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

[Flem274*]

haha

i wasn't even being snarky for once. i like both.

 

[dognutz]

In a word - Lara

 

[Bouncer]

Heard he used to have massive nights on the rum before matches and sometimes just went straight to the ground and made massive scores. Could have been a big wind up though.

Is that the reason why Pak doesn't produce good batsmen?

 

[honestbharani]

Might just explain Kohli's brilliant batting and not so brilliant antics on the field too

 

[aussie]

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.

Colin Benjamin remembers Lara v Murali in Sri Lanka in 2001 | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Colin Benjamin: Remembering Lara's Everest moment | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo



Digging this thread due to the fact that I had two feature articles on Brian Lara published on ESPN CRICINFO in the last few months & it was humorous and interesting to see what was essentially homages to my favourite cricketer turn into a big argument by cricket fans worldwide both times on social media about who was better between Lara & Tendulkar.

It reminded me of the many sane and something not so sane debates I had about it when i made this thread to discuss this topic almost 10 years ago.

So looking back at at the points that was first discussed - not much has changed except a few things:

- Regarding their performances in England its fair to say now, both of them struggled in UK when England actually had good attacks.

In both their visits to ENG in the 1990s they both cashed on on weak/average English attacks.

Lara struggled vs the famous Gough/Caddick/Cork/White attack of 2000 - although it is fair to say that was one series where his notable eye problem was affecting him.

The ashes winning attack of Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff/Jones also kept him in check during 2004 tour - most famously Lara's unique but less the perfect text book technique, where his exaggerated jumping in the crease and his leg-stump was always exposed at the point of impact, resulted in Flintoff bowling him around his leg a few times.

In Tendulkar's only series vs a top quality ENG attack in UK 2011 vs Anderson/Broad/Bresnan/Tremlett/Swann (when he was in his late career peak from 2007 to 2011) - he was below bar

- One can add Tendulkar performances vs Steyn/Morkel is S Africa 2010/11 as another series where he averaged 40+ away from home vs a top quality attack more times than Lara.

- Tendulkar banished the criticism of his Chennai 1998 performance vs Pakistan that he can't play a match-winning 4th innings efforts - similar to Lara's 153, but his 2008 innings vs ENG at same venue (although Lara's 153 was better)

Tendulkar though never had amazing series vs top quality attacks that i wrote about in those two articles. Which is significant despite Tendy having many solid away series vs many top quality teams than Lara.


Overall it still remains Tendulkar to bat for my life, but Lara if I want to be gloriously entertained by classic batsman-ship.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Smh

 

[honestbharani]

Are we celebrating 10 years of this thread or something?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I just thought I'd continue the Sobers v Imran discussion ...

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

One was a genius; the other was just good at what he did.

End of thread

 

[Anil]

One was a genius; the other was just good at what he did.

End of thread

So you choose Tendulkar then? Interesting, I would have thought you would go the other way…

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

So you choose Tendulkar then? Interesting, I would have thought you would go the other way…

Tendulkar never made 688 in 3 tests in SL against Murali in his prime. The genius/wizard was the Prince.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar never made 688 in 3 tests in SL against Murali in his prime. The genius/wizard was the Prince.

Tendulkar also was never owned in a series by great bowlers like Lara was.

 

[Slifer]

Tendulkar also was never owned in a series by great bowlers like Lara was.

Man you've done one hell of an about face:

"Yes, even though I feel Lara was a better batsman overall I would consider Tendulkar to be more solid against sheer pace. They both ended up with similar figures against the best pacers though. Against spin, Lara is slightly better IMO.

Few worldclass batsmen are completely comfortable against express pace. Some, like Yousuf and Hayden, are reduced to sheer bunnies, while Ponting, Lara, and Tendulkar were merely good/decent. Guys like Steve Waugh, Chappell and Viv would top my list of batsmen best against fast bowling."

 

[Slifer]

Tendulkar never made 688 in 3 tests in SL against Murali in his prime. The genius/wizard was the Prince.

Agreed.

 

[anil1405]

The beauty about players like Lara is that they can up their game by a gear or two because of their aggressive intent. The same players also have a slightly lower lows because of the same mindset. Comparatively Tendulkar had a more conservative mindset so his highs and lows weren't as drastic.

