What's new

Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar's stats vs best bowlers

as-95 said:
Lara was the superior Test player. Just like AB is the superior ODI player compared to Sachin. I know it's hard for you Indians to take, but you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who once said that Indians and South Africans who pick Donald over Waqar are jealous. :)))
 
Yes, Amla is a South African of Indian descent - a glance at his Cricinfo profile wouldn't hurt.
 
^^^ I don't think Amla likes to be called 'Indian' too much. Especially when most South African Cricketers are not originally..'African Descent'. Like Amla they also came to South Africa in last 100 or so years. (Some may be more early).
But they are not specified 'English', 'French' etc (!) So why this to Amla' ?
 
Romali_rotti said:
.....
Click to expand...

You used the word inhuman not me. Which reflects you're mindset. I said that Lara reached heights that few batsmen have but he was inconsistent whereas Tendulkar was great day in, day out.

Where have used Tendulkar not facing the 2 Ws as an excuse? This is indicative of your approach to this entire discussion. My posts were in response to those who were comparing their respective performances against them. Which I reasonably pointed out were not comparable.

Save me the billion people fable because ultimately what matters is performances on the field. Tendulkar was consistently great whereas Lara never showed that kind of consistency but did have higher peaks.
 
Romali_rotti said:
Vice Versa ? :))) Umm naturally Indian fans would support SRT (their own countrymen) lol.. :)).. However Pakistanis going to war for a West Indian all because SRT is India ,, Awwww its cuteee .....
Click to expand...

So a Pakistani is incapable of independent thought. Tendulkar is so great that the only reason anyone would rate Lara above Tendulkar would be due to prejudice?

I guess that is one way of whitewashing an analysis of the two if it doesn't go in your favour.
 
Just like AB is the superior ODI player compared to Sachin.
Click to expand...

It's unfair to compare across eras like this, especially in ODIs. Everything ABDV is, he is because of the trails blazed by ODI batsmen in the 90s. He may be taller, but only because he's standing on their shoulders.
 
Romali_rotti said:
We should confirm with Buffett, I have no issues either way.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is appropriate to be discussing his ethnicity or anything personal without his consent. If you want him to state it in the forum, it's best you contact him directly and request he does so.
 
Romali_rotti said:
....
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'You wouldn't care'? Please don't project your prejudice on to me. I have been on PP pretty much from its inception, so feel free to point to a single thing that indicates any prejudice on my part.

So saying all support for Lara from a Pakistani in relation to Tendulkar is because of prejudice is not whitewashing?
 
Why are people ignoring the fact that Lara had one of the best bowlers in his team thus he was batting against 1 less good bowling team while tendu had one of the worst bowling attacks in his team so he was batting against all the good bowling teams.

Just for this reason tendu is better than Lara and I'm honestly no die hard tendu fan. Hate it when Pakistanis just like to hate on one of the greatest cricketers because he's Indian. Judge neutrally.
 
CricFan2012 said:
Why are people ignoring the fact that Lara had one of the best bowlers in his team thus he was batting against 1 less good bowling team while tendu had one of the worst bowling attacks in his team so he was batting against all the good bowling teams.

Just for this reason tendu is better than Lara and I'm honestly no die hard tendu fan. Hate it when Pakistanis just like to hate on one of the greatest cricketers because he's Indian. Judge neutrally.
Click to expand...

By the same token Tendulkar never faced two of the best bowlers in Wasim and Waqar for a decade. It has to work both ways.
 
CricFan2012 said:
Why are people ignoring the fact that Lara had one of the best bowlers in his team thus he was batting against 1 less good bowling team while tendu had one of the worst bowling attacks in his team so he was batting against all the good bowling teams.

Just for this reason tendu is better than Lara and I'm honestly no die hard tendu fan. Hate it when Pakistanis just like to hate on one of the greatest cricketers because he's Indian. Judge neutrally.
Click to expand...

Ok, just do an activity to be fair to Sachin.

Ignore Sachin's record against WI and Lara's record against Indian bowlers, that would make them facing same bowling attacks, and then see the result.
 
It has to work both ways.
Click to expand...

