Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar's stats vs best bowlers

[Romali_rotti]

This should settle it. Those who havent seen bat in the 90s havent seen the run machine in full flow. SRT hasnt been the same since the tennis elbow and back problems.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

He did recover from the tennis elbow eventually but it took a while, I rem him doing so poorly against Hoggard and co in Eng it was sad to watch...... Its a shame really I feel had SRT been fit during the 2004 series vs Australia, India would have won or drawn that series.

 

[Super Santi]

SRT that played vs Aus in 98 would have violated Mcgrath so bad he may have never come back to India ... SRT without the tennis elbow had no issues vs Mcgrath, played him with ease, previous 2 series stats are proof of that...

Seems like a slightly extreme assessment given that no batsman can ever claim to have dominated McGrath.

 

[Fire Bird]

Seems like a slightly extreme assessment given that no batsman can ever claim to have dominated McGrath.

McGrath had the wood over Lara and had some success against Sachin unlike any other but Sachin was probably the only one who dominated Mcgrath from time to time.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Seems like a slightly extreme assessment given that no batsman can ever claim to have dominated McGrath.

SRT from the 98 Aus tour of India was invincible, he was scoring runs at will against everything Aus was throwing at him. I could be wrong but SRT on that kind of form will school anything or anyone.........

 

[EC666]

Yeah poor logic from EC. When he brought forth the batting order argument in an ODI game, you can understand that he knows very little about ODIs.

My point is that Tendulkar thrives in the opening slot in ODIs. He likes facing more balls. My point was also that Lara and Tendulkar both average 45 when opening in ODI's versus all teams minus minnows (Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe).

Batting in position 5, Tendulkar averages 29. Same as Lara. I think most will agree that 1,2,3 and 5 are the key roles for your best ODI batsmen, hence my citing of those positions.

Batting outside Asia in ODI positions 1,2,3...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...und;view=match

Lara averages 44. (remove games played at home and his average doesn't change)

Batting outside Asia, in positions 1,2 and 3...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...;type=allround

Tendulkar averages 39.

This is not "poor logic" or "cherry picking" on my part.

My overral point, though, is that Tendy dodges great bowlers, is massively overrated and most of what people say about him is based on myth. Look at all his Test games outside of India when you remove minnows...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...art;template=results;type=allround;view=match

Those are all Tendulkar's Test games outside of India. Look at them and tell me which of these are really great test innings? His 203 vs Sri Lanka came with Muttiah off the team. His last 3 centuries vs Australia were vs a team in transition. These are not great innings. Are his 2 centuries vs Steyn great? Their strike rate was in the 40s. From 2012, you then have to go all the way back to 2001 for an arguably great innings, a 155 vs South Africa in South Africa. Then you have his 116 vs the Ausses in 1999, another very good knock vs a full power Aussie battalion.

But what then? His 124 vs Sri Lanka had no Muttiah, and a 50 strike rate. His 143 vs a full power Sri Lanka in 1997 is better, but still not impressive. Everyone around Tendulkar in that game was scoring tripple and double centuries. The track was horrible.

To find Tendy's greatest Test knocks outside India you have to go to South Africa, and his 169 vs Donald in 1997.

In 1996 he made a 177 vs England, but was that great? A strike rate of 40 vs a horrible attack? Nope.

We then have to go all the way to 1992 to find a next century, his 111 vs South Africa. Donald is here, but Tendulkar's strike rate is in the 40s. Given the circumstances, though, I would tentatively call this a great knock.

We then go to 1991, where he makes 114 and 148 vs Australia, not spectacular, but great in context.

When you look at these centuries outside of India and vs non-minnows, these are not the stats of a God (his centuries at home follow the same pattern). I would say only one of these is an all-time great innings. Chanderpaul has similar stats, and nobody treats him as a god. The idea that Tendulkar the test player is some kind of aggressive Test maverick (any other fast, dominating knocks after the 177?) is likewise a myth (before and after his elbow injury, his SR doesnt change).

 

[EC666]

I think I will make a table of Ponting and Steve Waugh's stats vs the best bowlers of their era.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Are his 2 centuries vs Steyn great? Their strike rate was in the 40s!

What dude?

Did you even watch the match?

So now innings with 40 SR is bad?

Sachin's knock v Steyn in Cape Town was one of his best knocks ever.

Your bias is so obvious.

Read this:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/content/story/495388.html

Anyways, I am outta here. Posted here way too much already.

 

[EC666]

What dude?

That's why I'm asking. I made no statement regarding the quality of the 2 innings. Yes, a 40 strike rate and defensive batting is generally not considered to be dominating. Reminded me a bit of Steve Waugh.

What do people think are the best centuries vs Steyn? I can't think of any other famous ones.

Oh wait, Chanderpaul did a similar back to back pair of centuries vs Steyn...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/298801.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/439153.html

Same SR too.

Your bias is so obvious.

I think you are sensitive and projecting things upon my text.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

What dude?

That's why I'm asking. I made no statement regarding the quality of the 2 innings. Yes, a 40 strike rate and defensive batting is generally not considered to be dominating. Reminded me a bit of Steve Waugh.

What do people think are the best centuries vs Steyn? I can't think of any other famous ones.

Oh wait, Chanderpaul did a similar back to back pair of centuries vs Steyn...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/298801.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/439153.html

Same SR too.

Your bias is so obvious.

I think you are sensitive and projecting things upon my text.

This thread is about stats against best bowlers.

Not about dominating best bowlers.

Sachin survived on a bowling track against one of the greatest pacers ever.

The opposite of this would be a Steyn surviving Sachin on flat pattas.

So if Steyn bowls well to restrict batsman and take a few wickets, would you say that Steyn didn't dominate the batsman so its an useless performance (even though it was a flat patta)?

Now don't bring Steyn's Nagpur exploit here. I can also bring Sachin's 200 against Steyn.

On a general level, bowlers on flat tracks struggle and batsman on bowler's tracks struggle.

Surviving and scoring is a hallmark of a great batsman which is what Sachin did. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Yeah poor logic from EC. When he brought forth the batting order argument in an ODI game, you can understand that he knows very little about ODIs.

My point is that Tendulkar thrives in the opening slot in ODIs. He likes facing more balls. My point was also that Lara and Tendulkar both average 45 when opening in ODI's versus all teams minus minnows (Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe).

Batting in position 5, Tendulkar averages 29. Same as Lara. I think most will agree that 1,2,3 and 5 are the key roles for your best ODI batsmen, hence my citing of those positions.

Batting outside Asia in ODI positions 1,2,3...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...und;view=match

Lara averages 44. (remove games played at home and his average doesn't change)

Batting outside Asia, in positions 1,2 and 3...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...;type=allround

Tendulkar averages 39.

This is not "poor logic" or "cherry picking" on my part.

