Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[The_CricketUmpire]

What is interesting is that if we used the standardised averages method and included "Not Out innings" as part of the rest of other innings then Tendulkar's average would be 48.39.

Using the same method for Lara, his average would be 51.52 which again as I emphasised before and I'll say it again, there isn't really much between Tendulkar and Lara. Neither is miles ahead of the other and I honestly really do think it's just opinion as to who is better. For me, in my opinion, it's Lara, only just.

 

[centurymaker]

Avg number of innings per series that Tendulkar played was 4.6 innings per series.

That's ridiculously low

 

[centurymaker]

What is interesting is that if we used the standardised averages method and included "Not Out innings" as part of the rest of other innings then Tendulkar's average would be 48.39.

Using the same method for Lara, his average would be 51.52.

Lara played 131 Tests (16 years)
Tendulkar played 200 Tests (24 years)

Averages can fall upto 3 whole points in a space of just 7-8 poor tests. And since tendulkar and lara have a gigantic differential of 69 Test matches, it's not simply a case of taking their final xx average and comparing it. As Tendulkar even at 185 Tests was going @50 runs per innings.

I think overall it's pretty futile to compare averages when averages can be so fickle (and when players have played vastly diff no. of games). For eg, Steve Smith has lost almost 5 points from his average in space of 16 tests, and Smith's runs per innings is down to 49.66.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara > Sachin, not by much but by enough as a test batsman for me.

 

[centurymaker]

Worse still is comparing averages country by country. Such avgs are super volatile. And literally the most futile exercise on CW. For instance, Smith was averaging 131 in NZ and now his avg in NZ is down to 52. Another series in NZ and avg there could go down to 30 and then you'll say he has a hole in his resume.

Add to that if he has another ordinary series in India on dustbowls in 2026/27, his current 50 avg in India would go down to perhaps 35-38. Moreover, a difficult series in South Africa in 2026 could push down his avg there from 41 to 30. And then all of a sudden, his away figures might look worse than Ponting's and people will see Smith like they see Ponting today. How fickle are averages and opinions? So he is just 2-3 poor away-series away from screwing everything up? Is that all it takes for a player's perception to change so drastically? IMO analysis by country is dumb as f.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Worse still is comparing averages country by country. Such avgs are super volatile. And literally the most futile exercise on CW. For instance, Smith was averaging 131 in NZ and now his avg in NZ is down to 52. Another series in NZ and avg there could go down to 30 and then you'll say he has a hole in his resume.

Add to that if he has another ordinary series in India on dustbowls in 2026/27, his current 50 avg in India would go down to perhaps 35-38. Moreover, an ordinary series in SA in 2026 could push his avg there from 41 to 30. And then all of a sudden, his away figures might look worse than Ponting's and then 5 years later people will see Smith like they see Ponting today. How fickle are averages and opinions? So he is just 2-3 poor away-series away from screwing everything up? Is that all it takes for a player's perception to change so drastically? IMO analysis by country is dumb as f.

I kinda disagree. A poor away series counts against you. Smith's record in SA, as of today, isn't really great. Another poor series in their, and I don't think it would be unfair to say he isn't great in SA. Same for NZ tbh. If he underperforms in two series back to back, shouldn't we hold it against him. As for India, there comes the context of his 2017 runs. It would need a Ponting 2001 level disaster to raise eyebrows on that record, and if that happens, I can't see why we shouldn't. Average by countries isn't everything, but with added proper context, they will show a player's weaknesses in particular conditions against particular attacks.

 

[Spark]

I kinda disagree. A poor away series counts against you. Smith's record in SA, as of today, isn't really great. Another poor series in their, and I don't think it would be unfair to say he isn't great in SA. Same for NZ tbh. If he underperforms in two series back to back, shouldn't we hold it against him. As for India, there comes the context of his 2017 runs. It would need a Ponting 2001 level disaster to raise eyebrows on that record, and if that happens, I can't see why we shouldn't. Average by countries isn't everything, but with added proper context, they will show a player's weaknesses in particular conditions against particular attacks.

A poor away series should definitely be held against Smith if he has another one but in fairness to him he has had an excellent series in SA, that has mostly been forgotten about now.

In India he also had a pretty decent half-series in what was otherwise an utterly disastrous 2013 tour where he looked obviously the best batsman aside from Clarke.

I otherwise agree with your point that averages don't matter, performances do, but I do think even a single good away performance away in difficult conditions against good attacks should outweigh a lot for a batsman, especially these days because the deck is stacked against that happening. Relative failure should frankly be the base case, anything above that is a bonus that deserves praise.

 

[capt_Luffy]

A poor away series should definitely be held against Smith if he has another one but in fairness to him he has had an excellent series in SA, that has mostly been forgotten about now.

In India he also had a pretty decent half-series in what was otherwise an utterly disastrous 2013 tour where he looked obviously the best batsman aside from Clarke.

I otherwise agree with your point that averages don't matter, performances do, but I do think even a single good away performance away in difficult conditions against good attacks should outweigh a lot for a batsman, especially these days because the deck is stacked against that happening. Relative failure should frankly be the base case, anything above that is a bonus that deserves praise.

