• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Greatest of them all.....Who will it be ? (T..D..P..K then the big S)

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
Right, so that will explain how since 2004, Tendulkar has played 19 Tests compared to 21 from Lara - clearly those 2 Tests are the only reason that Lara has pulled almost 1000 runs clear?
No one has denied the same. You seem to be in denial of the points I mentioned regarding India playing fewer tests though when you state -

Marc said:
Not so long ago they were neck and neck, but only one of them is continuing to play the same way we know - they've both been playing Internationals for about the same length of time, so age is less relevant IMO. 32 he may be, but playing for 16 years at the highest level is far more relevant.
Same length of time? Tendulkar has played more years but India has playedesser number of tests compared to Windies in the period as I stated.

That is the main factor. I repear - Imagine how many runs Tendulkar would have scored in tests had he been playing for Australia all these years.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pratyush said:
Same length of time? Tendulkar has played more years but India has playedesser number of tests compared to Windies in the period as I stated.

That is the main factor. I repear - Imagine how many runs Tendulkar would have scored in tests had he been playing for Australia all these years.
Why is number of Tests the important figure? Shouldn't it be number of innings? Lara has played 8 less Tests but 8 more innings than Tendulkar. He has 15 less not outs and averages less than 3 runs less. That shows how much pure runscoring he has done with an average of almost 54.

There's a difference of 8 innings between the two and 818 runs. For the Mathematics inclined out there, that's an average of 102.25 per innings difference between the players. I'm not saying Lara is better or worse than Tendulkar, but I'm trying to understand your "India has played less Test matches" theory as pertaining to the number of runs Tendulkar has scored.
 

shankar

International Debutant
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
There's a difference of 8 innings between the two and 818 runs.
You're not taking into account the not-outs there. A not-out is basically a truncated innings right?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
but I'm trying to understand your "India has played less Test matches" theory as pertaining to the number of runs Tendulkar has scored.
When you play less tests, you bat less innings. Lara missed tests in his career or else he could have scored more runs as well.

The more tests you play, the more you are likely to score runs.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
marc71178 said:
Thanks mainly to Bangladesh and an Aussie 'B' string.
Once again, you're missing the point. Its not about the quality of his runs is it? Its about how many runs he is getting, that's what shows up on the record. He is still getting large quantities, just not as well and as consistently as in the 90s. All these runs go to his record.

What you're basically trying to do is denigrate his runs scored, which is absolutely irrelevant in this argument.

I'm not saying you're wrong and that Sachin will definitely take over Lara. Its very possible that he may not. But I personally believe he will, and I think your counter for my arguments are aimed at disproving that he's still getting runs at the quality that he was in the past. That's not even an issue. The fact is, when he's on the park he's still getting runs.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Armadillo said:
Lara's form of late has been patchy with one outstanding score. I wouldn't say that he will retire on top of his game.
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
I think it's fascinating that you choose to ignore 8 of Lara's 17 innings played last year as his form of late.

Brian Lara in 2005:

196 - bowled by a Nel beauty.
4
176
13
4 - got one that bounced sharply on one of the flattest wickets you'll find.
130
48
153
0 - got one from Kaneria that spun a mile - caught down the legside.
5
36
30 - interesting decision.
14
13 - interesting decision.
45 - very interesting decision.
226
17

The fact that Lara scored 4 150+ innings in the space of his first 8 trips to the crease last year is enough to convince me that he's still on top of his game. Batsmen get good deliveries. Batsmen get bad decisions. If someone actually looks at the innings instead of just the scores, it's very apparent that Brian Lara is still a huge force.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
shankar said:
You're not taking into account the not-outs there. A not-out is basically a truncated innings right?
Where do not outs come into this? When calculating an average, you remove the not outs from total innings. When calculating runs-per-innings, not outs are irrelevant. The fact is that if Tendulkar is to score the number of runs that Lara has after 214 innings, he would have to scored the difference of 800odd in 8 innings. Sachin Tendulkar has played 8 total innings less than Brian Lara.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pratyush said:
When you play less tests, you bat less innings. Lara missed tests in his career or else he could have scored more runs as well.

The more tests you play, the more you are likely to score runs.
But the fact is that Tendulkar has played more Tests than Lara and scored less runs. Lara has played 8 more innings, but the difference in runs is substantial still. Therefore I don't see how number of Tests played by either can be a qualifying factor in this situation.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Frankly, people can bring up all the stats they want but it makes zero difference to me on this one; just looking at Sachin, I see a marked deterioration in the speed of his reactions, timing, bat-speed, etc. He just physically looks a much lesser player right now, as compared to when he was at his peak from 1997. His back troubles make his play look more ginger too and I get the feeling he's only still up playing top-level cricket because of sheer will. Lara, physically, looks a little less able, as one would expect, but not by much and he still looks able to take apart a world-class attack (as he did in Adelaide). Sachin, as much as I love the guy, looks less likely to do so these days.
 