The one point in Lara's favour, and why he is is the same league as Sachin, is that he managed to score bucket loads of runs and have a record similar to Sachin's despite those ups and downs.

It's the same with Warne. He was smacked on his bad days but he used his variations and aggressive mindset to his advantage to come back strong.

 

[subshakerz]

Man you've done one hell of an about face:

"Yes, even though I feel Lara was a better batsman overall I would consider Tendulkar to be more solid against sheer pace. They both ended up with similar figures against the best pacers though. Against spin, Lara is slightly better IMO.

Few worldclass batsmen are completely comfortable against express pace. Some, like Yousuf and Hayden, are reduced to sheer bunnies, while Ponting, Lara, and Tendulkar were merely good/decent. Guys like Steve Waugh, Chappell and Viv would top my list of batsmen best against fast bowling."

I am allowed to switch opinions. I did the same with Murali and Warne, and with Steyn and Ambrose. These are close comparisons. In the past, I didn't give enough credit to Tendulkar's longevity.

I think it is important to remind posters here of Lara' lowlights since they are entranced with just defining him through his highlights.

So yeah, Lara had dominant series that Tendulkar didn't, but he also had series were he was comprehensively owned and made to look subpar that Tendulkar didn't.

 

[subshakerz]

The beauty about players like Lara is that they can up their game by a gear or two because of their aggressive intent. The same players also have a slightly lower lows because of the same mindset. Comparatively Tendulkar had a more conservative mindset so his highs and lows weren't as drastic.

The one point in Lara's favour, and why he is is the same league as Sachin, is that he managed to score bucket loads of runs and have a record similar to Sachin's despite those ups and downs.

It's the same with Warne. He was smacked on his bad days but he used his variations and aggressive mindset to his advantage to come back strong.

Actually, to make this accurate, you can switch this the other way around, that Tendulkar managed to average the same as Lara despite going through the rigors of a much longer career. Lara didn't debut as a teenager and play until his late 30s.

It's Tendulkar, not Lara, that deserves extra credit for the matched average.

And Tendulkar's mindset wasn't more conservative as much as it was more professional than Lara.

 

[anil1405]

Actually, to make this accurate, you can switch this the other way around, that Tendulkar managed to average the same as Lara despite going through the rigors of a much longer career. Lara didn't debut as a teenager and play until his late 30s.

It's Tendulkar, not Lara, that deserves extra credit for the matched average.

And Tendulkar's mindset wasn't more conservative as much as it was more professional than Lara.

Tendulkar's longevity is unmatched. And credit needs to be given to him for sustained periods of consistency.

But I don't want to drag Lara down because he had worse lows. He had that extra gear of attacking intent and hence it always comes with a higher risk which he paid yet had an ATG career.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar's longevity is unmatched. And credit needs to be given to him for sustained periods of consistency.

But I don't want to drag Lara down because he had worse lows. He had that extra gear of attacking intent and hence it always comes with a higher risk which he paid yet had an ATG career.

That was exactly Lara's problem during his slump. He would get out early playing loose shots and wafts without the grit to stick in. It was clearly a mental issue but also a lack of seriousness. I think part of the 99 series success was that the stakes were so high he actually applied himself more compared to his failures before that.

It was only 2001 onwards when he modified his technique, played straighter, but also applied a bit of caution in the early part of his innings that he could score well again. It also helped that several great bowlers were mostly retired by then so it made it easier.

This is also another reason why I rate Tendulkar higher. When Tendulkar was struggling in the 2003 series outside off, he had the discipline to diagnose himself and cut that shot out and scored a double in the last test.

 

[Slifer]

The beauty about players like Lara is that they can up their game by a gear or two because of their aggressive intent. The same players also have a slightly lower lows because of the same mindset. Comparatively Tendulkar had a more conservative mindset so his highs and lows weren't as drastic.

The one point in Lara's favour, and why he is is the same league as Sachin, is that he managed to score bucket loads of runs and have a record similar to Sachin's despite those ups and downs.

It's the same with Warne. He was smacked on his bad days but he used his variations and aggressive mindset to his advantage to come back strong.

I think Lara also deserves credit for having a similar record to Sachin despite playing piss poor attacks far less and having far fewer not outs......