Yes. Also Lara also only played 4 games vs minnows, and much less SL and UAE games, conditions good for piling on big scores.

Tendulkar also only faced Amby in one tour, and the game he made his highest total in, Walsh was absent.

Lara faced the two Ws in 2 tours of 3 tests. He did fairly well in the first tour (1993) and did absolutely nothing in the second tour (1997). During 1997, though, he hammered Wasim in ODIs. I remember he had a great day/night match in Sharjah, scoring a rapid 88 with non-stop 4s and 6s, and had a century vs the Ws in Australia a month prior.

Lara vs the Ws was great watching. They didn't trouble him too much in ODIS or tests in the early 90s, but in the 97 tour, Lara couldn't do anything at all. He would come in with his openers gone for no runs, and be forced to bat slow. The Ws then usually tied him up LBW or clean bowled him. In ODIs the rivalry was closer, though they won most battles.
 
miandadrules said:
The irony is that a number of Indian poster have shown in this thread that they can have a reasoned discussion about the topic once the initial emotional exchanges subside.
Click to expand...

Their first defensive instinct after they remotely found anything against Sachin, is to start labeling others biased or partial, a bit surprising for me cuz I though, a person only use this defensive trick as the last resort when he fail to prove his point.

If they could control their emotions while debating for SRT, they can do a much better job.
 
miandadrules said:
And we're back to square one.

Maybe you need to analyse you're own prejudices and that maybe you view things through jingoistic, nationalistic prism.
Click to expand...

I do not have a prejudice;

-I think Wasim Akram is an ATG,

-Imran Khan is a ATG top 3 bowler...

- Salman Butt is a very elegant batsmen with freaky unhuman wrist work.

- Akhtar is the most exciting fast bowler to watch.

- Saqlain is the best off spinner of all time and the only bowler with a legal Doosra...........


- I also feel SRT & Lara are equal :angel:
 
Romali_rotti said:
I do not have a prejudice;

-I think Wasim Akram is an ATG,

-Imran Khan is a ATG top 3 bowler...

- Salman Butt is a very elegant batsmen with freaky unhuman wrist work.

- Akhtar is the most exciting fast bowler to watch.

- Saqlain is the best off spinner of all time and the only bowler with a legal Doosra...........


- I also feel SRT & Lara are equal :angel:
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with which cricketer you like. It's more to do about your sweeping statements about Pakistanis.
 
[MENTION=428]Romali_rotti[/MENTION]'s [MENTION=138483]Stallion__[/MENTION] [MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION]

I will ban you guys for life, if I saw 1 more comment from you people which is off topic. I had to literally clean this thread.

So last warning Guys
 
Lara had the better record against McGrath, despite getting out to him a lot. He scored some of his best hundreds against him. Even though Tendulkar played McGrath well, and the only reason his average looks low is because he was rushed back to play when not even 50% fit in 2004 series, Lara was better. No question here.

Neither was good against Donald, but Tendulkar had some special performances against Donald in 90s. eg: 169 at Capetown, 111 as a teenager in 1992 out of a team total of 227, a brilliant 97 at Mumbai (one of the most overlooked great Tendulkar innings as that was a very difficult pitch).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63870.html

Lara despite averaging slightly more than Tendulkar vs Donald, doesn't have even one truly standout performance against him. Many of his runs also came in meaningless situations when the match was already dead , like in the 1999 0-5 whtewash. This one goes to Tendulkar, quite easily, in my opinion.

Against the Ws, none of them were special, but both played some very good knocks. Tendulkar's 136 at Chennai (with Waqar not in his prime, but Wasim bowled very well that series), 57 at Sialkot to save the match in the second innings when India were struggling at 38-4 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63516.html). Waqar was obviously not at his peak, but Tendulkar was a 16 year old so he should get a lot of credit. . Lara had one exceptional innings against Ws at their peak in 1993 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63606.html), but little else. This is virtually a tie.

Apart from this Lara handled Murali better than Sachin (Sachin never dominated Murali quite like lara did in 2001, then again no one did). But imo, Sachin handled Warne better. Never ever looked in any trouble and hardly gave him chances.