I mean, not disproving anything; but if Smith ends up averaging 30 in SA, he have to do average like 15-16 in the next tour. I think that counts. Same for India. I can't think any touring batsman ever had a better series in India than Smith in 2017, and it will remain that way regardless what he does next. But again, if he pulls up a Ponting 2001, he is accountable for that too.

 

[Spark]

I mean, not disproving anything; but if Smith ends up averaging 30 in SA, he have to do average like 15-16 in the next tour. I think that counts. Same for India. I can't think any touring batsman ever had a better series in India than Smith in 2017, and it will remain that way regardless what he does next. But again, if he pulls up a Ponting 2001, he is accountable for that too.

Oh sure, it all counts. But you'll sometimes hear people say that his record in SA is bad now based purely on his average and IMO that's just not true. One very good series and one poor one is about a par return for a batsman for his calibre against extremely strong attacks in away conditions (though tbf SA conditions are traditionally pretty easy for Aus batsman to acclimatise to).

We're getting off track though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There are lots of batsmen who can end up averaging 45-50 in/vs a country and when you try to remember any of their actual performances you'll come up with squat. If you have 4-5 genuinely great performances/innings or one series where you totally dominated, it should be more than enough to override a lower average.

 

[honestbharani]

There are lots of batsmen who can end up averaging 45-50 in/vs a country and when you try to remember any of their actual performances you'll come up with squat. If you have 4-5 genuinely great performances/innings or one series where you totally dominated, it should be more than enough to override a lower average.

Its like the idiotic 5fer criteria subzi uses to deride Ashwin. FWIW, its a team game and matchwinning performances are what count, not the number of runs or wickets.

I will forever say the 50s by VVS and Sachin on that 2004 Mumbai minefield (yes, that was one of the rare occasions where that name actually was apt for a track in India) were better than a lot of the 100s they scored since against not so good visitng sides in India.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Lara played 131 Tests (16 years)
Tendulkar played 200 Tests (24 years)

Averages can fall upto 3 whole points in a space of just 7-8 poor tests. And since tendulkar and lara have a gigantic differential of 69 Test matches, it's not simply a case of taking their final xx average and comparing it. As Tendulkar even at 185 Tests was going @50 runs per innings.

I think overall it's pretty futile to compare averages when averages can be so fickle (and when players have played vastly diff no. of games). For eg, Steve Smith has lost almost 5 points from his average in space of 16 tests, and Smith's runs per innings is down to 49.66.

Yep, again as I said, there isn't really much between Lara and Tendulkar, neither is miles ahead of each other.

 

[subshakerz]

Its like the idiotic 5fer criteria subzi uses to deride Ashwin. FWIW, its a team game and matchwinning performances are what count, not the number of runs or wickets.

That's what I hammer Ashwin on. But saying numbers don't count at all is just silly. You need a base level of output to just enter the door in the conversations.

I will forever say the 50s by VVS and Sachin on that 2004 Mumbai minefield (yes, that was one of the rare occasions where that name actually was apt for a track in India) were better than a lot of the 100s they scored since against not so good visitng sides in India.

All of us would agree.

But you could make a case Mark Waugh has more quality knocks than his brother but we will end up voting for Steve as the better bat based on achieving a higher level of output, among other reasons.

 

[subshakerz]

There are lots of batsmen who can end up averaging 45-50 in/vs a country and when you try to remember any of their actual performances you'll come up with squat. If you have 4-5 genuinely great performances/innings or one series where you totally dominated, it should be more than enough to override a lower average.

Again, whats the context. The whole challenge in cricket is quality with consistency. We can't just judge a record on just highlights.

Dravid had an ace series in SA against Donald/Pollock in 96 but followed that up with three poor to middling tours. Are we supposed to ignore his low average there?

However, I agree with your earlier point that averages can be misleading as to actual impact. One of Tendulkars worst record is in Pakistan since it is entirely built on his unbeaten 194 on a Multan flat track, and doesn't have much else to show there. Lara meanwhile averages roughly the same in Australia but it is far more impressive as he was scoring quality tons every series.

Add to that if he has another ordinary series in India on dustbowls in 2026/27, his current 50 avg in India would go down to perhaps 35-38. Moreover, a difficult series in South Africa in 2026 could push down his avg there from 41 to 30. And then all of a sudden, his away figures might look worse than Ponting's and people will see Smith like they see Ponting today. How fickle are averages and opinions? So he is just 2-3 poor away-series away from screwing everything up? Is that all it takes for a player's perception to change so drastically? IMO analysis by country is dumb as f.

Smith's record would look worse than before because it is objectively worse than before because he ended up sucking more than he succeeded and unless there is a mitigating factor to explain, he should lose points.

 

[honestbharani]

Yay.. what fun.

In other news, Lara > Sachin.

 

[h_hurricane]

We already know that @honestbharani is from Port of Spain and @subshakerz is from Mumbai

 

[capt_Luffy]

We already know that @honestbharani is from Port of Spain and [B]@subshakerz is from Mumbai[/B]

You couldn't had made HB any madder....

 

[howitzer]

You couldn't had made HB any madder....

@subshakerz is actually from Chennai