My overral point, though, is that Tendy dodges great bowlers, is massively overrated and most of what people say about him is based on myth. Look at all his Test games outside of India when you remove minnows...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...art;template=results;type=allround;view=match

Those are all Tendulkar's Test games outside of India. Look at them and tell me which of these are really great test innings? His 203 vs Sri Lanka came with Muttiah off the team. His last 3 centuries vs Australia were vs a team in transition. These are not great innings. Are his 2 centuries vs Steyn great? Their strike rate was in the 40s. From 2012, you then have to go all the way back to 2001 for an arguably great innings, a 155 vs South Africa in South Africa. Then you have his 116 vs the Ausses in 1999, another very good knock vs a full power Aussie battalion.

But what then? His 124 vs Sri Lanka had no Muttiah, and a 50 strike rate. His 143 vs a full power Sri Lanka in 1997 is better, but still not impressive. Everyone around Tendulkar in that game was scoring tripple and double centuries. The track was horrible.

To find Tendy's greatest Test knocks outside India you have to go to South Africa, and his 169 vs Donald in 1997.

In 1996 he made a 177 vs England, but was that great? A strike rate of 40 vs a horrible attack? Nope.

We then have to go all the way to 1992 to find a next century, his 111 vs South Africa. Donald is here, but Tendulkar's strike rate is in the 40s. Given the circumstances, though, I would tentatively call this a great knock.

We then go to 1991, where he makes 114 and 148 vs Australia, not spectacular, but great in context.

When you look at these centuries outside of India and vs non-minnows, these are not the stats of a God (his centuries at home follow the same pattern). I would say only one of these is an all-time great innings. Chanderpaul has similar stats, and nobody treats him as a god. The idea that Tendulkar the test player is some kind of aggressive Test maverick (any other fast, dominating knocks after the 177?) is likewise a myth (before and after his elbow injury, his SR doesnt change).

first of all just because Zim is a minnow now doesn't mean that in the 1990's they were
a very weak team.infact they were atleast an above avg: team.also there is no logic in removing position 4 because it depends on the context of the match.for eg: say first 2 wickets fall cheaply then cay you say 4rth position is irrevlent ? for eg: take SRT's 105*
vs ENG in ENG..That inns was very vital to team cause.so no logic in here too w.r.t your data filtering.then by filtering out data out side asia you have conveniently concealed Lara's record at SHARJAH and in India.why ? don't they count against a batsman's over all performance.then comes longevity of SRT where the difference between him and Lara can't be neglected as a minor factor.

then in tests,as per your logic only a 100+ score at a high str: rate with at least a really great bowler in the opposition side in abroad conditions seems to be a great one.but then i don't think there would be any batsman in the history of test cricket with atleast 10 `100s of that sort

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Good write up there Macha but you always have to take into account Mcgrath's figure's vs SRT is better than it should be because of the 2004 tennis elbow.......

thanks mash..a small correction to what i earlier said.SRT infact had 1216 runs in 25 finished inns at 48.64 vs Murali..might had been the case about what you said of
Sachin vs Mcgrath.SRT could have avoided that 2004 series vs aUS in INDIA.For that matter after 2011 world cup he could have retired immediately.that is what
i thought at that time itself.but he continued and tarished his figures by a little.now coming to your point ..what if SRT could achieve only what he actually
achieved vs Mcgrath?as i said his over all avg: vs all great bowlers above specified was at the least a very good one if not great.infact though i stated in my
previous post as 43.86, it is the least case.

 

[IndianWillow]

Yeah poor logic from EC. When he brought forth the batting order argument in an ODI game, you can understand that he knows very little about ODIs.

My point is that Tendulkar thrives in the opening slot in ODIs. He likes facing more balls. My point was also that Lara and Tendulkar both average 45 when opening in ODI's versus all teams minus minnows (Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe).

Batting in position 5, Tendulkar averages 29. Same as Lara. I think most will agree that 1,2,3 and 5 are the key roles for your best ODI batsmen, hence my citing of those positions.

Batting outside Asia in ODI positions 1,2,3...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...und;view=match

Lara averages 44. (remove games played at home and his average doesn't change)

Batting outside Asia, in positions 1,2 and 3...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...;type=allround

Tendulkar averages 39.

This is not "poor logic" or "cherry picking" on my part.

My overral point, though, is that Tendy dodges great bowlers, is massively overrated and most of what people say about him is based on myth. Look at all his Test games outside of India when you remove minnows...

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...art;template=results;type=allround;view=match

Those are all Tendulkar's Test games outside of India. Look at them and tell me which of these are really great test innings? His 203 vs Sri Lanka came with Muttiah off the team. His last 3 centuries vs Australia were vs a team in transition. These are not great innings. Are his 2 centuries vs Steyn great? Their strike rate was in the 40s. From 2012, you then have to go all the way back to 2001 for an arguably great innings, a 155 vs South Africa in South Africa. Then you have his 116 vs the Ausses in 1999, another very good knock vs a full power Aussie battalion.

But what then? His 124 vs Sri Lanka had no Muttiah, and a 50 strike rate. His 143 vs a full power Sri Lanka in 1997 is better, but still not impressive. Everyone around Tendulkar in that game was scoring tripple and double centuries. The track was horrible.

To find Tendy's greatest Test knocks outside India you have to go to South Africa, and his 169 vs Donald in 1997.

In 1996 he made a 177 vs England, but was that great? A strike rate of 40 vs a horrible attack? Nope.

We then have to go all the way to 1992 to find a next century, his 111 vs South Africa. Donald is here, but Tendulkar's strike rate is in the 40s. Given the circumstances, though, I would tentatively call this a great knock.

We then go to 1991, where he makes 114 and 148 vs Australia, not spectacular, but great in context.

When you look at these centuries outside of India and vs non-minnows, these are not the stats of a God (his centuries at home follow the same pattern). I would say only one of these is an all-time great innings. Chanderpaul has similar stats, and nobody treats him as a god. The idea that Tendulkar the test player is some kind of aggressive Test maverick (any other fast, dominating knocks after the 177?) is likewise a myth (before and after his elbow injury, his SR doesnt change).

In a test match, a strike rate of 50+ for a hundred is pretty good. Among batsmen only Sehwag and Richards, and now Warner are capable of getting test tons for fun, at very high strike rates on a consistent basis.

Anyways, I agree that Lara is slightly better than Sachin in tests, as Lara could destroy attacks faster than Tendulkar and has more match winning knocks. But Tendulkar was obviously a better batsman overall ( and of express fast bowling in particular) compared to Lara, which is the litmus test of a test batsman. You could dismiss an out of form Lara easily, but with Sachin even this is difficult. Lara was exemplary in attack, but Sachin was a master of both attack and defense. But when Lara is in his zone, Sachin can rarely keep pace with him, except for a small period between 1998-2000. Lara's peaks are obviously taller than Sachin, but Lara's troughs are lower than Sachin too.

