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

[martin88]

I do not think not having a triple century is such a big factor when comparing Sachin and Lara. It is just a statistical oddity that can be used. I have not heard any one running down Hobbs because he has just one double century (211 against a weak South African attack). We have here voted him by a huge margin the greatest batsman (after Bradman) of all times.

I disagree. Tendulkar is easily the best since Bradman. Because we never knew how Hobbs would handle the pressure of so many matches, so many tours, ODIs, pressure, schedule, SL spinners, etc etc etc, over such a long period as Tendulkar did.

However your opinion is to be respected.

No you cant separate such great players by statistics.

Fully agree.

I rate Lara slightly (just slightly) above Sachin in Test cricket and the reason for that is in thier game and technique.

Lara always has had a great sense of where his off stump lies. So has Sachin but not as good as Lara. The reason for that is in the unambiguous and early movement by Lara when playing back. watch any video of Lara and you will see him going right back and across, on to his off stump when he goes back. This makes it absolutely clear to him where his feet are in relation to the stump and the decision to play the ball or to leave it becomes that much easier.

Conversly, Lara's propensity to shuffle extravagantly has landed him in trouble by becoming prone to lbw or caught behind early on. I agree Lara had good judgement about his off stump and perhaps never got bowled misjudging the incoming delivery. However, he was more prone to the waft outside off stump because his shuffle enabled him to reach out to deliveries more than often, although it also opened up scoring opportunities.

Tendulkar indeed had a serious problem with the incoming delivery, and for a major part of his career, I think till around the early 2000s, used to get regularly bowled or caught behind to deliveries those seamed in from a length (like Ishant's length). I can remember him getting pawned by Abdul Razzack in the 99-00 downunder ODI series with this length. To his credit, since then, he has worked on the same, and the results are there that he has become a better judge of the offstump and does not commit to the front foot as he used to do early on.

The backfoot play also has another aspect to it. Sobers was another great backfoot player (as are all true greats as is Sachin) and you do not see too many pictures of Lara and Sobers going forward to defend. They would prefer to go forward to drive only otherwise go back so that they can defend attack or let go with more certainty. Sachin goes forward slightly more and thus we see him drawn to the ball that may leave him outside the off stump. Its not that it doesn't happen to the others but Sachin looks a more likely candidate for it.

Again, to repeat myself, he has corrected it to a great extent since 2000s. I don't think that is an issue to be debated much now.

It wasn't like that always. Sachin went back and across much more in his very early days. One day cricket and then opening in ODI's made him go for those shots off the front foot which went crashing between backward point to extra cover even if slightly short of a length.

Agree and disagree. Sachin used to be a backfoot player for most of his very early career (1989-1993). This can be evidenced from the fact that all his 100s during this period came overseas, in England, Australia and South Africa. As a brilliant batsman he is, he quickly became extremely proficient with his front foot play, perhaps attributable to the fact that he started opening for India from 1994, and his stroke play was at it's best when he was attacking on the front foot. The front foot reliance slowly crept into his game, till such time he became so reliant on that it started to become a weakness. The nadir of this came in the 2003-04 downunder series, when he was constantly getting out trying to drive on the front foot. But again the champ showed his masterclass by overhauling his entire game within days, and scripted a superb double hundred at Sydney literally relying on back foot and leg side play.

Another difference which has crept into Sachin's game (in the latter part of his career) is his reluctance to step out to spinners. But one has seen so much of it from it for almost ten years from him that I do not give it that much importance, Nevertheless, Lara, like Sobers before him ,continued to dance down the track to spinners right till his last day in the game. Same is not true for Sachin for many years now.

Hmm.. Valid point. However Tendulkar deliberately cut down this habit of dancing down the track and hitting spinners over long on because of the regular injuries he suffered since the start of 1999. His short stature, coupled with the heavy bat meant that everytime he played the shot, it put tremendous strain on the back, and the groin. To counter this, and to extend his career, he cut down the stroke, till his body healed, which took years, and instead used alternative but neverthless equally effective strokes such as the paddle, and the inside out cover drive/loft to the spinners. A refreshing change since Kumble took over, is that Tendulkar appears to have recovered more or less fully from the injury, and is confident enough to attempt that stroke. This has resulted him playing the shot many a time since then.

