the odd amazing innings but he was equally poor in other matches. Tendulkar was reliable throughout this period, you could always expect a 50 from him.

At this stage of time, Lara is better than Tendulkar slightly but with total careers taken into account, I have no hesitation in picking Sachin. I hope Sachin comes back with a bang but I don't think he'll be as good as he once was coz he's been playing intl' cricket for 16 years now, since he was 16.

Although I don't entirely agree with you, that's an excellent post. Welcome to the CricketWeb boards.

 

[aussie]

Lara's amazing run of form started around only 2002. From 1992 to 2002, there was no competition for Sachin at all

really...., i dont think its fair to say that their was no competiotion for tendulkar at all throughout those ten years that nonsense mate, because Lara was has good or even better, 2002 you sure about... that Lara played againts IND & NZ in the WI & didn't score that heavily & he wasn't on tours to pakistan & India his consistency started more in 2003 if your trying to say that that run of good scores started from 2003 ur wrong because he has been very consistent throughout his career up until 2000 when he came back into the WI team after a break where he barely managed 2 centuries here in manchester & at adelaide in 10 test between AUS & ENG respectively

 

[veeru2810]

really...., i dont think its fair to say that their was no competiotion for tendulkar at all throughout those ten years that nonsense mate, because Lara was has good or even better, 2002 you sure about... that Lara played againts IND & NZ in the WI & didn't score that heavily & he wasn't on tours to pakistan & India his consistency started more in 2003 if your trying to say that that run of good scores started from 2003 ur wrong because he has been very consistent throughout his career up until 2000 when he came back into the WI team after a break where he barely managed 2 centuries here in manchester & at adelaide in 10 test between AUS & ENG respectively

Probably I got my dates mixed up but Lara's average was below 49 (i think) in 2000.

 

[veeru2810]

Although I don't entirely agree with you, that's an excellent post. Welcome to the CricketWeb boards.

thanks Jono

 

[Adamc]

Although I make no secret of the fact that I rate Lara higher than any other contemporary batsman, I don't think it is possible to make a productive comparison between him and Tendulkar. Both play for very different teams in very different circumstances, and both, IMO, fulfil their respective roles very effectively.
e.g.
Scenario 1: If I was in charge of a team at 105/5 on a difficult 5th day pitch chasing 308 to win against a strong bowling lineup, I would want Lara in over Tendulkar every time (gee, I wonder if that scenario has ever actually happened );
Scenario 2: If, however, my team was in a comfortable position at say 2/150, I would back Tendulkar more often than Lara to consolidate that advantage by scoring a century.

Which is not to say that Tendulkar never performs well under pressure, or that Lara never scores centuries unless the pressure is on; both do so, but in varying degrees. The point is, because Lara has generally been part of a fairly weak batting lineup, he has had to play the role required in Scenario 1 more often than Scenario 2, and he's done so very effectively. Conversely, Tendulkar has been part of a (usually) very strong batting lineup, and has had to play the role in Scenario 2 more often, and has also been very effective in doing so.

Basically, I don't think there is much point debating who is better than whom; I think everyone can accept that both play different roles and they both play those roles extremely well.

 

[aussie]

i'm not so sure about scenario 2 on tendulkar onhim coming in on an average score of 150/2 because for most of tendulkar's career india have never had a stable opening partenship so that scenario would happen on very few occasions

 

[Jono]

Conversely, Tendulkar has been part of a (usually) very strong batting lineup, and has had to play the role in Scenario 2 more often, and has also been very effective in doing so.

Hmm not really. Maybe at home that can be seen as true, but as already suggested, India haven't had a solid opening partnership throughout the 90s (during Sachin's dominance). Granted I too would pick Lara in scenario one over Sachin (but I'd pick Sachin over most others players though, possibly the only ones I wouldn't who are currently playing would be Dravid and Kallis), but I just think that Sachin has scored his centuries in various ways at various times, whereas its much clearer that Lara has been under pressure whilst coming to the crease so many times in his career, both home and away, and has delivered, that the perception is he performs best in those situations. That may be true as well.

This is of course assuming we're discussing tests, which the scenarios were based on.

Either way I have never actually given an answer as to who is better because I always feel like I've sinned, whether I claim its Sachin or Lara. Either way they're the two best batsman I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing play the game.

Also interesting to note that Wasim Akram said neither Lara nor Tendulkar was the best batsman he's ever bowled too. Rather he said Martin Crowe. Comments like those make me wish I saw more of Crowe than I did.