 

[Fire Bird]

This should settle it. Those who havent seen bat in the 90s havent seen the run machine in full flow. SRT hasnt been the same since the tennis elbow and back problems.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

I dont know what you need further more than the above quoted post. Im not saying Sachin is better than Lara. IF you look Lara has a damn good average in that list too. The OP is using too many criteria and seems to put in criteria that he sees fit. Sounds like cherrypicking to me. If you go looking into stats with a bias in mind, you will see what you want to see. And too much analysis leads to analysis paralysis. Keep it simple.

Tendy and Lara were head and shoulders above the rest in the 90s. Some pick one over the other but there is not much to differentiate between the two. They were both different in style and approach but they were both lording over the others. I would rather take cricketers and ex-cricketers word on these two greats (they were saying great things about them in the 90s) rather than some selective stats from an internet poster.

 

[EC666]

That inns was very vital to team cause.so no logic in here too w.r.t your data filtering.then by filtering out data out side asia you have conveniently concealed Lara's record at SHARJAH and in India.why ?

This is not true. If I post a stat which subtracts Tendulkar's stats in India, I do the same to Lara, and subtract his stats batting at home in the West Indies.

first of all just because Zim is a minnow now doesn't mean that in the 1990's they were

That's true. I would say they were a minnow with a fairly good bowling unit. I would say WI from 2 years before Ambrose's retirement were as good as Zimbabwe, and basically minnows too. Regardless, Tendulkar's stats dont change when you remove Zimbabwe.

I dont know what you need further more than the above quoted post.

Why focus on 1990 to 1999? It hides Tendy's two subsequent dips. Change the dates slightly and different things arise.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

 

[Buffet]

as Lara could destroy attacks faster than Tendulkar and has more match winning knocks.

Lara has a grand total of 8 centuries in wins and out of those, 2 were against BD/ZIM.

 

[EC666]

has a grand total of 8 centuries in wins and out of those, 2 were against BD/ZIM.

I have the full stats for this.

________

Batting 1, 2 or 3 in victories minus minnows...

Tendulkar won 29 percent of ODI games, at an average of 56.
Lara won 22 percent of ODI games, at an average of 66.

Batting 1,2 or 3 minus minnows and outside of Asia...

Tendulkar won 8 percent of ODI games at an average of 67
Lara won 16 percent of ODI games at an average of 69.57. Lara's average goes up to 71 runs in wins in all regions minus Home Games.

__________________

In tests vs all teams (minus minnows and played in all regions), Tendulkar won 35 percent of his games with 14 centuries in 61 wins. His average in these wins is 54 runs. When Tendulkar wins, there is a 22 percent likelihood of him getting a century. Regardless of match outcome, vs all teams minus minnows (and played in all regions) Tendulkar has a 23 percent likelihood of getting a century.

In tests vs all teams (minus minnows and played in all regions), Lara won 22 percent of his games with 6 centuries in 30 wins. His average in these wins is 58 runs. When Lara wins, there is a 20 percent likelihood of him getting a century. Regardless of match outcome, vs all teams minus minnows (and played in all regions), Lara has a 25 percent likelihood of getting a century.

So Lara loses more matches, but scores more runs in wins. Tendulkar scores 2 percent more centuries in wins, and Lara has a 2 percent greater chance of getting a century in all games. In terms of innings, Lara and Tendulkar both score a century roughly every 6 innings.

Lara has 12 MOM awards in 131 games (9 percent), Tendulkar has 14 in 200 games (7 percent).

Lara scored 1000 runs in a calendar year 5 times in 16 years (31 percent of his career), Tendulkar scored 1000 runs in a calendar year 6 times in 24 years (25 percent of his career).

 

[Buffet]

has a grand total of 8 centuries in wins and out of those, 2 were against BD/ZIM.

I have the full stats for this.

________

...........

Comment was about Lara having more match winning knocks. Let's keep it simple and not complicate it with tons of stats. When all said and done Lara has 8 centuries in wins in the test format.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Comment was about Lara having more match winning knocks. Let's keep it simple and not complicate it with tons of stats. When all said and done Lara has 8 centuries in wins in the test format.

So essentially he has a whopping 6 match winning innings while he had bowlers like Walsh & Ambrose etc ?????? Thats it ??????????????? That's got to be a mistake I was sure he would've had more match winning innings that........

 

[SL_Fan]

In Tests nothing much between the two.
In LOIs Sachin comfortably ahead.
So overall Sachin is the better bat.

Simples!

 

[biggestdravidfan]

:******: Now read this , with both of your eyes open . Excluding minnows , Sachin has won 39% of odi's and 30% test . Lara - 36% odi's and 22% test. And people say Lara is the bigger match winner )

 

[Feroz Rawther]

That inns was very vital to team cause.so no logic in here too w.r.t your data filtering.then by filtering out data out side asia you have conveniently concealed Lara's record at SHARJAH and in India.why ?

This is not true. If I post a stat which subtracts Tendulkar's stats in India, I do the same to Lara, and subtract his stats batting at home in the West Indies.

first of all just because Zim is a minnow now doesn't mean that in the 1990's they were

That's true. I would say they were a minnow with a fairly good bowling unit. I would say WI from 2 years before Ambrose's retirement were as good as Zimbabwe, and basically minnows too. Regardless, Tendulkar's stats dont change when you remove Zimbabwe.

I dont know what you need further more than the above quoted post.

Why focus on 1990 to 1999? It hides Tendy's two subsequent dips. Change the dates slightly and different things arise.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

it is not important as to whether you included his record in India or not,but the fact remains that he was not so great in India and sharjah which is taken into account when his over all record as player is analysed.

i suggest you to go thru the career stats of players of ZIM and NZL teams that toured India
in the late 90's. you can see that Zim was almost 80% a team as that of NZL.I mean this is some thing we do not associate with a minnow team

 

[Romali_rotti]

I was under the impression Lara won a lot of matches, yikes I didnt know he hardly won many games.........

 

[Mamoon]

Most Pakistanis wouldn't have been on the Lara bandwagon if Tendulkar wasn't Indian. They keep fishing for something that will make Ponting and Lara look better than Tendulkar.

They even have the audacity to bring Inzamam into the equation who will all due respect, doesn't even belong in the same universe as the 3 batsmen mentioned both in terms of talent and output.

Bad news, but Tendulkar is comfortably the best batsman of his generation and its between Ponting and Lara for the second spot.

Who is number one isn't debatable, I'm afraid.

 

[shean1990]

Lara is the greatest TEST batsman of modern era

 

[IndianWillow]

Lara has a grand total of 8 centuries in wins and out of those, 2 were against BD/ZIM.

