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

[Sir Alex]

Lara was 'forced' to retire by the WICB. I think it was right b4 the 07 wc in the WI that he announced that he was goin to tretire completey from ODIs to concentrate on tests. Then of course WI crashed out of the WC (with BCL as captain) and as a result i think he lost his motivation to continue with such a mediocre team, plus whatever pressures the board was outting on him.

Wow that's news, could you please link to me to some credible sources implying the same?

 

[Sir Alex]

If he came back i dont think he would be as good. But, if he had not retired in 07 and had continued playing up til now i see no reason y he wouldnt thrive like so many others have (ex: Shiv).

Well age is one factor for starters. Tendulkar's prolific form is some sort of an abberation as there are few if none who have found a second wind after 130 test matches and 17-18 years in test cricket.

 

[mohammad16]

And why do you think Tendulkar is after records then? By the same measure, Sachin plays cricket because he enjoys it immensely, and in the process provides enjoyment for a billion his supporters. You seem to be keen to paint him as one who is after silly records. In that case he wouldn't be playing ODIs as there is nothing really to achieve from them, or even tests for that matter. 100 hundreds target and all didn't exist when he started out his career, did it? He was so good, that targets unravelled themselves in front of him, levels which no other cricketer has seen, those are consequences of his prodigious runmaking ability rather than reasons for it.

Maybe it would help if you actually read my post... I pointed out to you that I don't think Tendulkar is after records, I simply said if a great player is primarily chasing statistics and records, that is not an admirable trait, whether that be Lara or Jordan. Chasing world cups and tests series however is. I have been constantly praising Tendulkar, yet you seem to portray me as some blind Lara fan and a Tendulkar hater.

I simply have said that I give Lara the edge when it comes to being a test batsmen. Overall I admire Tendulkar for his humble personality, devotion and dedication to the game. I also think he is the overall better of the two players since his singificantly better ODI record which counts for something. I rate Tendulkar right below Muhammad Ali as probably the greatest sportsman of all times given the pressures he has had to live upto and how he has carried himself. It is understandable and justified why he is loved world over. That is not what the current discussion is about though.

The core statistical arguments being presented here for the test batsmen debate are based on Tendulkar's total run tally and his longevity. I simply think they do not hold much weight in determining who even statistically is the better bat of the two since Lara has not played enough test cricket for justifiable reasons of his own.

If you take statistics out of the equation, if you were to watch both these geniuses at play side to side, innings to innings, it would be pretty easy to realize what a monster of a test performer Lara was. Tendulkar hasn't for me played as many crucial innings as Lara, he hasnt been subject to the same amount of pressure due to the quality of his team as Lara and Tendulkar has not been as dominating in crucial parts of the games as Lara. He certainly in my opinion has been the less entertaining of the two in the test form of the game.

 

[mohammad16]

I would care. Other than Marto coming back I don't think anything would make me happier than Warney playing in the Ashes this summer. Tell him he doesn't have to train and give him a small fortune and/or an island or something. and heaps of chicks.

In that sense I would too, Warne and Lara are sorely missed. But what I meant to say here was that I wouldnt care about how much closer he got to the Murali tally. I would absolutely love to see Warne play again as I am an aspiring leg spinner myself, he is my favorite bowler of all times.

 

[Slifer]

Wow that's news, could you please link to me to some credible sources implying the same?

Thats not news read ne news link related to his retirement in 07.

 

[akilana]

Longevity matters but there isn't much difference between 15 and 20 years. People won't look at it when you've played over 100 tests in a 15 years long career. I don't think Murali fans would argue that Murali is better than Warne because he played a few years longer than Warne.. They'd point to his average, strike rates, five-fors etc.

I don't believe Lara would be in good nick if he were to continue playing today because of his age. But I think if he had a good batting line up like India do, he would have stuck around a few more years and shone as there'd be less pressure on him because of the presence of some of the best batsmen in last 15 years.

 

[Slifer]

Well age is one factor for starters. Tendulkar's prolific form is some sort of an abberation as there are few if none who have found a second wind after 130 test matches and 17-18 years in test cricket.

Well in that sense it is an abberation but then again there hasnt been another cricketer in a situation similar to Tendy.

 

[Sir Alex]

Longevity matters but there isn't much difference between 15 and 20 years. People won't look at it when you've played over 100 tests in a 15 years long career. I don't think Murali fans would argue that Murali is better than Warne because he played a few years longer than Warne.. They'd point to his average, strike rates, five-fors etc.

I don't believe Lara would be in good nick if he were to continue playing today because of his age. But I think if he had a good batting line up like India do, he would have stuck around a few more years and shone as there'd be less pressure on him because of the presence of some of the best batsmen in last 15 years.