A big point in favour of Sachin, though, are his performances vs Steyn. All his 4 hundreds vs him were topclass, especially 146 at Capetown and 100 at Nagpur (both in matches where Steyn was absolutely unplayable). While Sachin also did well vs Ambrose and Walsh, I won't use that as a point in his favour as Lara was superb vs them in Caribbean first class scene.

Overall, it's very close, and seeing everyone fight over this like babies and argue that "only neutral votes should count for Sachin" is laughable. Both Tendulkar and Lara had approximately similar struggles against the best bowlrs, but as you would expect from batsmen of their greatness, they also played some great innings vs them. Choosing either one over the other is fair.
 
Acricketfan said:
At least no one is whining about ambrose like you are doing for wasim.
Click to expand...

At the very least follow the thread.

The poster said Lara never faced Ambrose, when comparing him to Tendulkar. By the same token it would be reasonable also to take in to consideration that Tendulkar also never truly faced Wasim and Waqar.

Is this a difficult concept for you to comprehend?
 
miandadrules said:
At the very least follow the thread.

The poster said Lara never faced Ambrose, when comparing him to Tendulkar. By the same token it would be reasonable also to take in to consideration that Tendulkar also never truly faced Wasim and Waqar.

Is this a difficult concept for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...

I do not understand why 2 players have to play against the same bowlers in order to judge how they perform against great bowlers. If Lara played against some ATG bowler and did very well (or failed), it should not be discounted in comparison with Sachin’s ability to play great bowlers just because Sachin did not bat against that specific bowler himself.
 
Sachin136 said:
I do not understand why 2 players have to play against the same bowlers in order to judge how they perform against great bowlers. If Lara played against some ATG bowler and did very well (or failed), it should not be discounted in comparison with Sachin’s ability to play great bowlers just because Sachin did not bat against that specific bowler himself.
Click to expand...

The poster said that Sachin had to deal with Ambrose and Walsh, where as Lara didn't, as a means to suggest that Tendulkar faced stronger bowling attacks. Do we agree on this?

If you agree that is what he said, then conversely it should be noted that Sachin never truly faced the 2 Ws. Correct?

All great bowlers, just like all great batsmen are not the same, they all have different attributes. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Some bowlers trouble some batsmen more than others. Correct?

Facing Ambrose in the West Indies or Steyn in South Africa is different to facing Waqar and Wasim in Pakistan. All four will pose a different set of problems. So we can't extrapolate that simply succeeding against one will mean you would succeed against the others. Is this reasonable?

Using this logic, you cannot conclude that because Lara struggled against Wasim and Waqar, Sachin is the better player against great bowlers, because we have no way of knowing, how he would of fared against the 2 Ws. He may have dominated them but we'll never know.

You can say I think he is better due to the way he played Donald, McGrath, Warne and Murali, which is fine. But to use Lara's failings against the 2Ws as justification for Sachin being superior is erroneous.
 
Last edited:
miandadrules said:
The poster said that Sachin had to deal with Ambrose and Walsh, where as Lara didn't, as a means to suggest that Tendulkar faced stronger bowling attacks. Do we agree on this?

If you agree that is what he said, then conversely it should be noted that Sachin never truly faced the 2 Ws. Correct?

All great bowlers, just like all great batsmen are not the same, they all have different attributes. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Some bowlers trouble some batsmen more than others. Correct?

Facing Ambrose in the West Indies or Steyn in South Africa is different to facing Waqar and Wasim in Pakistan. All four will pose a different set of problems. So we can't extrapolate that simply succeeding against one will mean you would succeed against the others. Is this reasonable?

Using this logic, you cannot conclude that because Lara struggled against Wasim and Waqar, Sachin is the better player against great bowlers, because we have no way of knowing, how he would of fared against the 2 Ws. He may have dominated them but we'll never know.

You can say I think he is better due to the way he played Donald, McGrath, Warne and Murali, which is fine. But to use Lara's failings against the 2Ws as justification for Sachin being superior is erroneous.
Click to expand...

Again . :facepalm:
 
Acricketfan said:
Again . :facepalm:
Click to expand...