C_C

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Where do not outs come into this? When calculating an average, you remove the not outs from total innings. When calculating runs-per-innings, not outs are irrelevant. The fact is that if Tendulkar is to score the number of runs that Lara has after 214 innings, he would have to scored the difference of 800odd in 8 innings. Sachin Tendulkar has played 8 total innings less than Brian Lara.
Yes. But the whole runs-per-innings is a non-factor, because many batsmen do not get a CHANCE to finish their innings. Lara has been lucky that way- the fragilities in the WI batting over the past 10 years means WI almost never declares and whenever they are chasing runs, they are almost always chasing 300-400 totals, instead of a 150-200 target. As a result, Lara gets to bat till he drops - he can maximise his potential more often simply due to tihs fact. Logically speaking, if all batsmen were allowed to bat till they got out every single time, most batsmen would have the same average as they do now but more runs to make up the average.
The only ones who would possibly refute this are tailenders such as you see with some Aussie bowler averaging 50 right now with the bat....
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
C_C said:
Yes. But the whole runs-per-innings is a non-factor, because many batsmen do not get a CHANCE to finish their innings. Lara has been lucky that way- the fragilities in the WI batting over the past 10 years means WI almost never declares and whenever they are chasing runs, they are almost always chasing 300-400 totals, instead of a 150-200 target. As a result, Lara gets to bat till he drops - he can maximise his potential more often simply due to tihs fact. Logically speaking, if all batsmen were allowed to bat till they got out every single time, most batsmen would have the same average as they do now but more runs to make up the average.
The only ones who would possibly refute this are tailenders such as you see with some Aussie bowler averaging 50 right now with the bat....
Lucky?? You think Lara thinks "ah, well at least I'll get a full innings in today" when he goes out to bat at 10/2? That fact only makes Lara's accomplishments greater, because he's constantly under pressure when he goes out to bat.

That Tendulkar has more support around him when he goes to the crease suggests that he would have more ease in scoring runs, for the the pure and simple fact that he's far less likelty to run out of partners. How does Lara not having people hanging around with him contribute to him having more of an opportunity to score runs?

The fact that India gets more of a chance to declare than the West Indies and that Tendulkar bats at 4 suggests that Tendulkar gets a great chance to score heavily. Then there's Lara, who is lucky if his team scores more than 200 in an innings and probably participates in a declaration once per year.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
Marcus Trescothick will enter a Gooch-style purple patch and end up scoring more runs then any one of the batsmen mentioned in this thread.

Just to shut the lot of you up. :laugh:
 

C_C

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Lucky?? You think Lara thinks "ah, well at least I'll get a full innings in today" when he goes out to bat at 10/2? That fact only makes Lara's accomplishments greater, because he's constantly under pressure when he goes out to bat.

That Tendulkar has more support around him when he goes to the crease suggests that he would have more ease in scoring runs, for the the pure and simple fact that he's far less likelty to run out of partners. How does Lara not having people hanging around with him contribute to him having more of an opportunity to score runs?

The fact that India gets more of a chance to declare than the West Indies and that Tendulkar bats at 4 suggests that Tendulkar gets a great chance to score heavily. Then there's Lara, who is lucky if his team scores more than 200 in an innings and probably participates in a declaration once per year.
You seem to forget that Lara started playing cricket in 92 and Tendulkar in 99. Until around 2000 ( that is over 50% of their careers) Lara was in a stronger team - WI batting was marginally weaker than India's ( Dravid just comming to gear, no sehwag, Ganguly merely decent etc.) but with significantly stronger bowling lineup.

Lara gets more chance to bat out than Tendulkar does, particularly in the second innings. There have been numerous times where Tendy is unbeaten in the second innings, either running outta time or runs have been scored or the captain declared. As such, how is he gonna add more to his total ? How often does WI face the situation where Lara is on 30 and the team declares or the match is drawn ? How is runs per innings even remotely the benchmark for batting when you dont get the chance to complete your innings nearly as much as the other guy does ?!

If anything, Lara's performances are over-magnified due to the pathetic state of affairs in west indies cricket. A diamond is more noticable in a pile of coal than amidst other diamonds.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
C_C said:
You seem to forget that Lara started playing cricket in 92 and Tendulkar in 99. Until around 2000 ( that is over 50% of their careers) Lara was in a stronger team - WI batting was marginally weaker than India's ( Dravid just comming to gear, no sehwag, Ganguly merely decent etc.) but with significantly stronger bowling lineup.
Lara may have debuted with the likes of Haynes and Greenidge, but before his 10th Test, both were gone. As support, he had people like Phil Simmons (22.26), Keith Arthurton (30.71), Stuart Williams (24.14) and Carl Hooper, who averaged in the low 30s before 1999/00.