 

[Jono]

To re-iterate;

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/831987-post243.html

Ah yes, your famous post. It was a good'un.

 

[bagapath]

To re-iterate;

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/831987-post243.html

good post, worth repeating here. since 2006, when you had written that post, sachin has added another chapter to his career. it doesnt necessarily make your qualitative assessment of him obsolete, but quantitatively this phase has made a difference to his record. maybe, just maybe, you want to update that aspect in your post. on the other hand, in my opinion, sachin's place in the record books and in cricket history is already fixed; so is lara's. these kind of up or downswings in their careers wont change their overall position much. so you can also choose to leave your post as it is. quite a nice summary.

 

[Top_Cat]

good post, worth repeating here. since 2006, when you had written that post, sachin has added another chapter to his career. it doesnt necessarily make your qualitative assessment of him obsolete, but quantitatively this phase has made a difference to his record. maybe, just maybe, you want to update that aspect in your post. on the other hand, in my opinion, sachin's place in the record books and in cricket history is already fixed; so is lara's. these kind of up or downswings in their careers wont change their overall position much. so you can also choose to leave your post as it is. quite a nice summary.

Sachin has found another way to score well and credit to him, can barely think of any other player who has done the same. But he's not the undisputed big wicket in the Indian line-up any more. Still manages to gee himself up to play well against Australia but his years of playing had to take its toll eventually and it has.

That said, it's possible Lara wouldn't have had it in him to do well after the injuries Tendulkar's had so maybe Sachin has the edge there. That Lara went when he did means we'll never know, of course.

I guess, I'm into having a look at the players at their peaks and at their very best, in peak form, unencumbered by injury, I can't separate them. Who cares anyway? Both = awesome but different, in my opinion.

 

[MrIncredible]

Came across this post recently while doing a google search. I go back and forth with my Indian friends on this topic but still convinced that Lara >Tendulkar definitely. It was interesting to read some of the posts by some of the people on this website especially that C_C character. Looking forward to having a sensible debated with any Tendulkar fan who is up to it (or any cricket fan for that matter).

 

[a10khan]

I'm re-visiting this website after a couple of years and still see this thread on first page. Seriously, some of you guys have no life!

P.S. Don't take this comment too seriously!

 

[James_W]

I'm re-visiting this website after a couple of years and still see this thread on first page. Seriously, some of you guys have no life!

P.S. Don't take this comment too seriously!

Tbf it was bumped today after a few months of nothing.

 

[AaronK]

it is hard for me to pick one among these two..

I would have to agree with Ian Chappel in this..

He said once that he would pick lara for playing spin and sachin for playing fast bowlers..

So i agree on that..

 

[Sanz]

I would pick both, hence my team would be better than whatever Chappeli picked.

 

[andyc]

So glad this has been dug up...

 

[MrIncredible]

Well unlike the Warne vs Murali, Dravid vs Ponting, Hayden being a flat-track bully, Lee not being a good enough test bowler, in my time on this site this argument hasn't been around that much nor has caused much headaches on this site.

So unlike the infamous Warne vs Murali argument especially, i think between now & whenever these two legendary batsmen retire i think we can discuss a civilized manner which one of these two is better.


Ok so i'll start, before i had my little debate on this topic last year I definately thought Lara was better, but as C_C showed i think they are some fair reasons to say that Tendulkar up to 2001 (the established date here as the time when most of the top bowlers from around the world have declined & pitches around the world became extremely flat) the little master had a fair amount of aspects ahead of the Prince of port of spain up to 2001:

Lara up to 2001

Tendulkar up to 2001


1. Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara

2. Tendulkar averages better than Lara againts good/great attacks

3. Tendulkar is far more versatile than Lara overall and this is indicated by the fact that while their home averages are about the same (with Lara having a slight adavantage), Tendulkar has a better away average.

4. Tendulkar averages better in Australia when McGrath & Warne played together, stats show he averages 23 points more in England but i maintain that Tendulkar has faced poor english attacks in all his 3 tours here while Lara in lara's 3 tours he only encountered a poor attack in 95 & faced very good attacks in 2000 & 2004. But when India come here in 2007 we'll see how he goes, even if he isn't the same Tendulkar of post 2002..