It's called answering the question. Generally when evaluating something one tries to provide a complete picture.

I'm sorry it touches a nerve each time you read it.

May be you can take it up with the BCCI and they can explain to you why such statements cause you so much pain.
 
Sachin136 said:
I do not understand why 2 players have to play against the same bowlers in order to judge how they perform against great bowlers. If Lara played against some ATG bowler and did very well (or failed), it should not be discounted in comparison with Sachin’s ability to play great bowlers just because Sachin did not bat against that specific bowler himself.
Click to expand...


You need to see the context of the discussion.

Its because a guy claiming that Sachin played one more great bowling attack (WI) than Lara thats why he is better.

There wasn't much of a difference between two no issues in rating anyone ahead of other, but atleast give some better logic or stay quiet, this sort of reasoning don't work.


Secondly, even if Sachin didn't have to face his own bowling attack but Lara did, Lara average only in 30s against Indian bowling attack, he didn't feast on them despite him being better player of spin. So you never know how Sachin would have done against his own bowling attack.
 
Sachin136 said:
I do not understand why 2 players have to play against the same bowlers in order to judge how they perform against great bowlers. If Lara played against some ATG bowler and did very well (or failed), it should not be discounted in comparison with Sachin’s ability to play great bowlers just because Sachin did not bat against that specific bowler himself.
Click to expand...

:)) then you must check above comments by fellow Indians, who are repeating this thing again and again that Sachin avg was high against e.t.c bowler while Lara was failure.
 
Indian posters in this thread are getting a good grilling:)). They love to play the stats game when it suits their agenda but cry foul play if a similar argument is used against them:)). As for me, I strongly believe that Lara is the better Test bat. No need for indians to get offended here... Sachin was also a great Test bat. It's just that he wasn't as good as Lara...
 
Fyi Lara did face Ambrose and Walsh in a few FC matches. A couple of famous encounters being these ones

Ambrose (He was the number one ranked Test bowler at the time btw)

Warwickshire v Northamptonshire, Northampton, 23-27 Jun 94

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/A...C/R09/NORTHANTS_WARWICKS_CC_23-27JUN1994.html

Lara scored 197 off 195 balls (30 fours and 3 sixes). This ton was his 8th in 11 FC innings equalling one of Bradman's records.

Walsh

Trinidad & Tobago v Jamaica
Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, Trinidad
21-24 January 1994

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/WI_LOCAL/RSC/T+T_JAM_RSC_21-24JAN1994.html

Lara scored 180 off 267 balls (24 fours and 2 sixes). While he scored that 180 the other 8 bats only managed to contribute just 19 runs lol. Amazing!
 
Yeah would have been awesome if there was at least some footage of that game :))

Lara came in to bat with the score at 38/2. Next 199 runs the rest added just 19 :yk
 
The point that we shouldn't compare lara and Sachin's records vs Ws is fair as Sachin did not face them at their peak, is very fair. However, people also forget that Sachin's series in 1989 vs Waqar and Wasim was as a 16 year old kid... it was his very first series and he deserves some credit for playing a couple of very good innings (match saving 57 at Sialkot in partnership with Sidhu), regardless of whether Waqar and Wasim were at peak or not.

Also, posts saying Lara averaged better against Donald, therefore he was better against Donald are just stupid. An overall average can only tell you so much about how a player actually did. Most of Lara's runs vs Donald came in meaningless situations in the 0-5 whitewash vs SA in 1999. He never played a single standout innings vs Donald when the game was actually alive, like Tendulkar did vs Donald several times. (169 at Capetown, 111 at Johannesburg 1992, 97 at Mumbai in 2000).

I would say overall: vs McGrath Lara was better for sure, vs Donald Tendulkar, and vs Ws both equal.
 
Also, while Waqar was not at peak in 1989, Wasim was outstanding by then. He was 4 years into his career and 3 weeks after this series vs India, he produced devastating spells in Australia, where he took 11 wickets at Melbourne and 5fer in Adelaide. People choose to ignore this for some reason. The fact that a 16 year old Tendulkar was able to play decently vs this Wasim should be a huge point in his favour don't you think?
 