Richardson was gone by 1995, and Adams and Chanderpaul started well, but Chanders never scored heavily until well after 2000. Adams also fell away astonishingly after a strong start. Basically, Lara didn't have anywhere near as strong batting support as you seem to think.

Tendulkar had Sidhu and Azhar.

I'm almost certain that India was scoring big more frequently than the West Indies during the 90s.
C_C said:
Lara gets more chance to bat out than Tendulkar does, particularly in the second innings. There have been numerous times where Tendy is unbeaten in the second innings, either running outta time or runs have been scored or the captain declared.
The West Indies clinically makes mediocre scores. Lara does not get more of a chance to score runs, because he neither has enough partners nor does he have the "last man bats on" rule on his side.

You make it sound like batting in the second innings is a generous opportunity. There's a reason why many batsmen average more in the first than second innings. Pitches deteriorate and then there's the added pressure of chasing a total or batting for survival.

Sachin Tendulkar has also been involved in his far share of second innings, considering how many times India has been beaten away from home.

C_C said:
How often does WI face the situation where Lara is on 30 and the team declares or the match is drawn ? How is runs per innings even remotely the benchmark for batting when you dont get the chance to complete your innings nearly as much as the other guy does ?!
How often is the West Indies 250 all out?
C_C said:
If anything, Lara's performances are over-magnified due to the pathetic state of affairs in west indies cricket. A diamond is more noticable in a pile of coal than amidst other diamonds.
Don't be ridiculous. That Lara averages as much as he does when he's usually the only person willing to stay at the crease magnifies his achievements. When your team is getting beaten within 3 and 4 days and getting bowled out for less than 300 and 200 on a consistent basis, it's not as though you've got a lot of time to score runs. Make sense please.
 

C_C

International Captain
Tendulkar's not outs:

119* vs England - match drawn, play closed. How is he gonna add to his tally ?

148* vs OZ- the team is allout. Tendulkar isnt. So lets penalise him. he should've thrown his wicket 8-)

9* vs England - match won. Too bad they were chasing only 79. I suppose its his fault that India wernt chasing 400 and as a result, didnt get to score 100 and then get out.

104* vs SL - captain declared on him. So lets penalise him for not throwing his wicket away

11* vs NZ - match drawn. play closed on 5th day. Since the bowlers failed to dismiss him, its his fault- he should've tossed his wicket and then he would've been held in higher regard.

0* vs NZ - whoa ! how dare he not face a single ball and remain not out ?! his fault !

52* vs NZ - rain curtailed match. Again, lets penalise him for not getting out.

15* vs WI - match drawn.

155* vs OZ - captain declared on him.

124* vs SL - ran outta time.

126* vs NZ - captain declared on him.

44* vs NZ - India chasing only 82 for victory.

201* vs ZIM - captain declared on him

36* vs ZIM- chasing 184 for victory,comes to the crease when the score is 2-132, scores 36 in 49 balls - so lets penalise him for remaining not out.

22* vs RSA - match drawn.ran outta time.

16* vs WI - chasing 81 for victory...

241* vs OZ - captain declares on him.

60* vs OZ - captain declares on him

194* vs PAK - captain declares on him- AGAIN!

32* vs RSA - match won, no more runs to score.

248* vs BD- captain declares on him


Those are his not outs. Clearly, he is hanging around, not scoring runs and padding his average. Nevermind the fact that in most of those knocks he ran outta time or the total was accomplished....he doesnt get to bat till he drops every single time like Lara does - he doesnt go in all the time knowing that he can score 100 if he hangs around....
 

C_C

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
There's only so much time to bat when your team is all out in a day. That is all.
Yeah. So why does he not remain not out more often ?
And Lara has almost never encountered situations like needing 80 runs for victory/time runs out for a draw, etc.....
So what is the point of this runs-per-innings stuff ? By that barometer, Mark Taylor was 'almost as good as' Steve Waugh, Dean Jones almost as good as Alan Border......

It is a virtue to remain undismissed, not a vice. Thats what i am saying. If i bat 200 times and the opposition fails to dismiss me 20 of those and you bat 200 times and the opposition fails to dismiss you only 5 times, i've gotten the better of the opposition more often.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
C_C said:
Yeah. So why does he not remain not out more often ?
Say what? Because he has to score runs before he runs out of partners.8-) He is human. He can not dispatch the ball to the boundary at will. Oh, and he's also not Kallis. Lara is not one to stand around and preserve his wicket when he's running out of partners.

Common sense dictates that a man whose team gets bowled out in less than 90 overs does not have a whole lot of time to score big runs. Common sense...

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevant to any of my points. I was never attacking not outs.
 

Top