Tendulkar averages 24 more in PAK, on his 1st tour to Pakistan at just 16 facing Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir, Tendulkar averaged 36.Lara in 2 tours to Pakistan in 90/91 & 97 averaged 24.50 & 21.50. This is signigicant that a young tendulkar could average 36 vs these great bowlers & in 97 Lara barely averaged 21 vs Wasim/Waqar

While their is not much to pick and chose between their respective records in SRI, Lara has dominated Vaas & Murali at their peaks while Tendulkar never did that. But iverall its enough to say that Tendulkar has done much better than Lara overseas.

5. Tendulkar has averaged 40+ away from home againts good/great attacks more times than Lara. Lara up until 2001 only did so once vs SRI in 2001 while recently in Australia he averaged 57. Lara also never averaged 40+ in South Africa when Donald-Pollock were playing nor when Wasim-Waqar etc were playing.

But it can be argued here that Tendulkar's record in SA vs a good/great attack, he had more of a chance to prove himself over their vs Donald-Pollock at the peak of their powers than Lara did, but you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant

6. Lara failed to score a century vs Donald-Pollock or Wasim-Waqar etc. Tendulkar did so againts both.

7. Tendulkar has faced a superior bowling opposition throughout his career than Lara has. The only good/world-class/great bowlers (which ever you prefer) that Lara faced but Tendulkar didn't was Kumble and Srinath in 1994. The world-class/great bowlers that Tendulkar faced but Lara didn't are Ambrose, Walsh, Imran Khan, Bishop, Qadir & Hadlee.

8. Tendulkar's technique is superior to Lara's which is shown by the fact that Lara had a big technical flaw throughout the 90s when he was vulnerable outside off-stump and was caught in the slips & the gully & point region a lot. A weakness exposed superbly by the great Glenn McGrath. Tendulkar at his best during the 90s has only been occasionally vulnerable to the incutter, a weakness exposed at times by Donald, McGrath & Wasim Akram.

But for me with Lara never needed great technique, Lara is all about great hand-eye co-ordination, utter brilliance, powerful, stamina, a huge appetite for runs & an the temperament for the big occasion.


The three (3) main area's where i could say Lara is better than Tendulakr are:

1. When in full flow Lara is definately more destructive than Tendulkar & better to watch IMO.

2. Lara can hurt an attack more than Tendulkar, which is shown by the amount of scores he has over 150.

3. Under pressure Lara has the ability to make runs in those situation and win games for his side, which is showed by the famous 153* not out in 1999.

So to summarize even though since 2001 Lara has really been dominant againts less superb-attacks of the 90s & much flatter pitches, Tendulkar has faced the same bowlers but hasn't cashed in for various reasons (injuries probably being a major reason), one can say that you can't really say much about them during this period. But sadly for Lara the fact is that while the best bowlers were around & pitches were not so flat during the 90s Tendulkar was better.

Its all againts Lara but i'll still rather to see him bat than Tendulkar any day

But overall i hope this argument doesn't become like Warne vs Murali but somehow i dont think so..


Would be cool if the mods could stick this.

Just re-read this first thread and overthe lengths of their respecrive careers this is categorically not true. By the best attacks im assuming u mean: McWarne, WW and Allan Donald. From y own exhaustive research (aka cricinfo) Ive found that Lara actually averaged more than Tendulkar against South Africa (when they had Donald) and higher against Australia (when McWarne were together). Tendulkar edges it against WW though.

 

[Smith]

How very interesting.

 

[aussie]

Just re-read this first thread and overthe lengths of their respecrive careers this is categorically not true. By the best attacks im assuming u mean: McWarne, WW and Allan Donald. From y own exhaustive research (aka cricinfo) Ive found that Lara actually averaged more than Tendulkar against South Africa (when they had Donald) and higher against Australia (when McWarne were together). Tendulkar edges it against WW though.

Off my head Lara vs McGrath & Warne or at least one of them in AUS - would be 96/97, 2000/01 & 2005/06 & im very sure its a sub-40 average.