Stallion__ said:
You need to see the context of the discussion.

Its because a guy claiming that Sachin played one more great bowling attack (WI) than Lara thats why he is better.

There wasn't much of a difference between two no issues in rating anyone ahead of other, but atleast give some better logic or stay quiet, this sort of reasoning don't work.


Secondly, even if Sachin didn't have to face his own bowling attack but Lara did, Lara average only in 30s against Indian bowling attack, he didn't feast on them despite him being better player of spin. So you never know how Sachin would have done against his own bowling attack.
Click to expand...

Most of the time Lara was taken by the medium pacers of India.. somehow just never got going against Indians..
 
ChachaCricket said:
[MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] Don't just give me quotes without any proof because I've heard them say the exact opposite on many occasions. Especially Wasim and Waqar, these two change their opinions like the wind when in India.

Shane Warne recently on commentary comparing the two talked about how Sachin was great but kept raving about Lara's match winning ability. It was pretty obvious whom he rated higher out of the two but just didn't wanna say it on commentary. It was during the Ind-Aus series iirc.
Click to expand...

Shane Warne clearly rated Tendulkar as no. 1 player of his era with Lara and Ambrose following him at 2 and 3. Not sure what you mean by "It was pretty obvious whom he rated higher out of the two".
 
Buffet said:
I am just googling it again. I did it one time before posting earlier.

Kallis views - http://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/news...incredible-but-brian-lara-best-jacques-kallis

Warne's view - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...ays-former-Australia-spinner-Shane-Warne.html

McGrath's view - http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/sep/04inter3.htm

Ponting's view - http://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/news...t-but-brian-lara-most-dangerous-ricky-ponting

Donald's view - http://www.espncricinfo.com/sachin/content/story/434423.html

Murali's view - http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/int...igures-but-were-not-the-greatest-6361077.html

Wasim's view - http://www.ibnlive.com/cricketnext/news/sachin-is-the-best-batsman-in-history-akram-351514-78.html

Waqar's view - http://www.cricketcountry.com/news/...f-this-era-wasim-akram-and-waqar-younis-21298

Lara's view -- http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/sachin-tendulkar-praised-the-greatest-2789055

------------

You can add for more ATG's. It didn't come up in google and that's why i didn't post it first time. I actually searched and then posted rather than giving my opinion or taking quotes from random websites. I can't find for some and guys like Steyn/Ambrose have never given a definite statement about being the best. I shared that as well.
Click to expand...

Ponting's opinion is interesting here. Following two points :

1. "I am on record before as saying I felt Sachin was the best player I played against,"

2. "The way I judge players is their ability to win games by themselves, and Lara could certainly do that and probably did it more than what Sachin did for India."

what does he want to say ?
 
tempus123 said:
Ponting's opinion is interesting here. Following two points :

1. "I am on record before as saying I felt Sachin was the best player I played against,"

2. "The way I judge players is their ability to win games by themselves, and Lara could certainly do that and probably did it more than what Sachin did for India."

what does he want to say ?
Click to expand...

That he felt Sachin was the best but actually Lara was the real best.
 
Players are always inconsistent when rating their peers. Their opinion does not mean much in the bigger picture.
 
Ponting also is prone to change his views, I remember once asked who were the 3 opposition players he would like to have in his team, he named Tendulkar, Murali and Flintoff.
 
[MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION], [MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION]

Here is Wasim Akram's another opinion, he should be caught in the night at his bed and asked this question, only then will his true opinion come about.

Wasim Akram:

"I have bowled to both Tendulkar and Lara and I have found Lara more attacking. Tendulkar has a tighter technique, no doubt, but Lara can single-handedly win the game for his team. I am not saying Tendulkar cannot do it but Lara has maybe done it more often than him. If you are asking me who the best batsman I have bowled to is, then it's not Tendulkar and not Lara as well. It's Martin Crowe... he was an amazing batsman. Regarding Tendulkar and Lara, I would love to have both in my team! Who wouldn't?"
 