Yeah, but those knocks were so legendary that three of those innings figured in Wisden 100, and more interestingly all the three figured in top fifteen. Lara got ranked at 2,10 and 14, while Sachin's best innings (136 vs Pakistan) clocked in at 105 (outside the list 100). When three of your knocks figure in the top fifteen innings of all times, you are an outright match winner.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yeah, but those knocks were so legendary that three of those innings figured in Wisden 100, and more interestingly all the three figured in top fifteen. Lara got ranked at 2,10 and 14, while Sachin's best innings (136 vs Pakistan) clocked in at 105 (outside the list 100). When three of your knocks figure in the top fifteen innings of all times, you are an outright match winner.

Correct me if I wrong but didnt one of those Lara innings result in a draw of the match ?

 

[Romali_rotti]

Its funny looking at this thread, the trouble a Pakistani OP goes through to prove that Lara is better than SRT lol... Its good fun to watch, Lara has a huge Pakistani fan base thanks to SRT................

 

[Hitman]

This Sachin vs Lara debate is getting boring to the core. Both are greats of the game, but Sachin gets most of the honors

1. WISDEN rated him the 2nd best ever in Tests and ODI's.
2. Found a place in Benaud's World XI.
3. Found a place in Bradman's World XI.
4. Found a place in Cricinfo's World XI.
5. Got voted the cricketer of the generation by Cricinfo.
6. Was ranked #7 in 'ESPN Top 25 Greatest Cricketers of All Time'
7. Was ranked #9 in CMJ's 'Top 100 Test Cricketers of All Time'.

Lara was never honored in any of them lists ahead of Sachin.

 

[Hitman]

Its funny looking at this thread, the trouble a Pakistani OP goes through to prove that Lara is better than SRT lol... Its good fun to watch, Lara has a huge Pakistani fan base thanks to SRT................

Absolutely. At one point Ponting were their adopted hero. Then came Kallis. And remember when at one point they seemed to somehow convince themselves that Inzamam was just as good if not better? That's like comparing Danish Kaneria with Shane Warne )

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Yeah, but those knocks were so legendary that three of those innings figured in Wisden 100, and more interestingly all the three figured in top fifteen. Lara got ranked at 2,10 and 14, while Sachin's best innings (136 vs Pakistan) clocked in at 105 (outside the list 100). When three of your knocks figure in the top fifteen innings of all times, you are an outright match winner.

i don't know the criteria used to give mark to these inns, but 1 thing personnel is that i don't find that much of a difference between Lara's 153* placed at 2 and SRT's 136 placed at 105.
the fact is SRT lifted the team from a precarious 83 for 5 to 254 against a slightly better over all attack in much better bowling conditions because Saqlain was creating havoc all thru out.
yes Lara finished the game , but i feel lifting the team from such pathetic position to the brink of victory needs majority of marks.with only 16 runs to get and 3 wkts remaining it was really much in favour of India but the others bottled it.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Absolutely. At one point Ponting were their adopted hero. Then came Kallis. And remember when at one point they seemed to somehow convince themselves that Inzamam was just as good if not better? That's like comparing Danish Kaneria with Shane Warne )

That shows the impact of the man, that Pakistani fans have to go all guns blazing by picking batsmen from other countries....... SRT once again KING of KINGS in every essence from being on the field to driving his fans as well as his haters nuts ........... I dont think the West Indies supporters would be defending Lara with such passion

 

[Feroz Rawther]

another stat were SRT is definitely superior to Lara is in his consistancy spread over much more no: of inns than Lara in seam friendly countries .here are the details .first set is for SRT and 2nd for Lara.

>150 aggr: avg: <150 aggr: avg: total aggr: avg:
a 3 548 548 35 1261 38.21 38 1809 53.2
e 2 370 185 28 1205 44.63 30 1575 54.31
s 2 324 162 26 837 36.39 28 1161 46.44
n 1 160 160 17 682 42.63 18 842 49.52

a 3 685 228.33 32 784 24.5 35 1469 41.97
e 2 331 165.5 25 937 39.04 27 1268 48.76
s 1 202 202 17 639 37.59 18 841 46.72
n 0 0 0 11 406 36.9 11 406 36.9

here i have removed their huge inns scores(>150) in 4 countries to know how they performed in the rest of the inns in these countries. except in SAF where Lara leads slightly but in far lesser no: of inns it is SRT all the way in other 3 countries in no: of inns, aggregate and also avg:.that shows how better he was in the consistancy factor when compared to Lara

 

[W63L35]

Since this is Lara/Tendu debate........

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=191685

 

[IndianWillow]

i don't know the criteria used to give mark to these inns, but 1 thing personnel is that i don't find that much of a difference between Lara's 153* placed at 2 and SRT's 136 placed at 105.
the fact is SRT lifted the team from a precarious 83 for 5 to 254 against a slightly better over all attack in much better bowling conditions because Saqlain was creating havoc all thru out.
yes Lara finished the game , but i feel lifting the team from such pathetic position to the brink of victory needs majority of marks.with only 16 runs to get and 3 wkts remaining it was really much in favour of India but the others bottled it.

Finishing off the game obviously carries more marks. There too, had Lara got out at any stage, others would have bottled it and WI would have lost.

Secondly, WI win came over a champion Aussie side of the late 90s, which had in the previous two years won 14 and lost 6, versus Pakistan which had won 5 and lost 7 - it is easy to see who had a more daunting task - the Aussies were a nearly invincible team when Lara took them to this historic win. At 8/248, what chance would you give to WI to win against Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespie and MacGill? Yet Lara took them to win, through the absolutely nervous phase.

 

[Buffet]

Yeah, but those knocks were so legendary that three of those innings figured in Wisden 100, and more interestingly all the three figured in top fifteen. Lara got ranked at 2,10 and 14, while Sachin's best innings (136 vs Pakistan) clocked in at 105 (outside the list 100). When three of your knocks figure in the top fifteen innings of all times, you are an outright match winner.

Not sure why you are still saying that Lara has played more match winning knocks. Hypothetical example,

Player A: Got 25 centuries in wins.
Players B : Got 10 centuries in wins.

Where Wisdon ranked 3-4 centuries is irrelevant when it comes to deciding who is playing more match winning knocks. Player A is clearly playing more match winning knocks.

If you go by Wisdon then only thing you can say that Lara played 3 knocks which were better than Sachin's any knocks. That's the only rational conclusion you can draw here but Lara played very few match winning knocks. In fact, Lara is an odd case of an ATG batsman having only handful of match winning knocks despite playing 130+ tests with some ATG bowlers.

 

[Tusker]

Yeah, but those knocks were so legendary that three of those innings figured in Wisden 100, and more interestingly all the three figured in top fifteen. Lara got ranked at 2,10 and 14, while Sachin's best innings (136 vs Pakistan) clocked in at 105 (outside the list 100). When three of your knocks figure in the top fifteen innings of all times, you are an outright match winner.

that wisden list is a joke .... I have discussed it with its creator and he ran away when I started pointing out some major flaws in that list. The biggest flaw in that list is that there is no way 281 can rank at #7.