Tendy vs them would only be 99/00, but expect for 2003/04. He has faced generally STRONG AUS attacks down under - and he averages way better Lara.


Againts SA, Lara would have faced Donald at his absolute best in 92 & 98/99. 2001 Donald was still solid, but had lost some of his pace & wasn't the same "white lightning".

He only would have faced the Donald/Pollock combination in 98/99, which he was fairly average, by Lara standards.

Tendy faced Donald, Donald/Pollock & overall strong SA attacks throughout the 90s & although he wasn't fantastic either, but at least managed to average 40+ in SA.

But as i said when i started this thread way back......It can be argued here that Tendulkar's record in SA a good/great attack, he had more of a chance to prove himself over their vs Donald-Pollock at the peak of their powers than Lara did, but you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant

 

[MrIncredible]

Off my head Lara vs McGrath & Warne or at least one of them in AUS - would be 96/97, 2000/01 & 2005/06 & im very sure its a sub-40 average.

Tendy vs them would only be 99/00, but expect for 2003/04. He has faced generally STRONG AUS attacks down under - and he averages way better Lara.


Againts SA, Lara would have faced Donald at his absolute best in 92 & 98/99. 2001 Donald was still solid, but had lost some of his pace & wasn't the same "white lightning".

He only would have faced the Donald/Pollock combination in 98/99, which he was fairly average, by Lara standards.

Tendy faced Donald, Donald/Pollock & overall strong SA attacks throughout the 90s & although he wasn't fantastic either, but at least managed to average 40+ in SA.

But as i said when i started this thread way back......It can be argued here that Tendulkar's record in SA a good/great attack, he had more of a chance to prove himself over their vs Donald-Pollock at the peak of their powers than Lara did, but you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant

Here are the respective averages of Lara and Tendulkar against the following attacks: McWarne, WW, and Donald.

Tendulkar

vs McWarne: 7 mts 14 inns ave 42.28 H 39.25 A 46.33
vs WW: 7 mts 12 inns ave 32.91 H 30.00 A 35.83
vs Donald mts 11 mts 20 inns 32.90 H 26.87 A 36.91

Lara

vs McWarne: 15 mts 28 inns ave 53.38 H 67.90 A 42.73 (left out icc supertest )
vs WW: 7 mts 13 inns ave 30.30 H 43.20 A 22.25
vs Donald: 10 mts 20 inns ave 34.05 H 37.10 A 31.00

So against the best attacks of their time Advantage Lara overall with Tendulkar being a better traveller. Try again Aussie.

 

[MrIncredible]

Off my head Lara vs McGrath & Warne or at least one of them in AUS - would be 96/97, 2000/01 & 2005/06 & im very sure its a sub-40 average.

Tendy vs them would only be 99/00, but expect for 2003/04. He has faced generally STRONG AUS attacks down under - and he averages way better Lara.


Againts SA, Lara would have faced Donald at his absolute best in 92 & 98/99. 2001 Donald was still solid, but had lost some of his pace & wasn't the same "white lightning".

He only would have faced the Donald/Pollock combination in 98/99, which he was fairly average, by Lara standards.

Tendy faced Donald, Donald/Pollock & overall strong SA attacks throughout the 90s & although he wasn't fantastic either, but at least managed to average 40+ in SA.

But as i said when i started this thread way back......It can be argued here that Tendulkar's record in SA a good/great attack, he had more of a chance to prove himself over their vs Donald-Pollock at the peak of their powers than Lara did, but you can only take of what oppurtunities you get but the fact that Tendulkar played againts a good/great SA attack 3 times in the 90s compared to Lara's one is significant

Aussie u said Tendulkar did better against the better attacks but ive shown that thats not the case. Especially against Australia Sachins best test series were in 97/98 in India when Australia only had Warne as a decent bowler. Sachin again faced a a sub decent aussie attack in 2004 when they had Lee as a front line bowler along with Bracken and a few other no namers. Contrast that to Lara who faced mcWarne in 94-95, 96-97, 98-99, 00-01, and 05. Add to this that at times Lara also had to contend with Gillespie (in 98-99, 00-01) and u get my point. This more than balances out the point u made about Lara not facing Donald at his peak when A. Lara wasnt at his peak either B Donald averaged 25 or less in both series he played against Lara C. Lara still has a better average than Tendulkar against Donald.