Waqar Younis:

"Unfortunately, I have not bowled enough to Tendulkar in Test matches but there is no doubt about his class. I have bowled against Lara and I have had some success against him. I think over the years I would say I have been fifty-fifty against both Tendulkar and Lara. I have got them a few times and they have got runs against me as well. I can never forget a 16-year-old Tendulkar batting on after being struck on the nose by a fast bouncer from me. I think Tendulkar is mentally tougher than Lara."

Muthiah Muralitharan:

"I have played a lot of cricket against Tendulkar compared to what I have played against Lara. While both are difficult to bowl to, I think Lara plays me better than Tendulkar. That Lara is a left-hander is an advantage to him, but the great thing about him is he launches into the attack straightaway. He uses his feet well against me while Tendulkar relies more on the sweep, I feel. I find Lara tougher."

Jason Gillespie:

"In my opinion it's Tendulkar who is ahead of the two. Mentally stronger than Lara, he has a better technique as well. Tendulkar doesn't get worked up like Lara when the opposition has a few words to say to him. Lara on his day can be destructive, but you have to look at consistency and I think Tendulkar is definitely more consistent than Lara."

Saqlain Mushtaq:

"Both have their good qualities but I feel Tendulkar doesn't give as many chances as Lara does. Lara, once he settles down, can be a better player to watch because of the left-hander's grace and also because he plays more shots. He has played more match-winning innings compared to Tendulkar because he finished off the job once he is in. But Sachin is more compact and puts a heavy price on his wicket. It is more difficult to dislodge Tendulkar compared to Lara."


Barry Richards:

"Lara is a better batsman than Sachin simply because he tends to score big whenever he plays against teams like Australia and South Africa and the stats actually support it. Lara has scored three 200's against the Aussies 2 of which have come in Australia and apart from that he has a test record of 375 as well whereas Sachin has a couple of 200's against New Zealand and Zimbabwe and that too in India."
 
Glenn McGrath:

"For me, it's Tendulkar. Both are class acts but I am saying this because I have had more success against Lara than I have against Tendulkar. I think I have a fair idea of what Lara likes and doesn't like and I feel I can make his life at the crease very uncomfortable. He is vulnerable outside the off-stump early on and is not as tight as Tendulkar in defense. I would go for Tendulkar as the best in the world."
 
To be fair after Tennis Elbow, I feel Lara was better than SRT. Before Tennis Elbow SRT was the man........ Talent wise SRT/Lara are equal......
 
tempus123 said:
Glenn McGrath:

"For me, it's Tendulkar. Both are class acts but I am saying this because I have had more success against Lara than I have against Tendulkar. I think I have a fair idea of what Lara likes and doesn't like and I feel I can make his life at the crease very uncomfortable. He is vulnerable outside the off-stump early on and is not as tight as Tendulkar in defense. I would go for Tendulkar as the best in the world."
Click to expand...

This was what Mcgrath said before the Tennis elbow, after tennis elbow he changed his opinion and said Lara was better...........
 
miandadrules said:
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.
Click to expand...

He did face McGrath, Donald and Warne at their peak.
 
I think modern cricketers opinions don't matter all that in a massively commercially driven world of today.

Shane Warne had Tendulkar at 1, Lara at 2 before he had a fall our with Sachin over management of Legends T20s tournament. In interviews after that episode he's now putting Lara at 1.

Whether he was lying earlier to get benefits from Sachin/India or whether he's lying now out if grudge we don't know but just goes to show how u trustworthy a lot of these so called legends can be.

Wasim Akram is the best.

He has in various interviews called Gavaskar, Lara, Tendulkar, Viv best he ever faced based on where he was talking and who he was with and latest he out Martin Crowe ahead of the pack.
 
No doubt Brian Lara has scored so many big hundreds and that performance in 1999 tour to Australia was absolutely legendary, unfortunately Indians simply didn't had the privilege of watching Lara at his best and scoring those big hundreds against us.

It was easy scoring vs India away but at home, we were having a good attack(not as good as today but still good) and Lara played only three test matches here.

Another great batsmen of that era, Ricky Ponting had some nightmare series in India, like the 2001 tour where he averaged 3.xx in that series.