Here is another flaw :

Mark Waughs 116 is ranked at 22. Wheres the 136 by SRT is not rated at all ... both inngs have some startling similarities .

Waugh got out with 12 reqd to win but Healy finished the match against the bowling of Hansie Cronje. Pollock was missing from the attack for the entire inngs !!. The match did not even go into the 5th day.

Whereas SRT got out at 254 with 17 reqd to win and the Rest folded against arguably much better bowlers in Akram and Saqlain bowling on a fifth day pitch.

So anyone rating 116 so much higher than SRT's 136 does not understand cricket at all.

Waugh 116
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63828.html

SRT 136
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63743.html

 

[Romali_rotti]

Finishing off the game obviously carries more marks. There too, had Lara got out at any stage, others would have bottled it and WI would have lost.

Secondly, WI win came over a champion Aussie side of the late 90s, which had in the previous two years won 14 and lost 6, versus Pakistan which had won 5 and lost 7 - it is easy to see who had a more daunting task - the Aussies were a nearly invincible team when Lara took them to this historic win. At 8/248, what chance would you give to WI to win against Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespie and MacGill? Yet Lara took them to win, through the absolutely nervous phase.

Can you reply to post 106...

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Finishing off the game obviously carries more marks. There too, had Lara got out at any stage, others would have bottled it and WI would have lost.

Secondly, WI win came over a champion Aussie side of the late 90s, which had in the previous two years won 14 and lost 6, versus Pakistan which had won 5 and lost 7 - it is easy to see who had a more daunting task - the Aussies were a nearly invincible team when Lara took them to this historic win. At 8/248, what chance would you give to WI to win against Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespie and MacGill? Yet Lara took them to win, through the absolutely nervous phase.

i agreed Lara's knock deserved more marks because he finished the game from 248 for 8.but we must not forget that the over all bowling attack strength was almost the same in both cases.but the picth condition was far tougher for SRT in that it was a 5th day Indian pitch with ball turning immensely and with unpredictable bounce too.that means not only Saqlain, but handling Akram too was much tougher than from the normal.so while Lara's knock at 2 is justified Sachin's knock at 105 is quite unjustified.

 

[Romali_rotti]

For me the Lara 100 vs Mcgrath and Co to win the match is slightly ahead of SRTs 100 in Chennai only because India lost. However SRTs innings not rated at all ??? OH PLEASE, it was easily one of the top 5 innings ever played PERIOD, if Moin Khan didnt take the greatest bumped catch of all time to get Ganguly in that test match India may have won... Match winning is a team game along with a bit of luck not just about 1 person, had Lara's regulation slip catch been taken in the slips WI wouldve lost.........

 

[Rickz]

Always maintained that Lara was the better Test match batsman. Best I've ever seen, a real genius.

Tendulkar's test average away from home is 55....while Lara's is 48!

Lara did not do anything in Australia in 2003 in the 5 match test series also in 2008. Tendulkar also averages higher overall, despite Lara's 375, 400 all of those 200's.

 

[Mobashir]

Tendulkar's test average away from home is 55....while Lara's is 48!

Lara did not do anything in Australia in 2003 in the 5 match test series also in 2008. Tendulkar also averages higher overall, despite Lara's 375, 400 all of those 200's.

Because Tendulkar punished poor attack severely.
Especially Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

 

[Rickz]

No.

Lara never scored a century against Wasim, Waqur, Donald and averages just 30 against wasim and waqur and never faced Ambrose and Walsh. Also Lara played poorly in Indian dustballs, averaging just 33, those 400, 375 just boosts his average. Tendulkar played well in both formats and scored vital knocks in important world cup semi final matches, tournament finals. In all world cup must win games Lara flopped.

 

[Scrolln]

Because Tendulkar punished poor attack severely.
Especially Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Tendulkar has a better test record than Lara in Aus,Eng,NZ,SA,WI (compared to Lara's in India) and arguably in SL too.

Lara had to wait till the great Wasim/Waqar duo retire to do anything of significance in Pak, when they were playing his aveage was languishing in the lower 20's. And even then Lara did not face the next best Pak bowlers in Akhtar/Asif but feasted on an attack comprising of Gul/Nazir/Razzaq/Malik/Kaneria.

Lara's overseas test record evidently pales in comparison to SRT's, something i haven't seen many PPérs admit.

 

[Rickz]

With Lara having no Test century against Wasim, Waqur Donald, having never faced Ambrose and Walsh, with Tendulkar having a better record away from home in Aus, Eng, NZ, SA, then Lara, Lara averaging just 30 against Wasim, Waqur. Lara averaging 33 in India's dustballs.

Also never mentioned in Beneuds starting 11, Bradman's starting 11, top 25 cricketers of all time.

And Tendulkar scoring in vital tournament final hundreds, must win world cup matches while in comparison Lara flopped as well as Tendulkar having most man of the match awards, highest run scorer in world cup's, man of the series in Australia 1999, this surely ends the debate of Tendulkar vs Lara................

I've been on this board since 2005 and many PP's have ignored this.

 

[Sandeep]

These two guys were the best batsmen of their generation. It's sad to see posters putting them down just for point scoring. Respect and cherish their efforts, or choose to ignore.

 

[Hitman]

Lara = The most loved adopted hero of Pak fans.

 

[SL_Fan]

In Tests there's nothing much separating the two. Sachin performed better away against strong attacks. Lara performed even better against strong attacks at home. Most things just cancel each other out pretty much.

 

[Mobashir]

Tendulkar has a better test record than Lara in Aus,Eng,NZ,SA,WI (compared to Lara's in India) and arguably in SL too.

Lara had to wait till the great Wasim/Waqar duo retire to do anything of significance in Pak, when they were playing his aveage was languishing in the lower 20's. And even then Lara did not face the next best Pak bowlers in Akhtar/Asif but feasted on an attack comprising of Gul/Nazir/Razzaq/Malik/Kaneria.

Lara's overseas test record evidently pales in comparison to SRT's, something i haven't seen many PPérs admit.

To each his own favorite, but let me be clear.
I don't necessarely rate aways performances higher than home performances.
You also can't rate a hundred in England and Australia higher than a hundred in Pakistan, WI or India.
Every match is different with different conditions.
I think I have gone very deep down analyzing both players against every good bowler, in every condition and my personal judgment is that Brian Lara was a better batsman than Tendulkar. Even Ponting was better for me.

Lara = The most loved adopted hero of Pak fans.

As always, garbage posting from you! Well done, you have been proud to your usual self.

 

[StreetSmart]

They both were great no need to compare them. I dont think there should be any comparison in between players they play in different conditions different bowlers. Sachin`s stats goes down a little because of his tennis elbow issue time otherwise I dont think there was any difference in class of both batsmen. Batsman class can be seen in crunch games where he is under pressure and took away the whole game single handed.