I agree 15 or 20 yrs don't make a difference. But when you manage to be on top for most of that 20 years, and the additional 5 years, that indeed makes a difference.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Mohammad makes some fair points tbh.Quite a few people would rather watch Lara bat because he was just so exciting,but then quite a few would rather have Tendu on their team.

Arguing about who the better of the two is futile.Kinda like asking who you would rather date - Megan Fox or Angelina Jolie.They're both brilliant and they've both played some brilliant innings.That Tendu hasn't played as many game turning innings as Lara tends to get overstated - Perth 92,Old trafford 90, Chennai 98 against Aus,Chennai 99 against W and W (something Lara never did),169 against Donald (again something Lara never did) in SA etc etc

You could make valid points for both but the arguments favouring Tendu tend to hold more water for mine(okay you can count for bias).Statistically Tendu does beat Lara no matter how you look at it.His away record is signifcantly better(the only place Lara averages 50+ away from home is SL.) Plus Tendu's sheer longevity just about takes it for mine.At the rate he's going he'll end up with 60 test centuries...that's A LOT.I reckon most of the experts also rate Tendu higher.

At the end of the day they're both great and who you would rather have just comes down to personal opinion.Back to the topic now

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Oh and calling either of them an FTB is just stupidity of the highest order,as is saying neither cares about the records.They both do but I daresay they both put their team first always.

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar right below Muhammad Ali as probably the greatest sportsman of all times given the pressures he has had to live upto.

Um, nah.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Here we go

 

[Sanz]

Why ? Tendulkar right next to Ali, no way.

 

[vcs]

 

[Sanz]

Longevity matters but there isn't much difference between 15 and 20 years. People won't look at it when you've played over 100 tests in a 15 years long career. I don't think Murali fans would argue that Murali is better than Warne because he played a few years longer than Warne.. They'd point to his average, strike rates, five-fors etc.

Well you are right it doesn't but if the debate is between a guy who played for 21 years(and still playing) and another guy who played for 15 years and the former is still playing with the same consistency that he did 10 years ago then yes longevity does matter. It definitely adds to Tendulkar's legacy because Tendulkar Vs. Lara debate has been going on for a decade and the more Tendulkar continues to play at the highest level the mode he will be cementing his legacy as the better batsman of his generation.

 

[Slifer]

IMO SRT is already the batsman of his generation by some distance. He shades Lara in tests (even though some of his fanatic fans would have u believe he was sumhow on sum other level) and he his definitely the superior ODI batsman.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Moved some posts from Tendular's 100 international centuries thread into here, as they were more pertinent to this topic.

 

[GotSpin]

Here we go

lol what you talkin about willis. Tendulkar isn't the second greatest sportsman (or first)

 

[akilana]

Well you are right it doesn't but if the debate is between a guy who played for 21 years(and still playing) and another guy who played for 15 years and the former is still playing with the same consistency that he did 10 years ago then yes longevity does matter. It definitely adds to Tendulkar's legacy because Tendulkar Vs. Lara debate has been going on for a decade and the more Tendulkar continues to play at the highest level the mode he will be cementing his legacy as the better batsman of his generation.

No it doesn't. 15 years is long enough.

 

[isaacnewton1]

Everything about cricket these days is Tendulkar this or Tendulkar that, its getting pretty tedious... Yes, he is a great batsman, and PROBABLY the best of his generation, but his level of talent really doesn't warrant such an extensive discourse. As far as I'm concerned for modern cricket (specifically, batsmen) there is not yet any Bradman, or Jordan, or Ali, or Pele - or any other sportsman who clearly outshines the rest of their competition. Tendulkar is statistically and, in my opinion, from observation, far too close to other batsman - let's face it, once you accept their different styles there is really nothing much seperating Tendulkar from Ponting, Lara, Kallis and Dravid etc. For Tendulkar to be considered in the ranks of the aforementioned 'greats', for me he would need to push up his average to at least 60 before his career ends - and barring a miracle we all know this ain't gonna happen. I would compare the situation in cricket at the moment with something like the NBA - there are great players like Kobe and Lebron who are better than most, however they don't come off as true legends of the sport like Jordan was. The fact that there isn't any one batsman who really stands out from the rest doesn't suprise me either - these freakishly good players do not come along very often at all. People often say along the lines of "no-one will ever break Tendulkar's records". I disagree, I think modern cricket is yet to produce a Bradmanesque player, and it might not for some time. However, I am certain batting records in cricket like total number of runs and centuries, which are held currently by Tendulkar, will be beaten - and perhaps sooner than we think.