 

[Slifer]

Here are the respective averages of Lara and Tendulkar against the following attacks: McWarne, WW, and Donald.

Tendulkar

vs McWarne: 7 mts 14 inns ave 42.28 H 39.25 A 46.33
vs WW: 7 mts 12 inns ave 32.91 H 30.00 A 35.83
vs Donald mts 11 mts 20 inns 32.90 H 26.87 A 36.91

Lara

vs McWarne: 15 mts 28 inns ave 53.38 H 67.90 A 42.73 (left out icc supertest )
vs WW: 7 mts 13 inns ave 30.30 H 43.20 A 22.25
vs Donald: 10 mts 20 inns ave 34.05 H 37.10 A 31.00

So against the best attacks of their time Advantage Lara overall with Tendulkar being a better traveller. Try again Aussie.

Surprised by these stats tbf but would still give Sachin the edge because of his better away record and overall better (slightly better) consistency. In any event i could still understand the case for Lara being better than SRT

 

[Burgey]

Surprised by these stats tbf but would still give Sachin the edge because of his better away record and overall better (slightly better) consistency. In any event i could still understand the case for Lara being better than SRT

I think this for me too. Lara's highs were about as great as anyone could contemplate having - some of his knocks were like a Boys Own story.

But he had some decent lows as well (he's human afterall). I'd put Tendulkar just (and I mean just) ahead of him, though Graeme Wood is clearly better than either.

 

[aussie]

Here are the respective averages of Lara and Tendulkar against the following attacks: McWarne, WW, and Donald.

Tendulkar

vs McWarne: 7 mts 14 inns ave 42.28 H 39.25 A 46.33
vs WW: 7 mts 12 inns ave 32.91 H 30.00 A 35.83
vs Donald mts 11 mts 20 inns 32.90 H 26.87 A 36.91

Lara

vs McWarne: 15 mts 28 inns ave 53.38 H 67.90 A 42.73 (left out icc supertest )
vs WW: 7 mts 13 inns ave 30.30 H 43.20 A 22.25
vs Donald: 10 mts 20 inns ave 34.05 H 37.10 A 31.00

So against the best attacks of their time Advantage Lara overall with Tendulkar being a better traveller. Try again Aussie.

Yes thats what i was implying in to point 2 "Tendy averages better than Lara vs good/great attacks, when i made this thread a couple years ago. Read back points 3,4.5 & 6 again.


On the stats you got their, you have some mistakes, firstly you have to look at these good/great attacks at their peaks.

Australia good/great attacks isn't just limited to McGrath/Warne also. 91/92 with McDermott, Hughes & 2007/08 with Lee/Clark with be a good attack. Only 2003/04 Tendy faced an average attack down under.

When looking at Donald, especially when looking at Lara's record. AD peak was 92 & 98/99. The Donald Lara faced in 2001, although still solid was not at his peak. Plus when you talk about SAs bowling its the Donald/Pollock combo.


So when i say Tendy averages more than Lara againts good/great attacks its not OVERALL career - Home & awat. Its average 40+ in a series againts these great bowler, Tendulkar did it more so than Lara, especially in the opponents back-yard.

 

[MrIncredible]

First Lara faced Hughes and McDermott in his first overseas series and slaughtered them.

Second u every series Lara has played down under have been against ful strength Aussie attacks:
92-93 Warne, Hughes, Mcdermott, 96 Mcgrath, Warne, Reiffel, 00 Warne, Gillespie, Mcgrath 05 mcgrath, Warne,, Lee, macgill. Lara never faced lesser attacks in Australia like Tendulkar did in 2004 and in 2007.

Third the point u make about Donald not being at his peak is completely irrelevant because in 98 Lara wasnt at his peak either and from my research Tendulkar has only ever faced full peak Aussie attacks on 7 occasions compared to lara who faced them atleast 20 times. By peak i mean Mcwarne.

 

[Smith]

How very interesting.

Tendulkar > Lara

Tada!