For eg Younis khan have More centuries then Miandad or Inzi it doesn't mean he is greater player then them. It is absolutely rubbish and insulting when people compare two players on their stats. That`s why I like [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]`s Comments he always rate a player on his performance not his stats

 

[miandadrules]

Tendulkar's test average away from home is 55....while Lara's is 48!

Lara did not do anything in Australia in 2003 in the 5 match test series also in 2008. Tendulkar also averages higher overall, despite Lara's 375, 400 all of those 200's.

Easier to average 55 when you didn't have to face a peak Waqar and Wasim.

 

[Rickz]

Easier to average 55 when you didn't have to face a peak Waqar and Wasim.

What a rubbish argument, its like saying Lara never faced Ambrose and Walsh while Tendulkar had to face other great bowlers like Donald, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Murali as well as Wasim and Waqur and scored hundreds in Australia and South Africa. The 90s had the best bowlers between the 2 era's and Tendulkar averaging an astounding 58 in that era and Bangladesh did not even play test cricket!

Well Lara's never even scored a hundred against Wasim, Waqur. He averages lower than Tendulkar against PAK! Forget Wasim, Waqur, no hundred against Donald too.

Stats tell you that Tendulkar has a better record against Lara vs AUS, NZ, ENG, SA, SRI l.

 

[miandadrules]

What a rubbish argument, its like saying Lara never faced Ambrose and Walsh while Tendulkar had to face other great bowlers like Donald, Steyn, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Murali as well as Wasim and Waqur and scored hundreds in Australia and South Africa. The 90s had the best bowlers between the 2 era's and Tendulkar averaging an astounding 58 in that era and Bangladesh did not even play test cricket!

Well Lara's never even scored a hundred against Wasim, Waqur. He averages lower than Tendulkar against PAK! Forget Wasim, Waqur, no hundred against Donald too.

Stats tell you that Tendulkar has a better record against Lara vs AUS, NZ, ENG, SA, SRI l.

Obviously he averages higher against Pakistan when he didn't face Wasim and Waqar for an entire decade. In fact he never faced the two W's remotely close to their peak. Whereas, Lara played them in both formats when they were at their absolute best.

Tendulkar didn't face Ambrose in a Test till 1997, which was at the tail end of his career.

That means Tendulkar didn't face the three best bowlers of his era at anywhere near their peaks.

 

[Rickz]

Tendulkar gets the edge due to his performances against top bowlers in top countries. Lara is also an amazing bastman and I enjoyed his batting, He scored hundred in 96 world cup quarter final and first round match vs South Africa in 2003 world cup, he did well against Australia in 99 and his 153 not out against Austrlaia is very special.

However, Tendulkar was more consistent, has better record away from home and against top teams away from home than Lara and Lara having no hundreds against Wasim, Waqur Donald and his ave against Pak and in India is around 30, 33.

Tendulkar has played good knocks under pressure for example chasing 384 to win test match against England, scoring 169 vs Donald when India was 54-5, scoring 236 when India was 84-5 chasing 274 against Pak 99, that counter attacking innings 155 vs Australia 98, his 145 vs Steyn.

 

[EliteCynical]

SRT from the 98 Aus tour of India was invincible, he was scoring runs at will against everything Aus was throwing at him. I could be wrong but SRT on that kind of form will school anything or anyone.........

McGrath did not play in that tour. Doesn't take away Sachin's brilliance though. McGrath has had the wood on all top batters in the world. He was a genius, so no shame in getting out to him.

 

[miandadrules]

Tendulkar gets the edge due to his performances against top bowlers in top countries. Lara is also an amazing bastman and I enjoyed his batting, He scored hundred in 96 world cup quarter final and first round match vs South Africa in 2003 world cup, he did well against Australia in 99 and his 153 not out against Austrlaia is very special.

However, Tendulkar was more consistent, has better record away from home and against top teams away from home than Lara and Lara having no hundreds against Wasim, Waqur Donald and his ave against Pak and in India is around 30, 33.

Tendulkar has played good knocks under pressure for example chasing 384 to win test match against England, scoring 169 vs Donald when India was 54-5, scoring 236 when India was 84-5 chasing 274 against Pak 99, that counter attacking innings 155 vs Australia 98, his 145 vs Steyn.

When it comes to iconic, under pressure knocks there is no comparison. Lara wins hands down.

I'm not espousing that Tendulkar was inferior to Lara or vice versa, merely pointing out the fallacy of your justification.

 

[Rickz]

[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION],

Despite this, Lara still averages 30 vs Pak in tests having no hundreds against them at their peak and no hundred against Donald at his peak and his average vs top countries away from home is lower than Tendulkar's. It's not Tendulkar's fault their were no tests against Pak until 99, and he scored 136 in that Calcutta test.

Tendulkar's faced Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Steyn at their peak.

 

[Buffet]

Tendulkar didn't face Ambrose in a Test till 1997, which was at the tail end of his career.

That means Tendulkar didn't face the three best bowlers of his era at anywhere near their peaks.

Ambrose 1997-2000 - Averaged 19.62 - SR 54 with 7 5-fers. It's better than his career record. Ambrose didn't decline near his retirement.

 

[miandadrules]

[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION],

Despite this, Lara still averages 30 vs Pak in tests having no hundreds against them at their peak and no hundred against Donald at his peak and his average vs top countries away from home is lower than Tendulkar's. It's not Tendulkar's fault their were no tests against Pak until 99, and he scored 136 in that Calcutta test.

Tendulkar's faced Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Steyn at their peak.

That list is shrinking with every post.

That 136 was against two bowlers who were 3 years removed from their best. Both W's were shells of their former selves. War was coming back of a career ending back injury and was remodelling himself in to a line and length bowler. Your point of Lara averaging 30 is obsolete because Tendulkar never even faced then, so there in nothing to compare.

Lara has more iconic knocks against McGrath and Warne than Tendulkar.

He dominated Murali on a tour of Sri Lanka.

Once again I am merely pointing the flaws in your reasoning.

 

[miandadrules]

Ambrose 1997-2000 - Averaged 19.62 - SR 54 with 7 5-fers. It's better than his career record. Ambrose didn't decline near his retirement.

Probably because he hardly toured. 22 of his 34 Tests were at home. 10 of the other 12 were in England, Australia and South Africa. There is no way he was as potent a bowler as he was in the early to mid 90s. That's not to say he was a trundler but it was evident to any one who saw him that he wasn't the force he was. In fact towards the end of their careers, Walsh was the chief destroyer.

 

[Buffet]

Probably because he hardly toured. 22 of his 34 Tests were at home. 10 of the other 12 were in England, Australia and South Africa.

I saw him very closely due to being a huge fan. He was extremely potent till the end. So Ambrose has one third of wickets in last third of his career. He has 1/3rd of 5-fers as well. In away 12 tests in the same period he averaged 22. Walsh certainly developed as a bowler in later years but that's irreverent to the point we are discussing.