Jacques Kallis has done very well in India though averaging over 60.

As for OP, he has added English bowlers like Fraser against whom Lara scored 375 and that has increased his average otherwise it will be about same for both.
 
Ab Fan said:
No doubt Brian Lara has scored so many big hundreds and that performance in 1999 tour to Australia was absolutely legendary.
Click to expand...

You are confused, Lara avgs 37 vs Mcgrath in AUstralia. You must be talking about the Aus tour of WI...
 
I feel that Tendulkar was vastly more consistent, unlike Lara never having dire series. However, Tendulkar was not really capable of dominating series (no series with more than 500 runs)

Tendulkar averaged 37 when playing against McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar or Akram

Lara averaged 43, likely due to his ability to dominate series

So I would say Lara slightly better vs top bowlers
 
therealAB said:
I feel that Tendulkar was vastly more consistent, unlike Lara never having dire series. However, Tendulkar was not really capable of dominating series (no series with more than 500 runs)

Tendulkar averaged 37 when playing against McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar or Akram

Lara averaged 43, likely due to his ability to dominate series

So I would say Lara slightly better vs top bowlers
Click to expand...

You must add Dale Steyn, Shane Bond and Shoaib Akhtar in the list. Tendulkar had tennis elbow injury problem which affected his batting but he reinvented himself back in 2007 and did well for India averaging over 60 in next four years till 2011 WC.
 
The issue with Bond, Akhtar in particular for me as because they were part of average attacks doing well against them doesn't mean doing well against great bowling.

Lara never faced steyn so for me it wouldn't be fair to put him in
 
I wonder sometimes how players must be laughing at posts in these sort of threads.

Come on guys.

These are two champion batsmen with marginal differences here and there but widely reverted.

Jist because you like one of them more doesn't make the other a loser. Achievements of these batsmen are quite staggering.
 
therealAB said:
I feel that Tendulkar was vastly more consistent, unlike Lara never having dire series. However, Tendulkar was not really capable of dominating series (no series with more than 500 runs)

Tendulkar averaged 37 when playing against McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar or Akram

Lara averaged 43, likely due to his ability to dominate series

So I would say Lara slightly better vs top bowlers
Click to expand...

Mostly down to Tendulkar not posting huge scores which was down to him not being an athlete at the level of Lara, Kohli

Tendulkar hit his first double hundred in 1999/2000 season, 10 years into his career.

Tendulkar was dominant in his 50s, 100s, 150s and marginally more consistent

This is also puts into context Kallis averaging 57 with just one double hundred at the very end of his career. How incredibly consistent

Amd Lara with 9-10 double centuries averages less than Tendulkar, Kallis puts into equation his volatility
 
Basically this is where many factors start coming into consideration. Tendulkar had the longevity to not only face Dale Steyn at its peak but also do well against him while Lara had retired by then because he was no longer good enough, both having started at same age( Tendulkar actually debuted earlier only).

Another factor is that Lara was doing very well even in the mid-2000s while Tendulkar had a dip in form between 2003-2006 due to tennis elbow injury problem which affected his natural game. Obviously if Tendulkar had retired in 2006, he would have been considered a lesser player than Lara but he regained back his form and fitness and hit his peak again for next four years while Lara was retired by 2007 only.

Anyways, there are so many other factors that come into consideration that it's pointless to conclude anything on this argument. Personally, I don't even consider this argument vs top pace attack a valid one for Lara to be rated higher than Tendulkar.

A more valid argument would obviously be the fact that Lara had the apetite for those big tons which are more often gonna change the course of a test match than Tendulkar's consistent half centuries and centuries when others are felling apart. But there are arguments that can be made in favour of Tendulkar also.
 
Last edited:
Ab Fan said:
Basically this is where many factors start coming into consideration. Tendulkar had the longevity to not only face Dale Steyn at its peak but also do well against him while Lara had retired by then because he was no longer good enough, both having started at same age( Tendulkar actually debuted earlier only).