When all said and done, if a bowler is averaging 19.xx in 30-40 Tests, then it's weird to talk about him being in decline.

Let's do an exercise. You find 35 tests for Ambrose which you think as his peak. Then we can compare it with this period and see how much he declined. Sounds fair?

 

[IndianWillow]

Ambrose didn't have well marked peaks as a bowler. He was very consistent throughout his career.

 

[Rickz]

Lara has that amazing 153 not out against Australia, dropped by Healy with around 6 runs to go, taking nothing from this amazing knock. Also his hundred in that tour as well.

You did not reply to Lara averaging 33 on Indian dustbowls were to play well in India is also a true test of a batsman. Also he has no hundreds against Donald at his peak. No excuses, still no hundreds against Wasim and Waqur and a poorer averaging then Tendulkar facing them despite playing more times. Tendulkar had to play in injuries in important games as well has his tennis-elbow against McGrath 2004.

All said about stats vs Ambrose, Tendulkar has hundreds against Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Steyn at their peak and also Wasim, Waqur

As for highest run scorer in Sri Lanka, Tendulkar was man of the series in Australia 99, facing McGrath, Warne, Brett Lee which Sachin was given shoulder before wicket in one game. Taking nothing away from Lara, he contributed nothing when the series was alive in Australia in the five match test series and three match test series against them in 2008. Tendulkar also scored 155 in 98 against them.

Tendulkar has 140 in Cape Town 2001, 169 vs Donald when India was 54-5 in SA, 145 vs Steyn at his best. Other knocks as stated are 100 chasing 384 vs Eng, 134 vs Pak against Wasim, Waqur when India was 84-5.

If you add odi's then Lara did not turn up in all of his must win world cup games. If he contributed, WI would have been in the SF 92, final in 96, QF 99, QF 03, all pressure cooker games were as Tendulkar was the highest run scorer for India in 96 and 2011 SF and in 3 world cup's. Viv Richards did well in odi, world cups, so did Imran Khan in world cup semi final 87, final 92, Wasim Akram in world cup games, Shane Warne world cup 99, Steve Waugh 87 semi final if you get the gist, big players turn up in important games.

 

[Buffet]

Lara has that amazing 153 not out against Australia, dropped by Healy with around 6 runs to go, taking nothing from this amazing knock. Also his hundred in that tour as well.

You did not reply to Lara averaging 33 on Indian dustbowls were to play well in India is also a true test of a batsman. Also he has no hundreds against Donald at his peak. No excuses, still no hundreds against Wasim and Waqur and a poorer averaging then Tendulkar facing them despite playing more times. Tendulkar had to play in injuries in important games as well has his tennis-elbow against McGrath 2004.

All said about stats vs Ambrose, Tendulkar has hundreds against Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Steyn at their peak and also Wasim, Waqur

As for highest run scorer in Sri Lanka, Tendulkar was man of the series in Australia 99, facing McGrath, Warne, Brett Lee which Sachin was given shoulder before wicket in one game. Taking nothing away from Lara, he contributed nothing when the series was alive in Australia in the five match test series and three match test series against them in 2008. Tendulkar also scored 155 in 98 against them.

Tendulkar has 140 in Cape Town 2001, 169 vs Donald when India was 54-5 in SA, 145 vs Steyn at his best. Other knocks as stated are 100 chasing 384 vs Eng, 134 vs Pak against Wasim, Waqur when India was 84-5.

If you add odi's then Lara did not turn up in all of his must win world cup games. If he contributed, WI would have been in the SF 92, final in 96, QF 99, QF 03, all pressure cooker games were as Tendulkar was the highest run scorer for India in 96 and 2011 SF and in 3 world cup's. Viv Richards did well in odi, world cups, so did Imran Khan in world cup semi final 87, final 92, Wasim Akram in world cup games, Shane Warne world cup 99, Steve Waugh 87 semi final if you get the gist, big players turn up in important games.

Why are you mixing test and ODI? Gap in the test format was not that big between these two.

 

[Stallion__]

Lara has that amazing 153 not out against Australia, dropped by Healy with around 6 runs to go, taking nothing from this amazing knock.

Is that necessary to point that out, everytime?

Sachin too got reprieve (missed stumping) in his Chennai knock when he was close to his century.

Missed chances are the part of the game, nothing out of ordinary here.

 

[miandadrules]

I saw him very closely due to being a huge fan. He was extremely potent till the end. So Ambrose has one third of wickets in last third of his career. He has 1/3rd of 5-fers as well. In away 12 tests in the same period he averaged 22. Walsh certainly developed as a bowler in later years but that's irreverent to the point we are discussing.

When all said and done, if a bowler is averaging 19.xx in 30-40 Tests, then it's weird to talk about him being in decline.

Let's do an exercise. You find 35 tests for Ambrose which you think as his peak. Then we can compare it with this period and see how much he declined. Sounds fair?

Firstly, where did I use the word decline?

1990-94 he was a beast.

Are you honestly saying he maintained his potency throughout his career? That he wasn't more potent in the early 90's?

I'm not saying he was poor in 1997, I am saying he was a far more dangerous a proposition earlier, which was the basic gist of my point. The poster claimed that Tendulkar had dominated all the best bowlers of his era including Wasim, Waqar and Ambrose, when he clearly didn't face them at their best.

If you did follow Ambrose's career you should be aware that he wanted to retire in 1998 but was persuaded to carry on due to the poor state of Windies cricket at the time.

 

[as-95]

Great opening post. Lara was the superior Test player although Sachin was superior in ODI's.

 

[Buffet]

Firstly, where did I use the word decline?

1990-94 he was a beast.

Are you honestly saying he maintained his potency throughout his career? That he wasn't more potent in the early 90's?

I'm not saying he was poor in 1997, I am saying he was a far more dangerous a proposition earlier, which was the basic gist of my point. The poster claimed that Tendulkar had dominated all the best bowlers of his era including Wasim, Waqar and Ambrose, when he clearly didn't face them at their best.

If you did follow Ambrose's career you should be aware that he wanted to retire in 1998 but was persuaded to carry on due to the poor state of Windies cricket at the time.

His point about SRT dominating Wasim/Waqar is absurd because they never played each other in the test format when they were in peak. SRT did play Ambrose when he was doing excellent. Ambrose was surely better in early 90s but different is not really big enough to point out when talking about ambrose and other batsmen facing them. That was my only point. For me, apart from first few series, Ambrose was doing very well and he was very difficult bowler till he retired. That's not true for many ATG bowlers.

SRT also didn't dominate Murali during his peak. Actually during the face off, SRT best came when Murali was not that effective and Murali's best came when SRT was not that effective.

 

[Chrish]

Wouldn't really use dust bowls argument against Lara he is the top player of spin I have seen along with Viru

Anyways both his 153 and 213 innings wouldn't have resulted in wins if it weren't for bowlers doing their job. Walsh reduced Oz to rubbles in 2nd inning of 153 match

To say that Lara single handly won those matches is a very common misconception among fans

 

[Rickz]

I actually really like Lara. I remember Brian Lara cricket 97/99 on Playstation and I fell sorry for the WI, with Lara, Hooper, Chanderpaul, Adams, Ambrose, Walsh, WI should've done a lot better.

However, as stated Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara and a better player of fast bowling in my opinion. Tendulkar was also the dominant player in terms of the sheer amount of runs scored and hundreds. Also Tendulkar's stats against Lara overseas from home is superior.

Also has the above poster mentioned, the WI did have two great fast bowlers, were as Kumble was India's best bowler.

Ok, yes Tendulkar did not face Wasim, Waqur at their peak. However, he did face Donald, Warne (who both say Tendulkar were the best batsman they bowled to), Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Murali at their peak.

 

[miandadrules]

Wouldn't really use dust bowls argument against Lara he is the top player of spin I have seen along with Viru

Anyways both his 153 and 213 innings wouldn't have resulted in wins if it weren't for bowlers doing their job. Walsh reduced Oz to rubbles in 2nd inning of 153 match

To say that Lara single handly won those matches is a very common misconception among fans

It's not that he did it single-handedly. It's that he 153 not out in the 4th innings against probably the 2nd greatest team ever when none of this team mates past 40.

Add to this that he was the captain coming off a humiliating first test loss with the home crowd baying for his blood. His 213 was made with this backdrop and single handedly turned the tide of that series.

 

[Rickz]

Lara's 153 is very special. One of the greatest knocks ever.

However, his 5 match series where he did nothing and his 2008 series against Australia is still ignored. I'm not taking away anything from Lara, if Tendulkar did nothing in a five match series in Australia, people would be going for his blood, their would be threads saying Tendulkar flopped against McGrath in a five match series, he cannot score when the series is still alive, under pressure, especially when you score a zero trying to save a match in the 4th innings.
.

 

[Chrish]

Didn't deny it was a great knock., it's just some people use that match winning argument to downgrade a certain player

When your bowling is too pathetic it's hard to win a game on ur own

 

[Romali_rotti]

Missed chances are the part of the game, nothing out of ordinary here.

Missed chances are part of the game, agreed but I can argue Moin Khan taking the greatest bumped catch of all time (Ganguly) was the reason why Pakistan won the game causing the SRT 136 to go in a losing cause...

 

[Bilal7]

Missed chances are part of the game, agreed but I can argue Moin Khan taking the greatest bumped catch of all time (Ganguly) was the reason why Pakistan won the game causing the SRT 136 to go in a losing cause...

And I can claim that Pakistan dropping Sachin four-five times in the Mohali semi-final is the reason for Sachin's scratchy knock being considered a "match-winning" one.

It all balances out.

 

[Romali_rotti]

And I can claim that Pakistan dropping Sachin four-five times in the Mohali semi-final is the reason for Sachin's scratchy knock being considered a "match-winning" one.

It all balances out.

No it doesn't, One was pure blant cheating, other was your team's deficiencies

 

[miandadrules]

No it doesn't, One was pure blant cheating, other was your team's deficiencies

Maybe the umpires felt guilty.

 

[Rickz]

I must've seen countless threads regarding Tendulkar or Tendulkar vs Lara and the one criteria they use to bring Sachin down is in their opinion his inability to play under pressure or score a match winning innings.

If Tendulkar never won world cup 2011, people would always use his 4 in 03 world cup final as an excuse to bring him down and comparisons to be made were as other legends performed in important WC games, PP's have done this to him in the past.

The fact is Tendlkar has played match winning innings and knocks under pressure and great knocks can go in losing innings.

Tendulkar scored 62 in must win game against Sri Lanka SF WC 96. 98 vs Pak WC 2003. 110 vs SA WC 2011, 50 vs Aus QF 2011, 84 vs Pak WC SF 2011. He has also scored 100 Sharjah final 98, 67 vs SA Titan Cup 97. 142 vs Sri L final 2008, 100 final vs Zim 98, 100 vs Aus CB series final 2008.

Also his 134 vs Pak Ind 84-5 99, 169 vs Sa when India were reduced to 54-5, his 100 vs Eng chasing 384, his 155 vs Aus 98, his 145 vs Steyn, his 193 at Headingly 2002. He was man of the series in Aus 99 facing both McGrath and Warne.

Viv Richards turned up in important games, so did Imran Khan WC final 92, SF 87, Wasim Akram WC final 92. Warne WC SF, final 99, Steve Waugh, Ponting, Kapil Dev, Maindad Wc 92, Sharjah final. Crowe WC SF 92 NZ's greatest ever batsman, McGrath.

If you take WC must win games and tournament finals, then Tendulkar has played more important innings under pressure, which the above poster mentioned Lara wins knocks under pressure hands down in comparison.

 

[miandadrules]

I must've seen countless threads regarding Tendulkar or Tendulkar vs Lara and the one criteria they use to bring Sachin down is in their opinion his inability to play under pressure or score a match winning innings.

If Tendulkar never won world cup 2011, people would always use his 4 in 03 world cup final as an excuse to bring him down and comparisons to be made were as other legends performed in important WC games, PP's have done this to him in the past.

The fact is Tendlkar has played match winning innings and knocks under pressure and great knocks can go in losing innings.

Tendulkar scored 62 in must win game against Sri Lanka SF WC 96. 98 vs Pak WC 2003. 110 vs SA WC 2011, 50 vs Aus QF 2011, 84 vs Pak WC SF 2011. He has also scored 100 Sharjah final 98, 67 vs SA Titan Cup 97. 142 vs Sri L final 2008, 100 final vs Zim 98, 100 vs Aus CB series final 2008.

Also his 134 vs Pak Ind 84-5 99, 169 vs Sa when India were reduced to 54-5, his 100 vs Eng chasing 384, his 155 vs Aus 98, his 145 vs Steyn, his 193 at Headingly 2002. He was man of the series in Aus 99 facing both McGrath and Warne.

Viv Richards turned up in important games, so did Imran Khan WC final 92, SF 87, Wasim Akram WC final 92. Warne WC SF, final 99, Steve Waugh, Ponting, Kapil Dev, Maindad Wc 92, Sharjah final. Crowe WC SF 92 NZ's greatest ever batsman, McGrath.

If you take WC must win games and tournament finals, then Tendulkar has played more important innings under pressure, which the above poster mentioned Lara wins knocks under pressure hands down in comparison.

Getting desperate now.

 

[Rickz]

Excluding minnows, Lara has won 22% of his tests as one poster mentioned, never scored a hundred vs Donald.

 

[Rickz]

Not really, people ignore Tendulkar's knocks under pressure and his ability to score in big games in comparison to Lara.