Another factor is that Lara was doing very well even in the mid-2000s while Tendulkar had a dip in form between 2003-2006 due to tennis elbow injury problem which affected his natural game. Obviously if Tendulkar had retired in 2006, he would have been considered a lesser player than Lara but he regained back his form and fitness and hit his peak again for next four years while Lara was retired by 2007 only.

Anyways, there are so many other factors that come into consideration that it's pointless to conclude anything on this argument. Personally, I don't even consider this argument vs top pace attack a valid one for Lara to be rated higher than Tendulkar.

A more valid argument would obviously be the fact that Lara had the apetite for those big tons which are more often gonna change the course of a test match than Tendulkar's consistent half centuries and centuries when others are felling apart. But there are arguments that can be made in favour of Tendulkar also.
Click to expand...

Why would batting vs top pace not be relevant. Both were ATG players of top spin, with Lara likely being better due to his beatdown of Murali. Therefore we can only look towards top pace. Averaging 6 more off good sample sizes(35) matches is not insignificant. Tendulkar can be ranked higher for longevity (personally i believe that longevity is not important after 120 ish games) and consistency, but looking vs top pace shows lara was certainly better against the top attacks
 
therealAB said:
Why would batting vs top pace not be relevant. Both were ATG players of top spin, with Lara likely being better due to his beatdown of Murali. Therefore we can only look towards top pace. Averaging 6 more off good sample sizes(35) matches is not insignificant. Tendulkar can be ranked higher for longevity (personally i believe that longevity is not important after 120 ish games) and consistency, but looking vs top pace shows lara was certainly better against the top attacks
Click to expand...

Top attack is relevant but the point is if you consider top attacks fairly, both are averaging close to 42-43( the difference is no longer 5-6). It's just that you are not willing to consider Steyn because it came in Sachin's peak while Lara retired by then. Every player has different peak, Tendulkar after 2007 can't be ignored because he did well against peak Steyn and Lara retired at that age.
 
therealAB said:
Why would batting vs top pace not be relevant. Both were ATG players of top spin, with Lara likely being better due to his beatdown of Murali. Therefore we can only look towards top pace. Averaging 6 more off good sample sizes(35) matches is not insignificant. Tendulkar can be ranked higher for longevity (personally i believe that longevity is not important after 120 ish games) and consistency, but looking vs top pace shows lara was certainly better against the top attacks
Click to expand...

Longevity doesn't help any player statistically. It's just a mark of respect.

One cannot simply use statistics that have been impacted by playing longer and then discard any extra weightage to it.

Tendulkar averaged 59.9 at 9k-10k test runs rang

At around 13k-14k range, he averaged 57

Playing 200 test matches takes its toll on quality of stats
 
averages 40 including steyn, so still 3 worse than Lara

Both mainly faced these bowlers during their peaks, so longevity looking at peak periods doesn't matter
 
Last time I checked, it's 42 including Steyn. And this is including Tendulkar's bad phase in tennis elbow.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...r_involve=47154;template=results;type=batting

Anyways, having watched both over so many years, I can say that both were equally proficient against pace although Tendulkar was more balanced and more consistent unlike Lara who was either burst or miss. Lara had an edge vs spin.

Longevity goes in favour to Tendulkar while Lara's appetite of big runs put him in favour. Both are legends of the game and it can go either way in tests. In ODIs, Tendulkar was a level superior though, Lara underachieved in 2000s and hence overall I will pick Tendulkar.
 
Ab Fan said:
Last time I checked, it's 42 including Steyn. And this is including Tendulkar's bad phase in tennis elbow.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...r_involve=47154;template=results;type=batting

Anyways, having watched both over so many years, I can say that both were equally proficient against pace although Tendulkar was more balanced and more consistent unlike Lara who was either burst or miss. Lara had an edge vs spin.

Longevity goes in favour to Tendulkar while Lara's appetite of big runs put him in favour. Both are legends of the game and it can go either way in tests. In ODIs, Tendulkar was a level superior though, Lara underachieved in 2000s and hence overall I will pick Tendulkar.
Click to expand...

For the reputations they had, neither was that good against real pace. Donald made mince meat out of Lara in 97-98 and I lost count of the number of times Tendulkar got hit on the head, even a medium fast bowler like Jimmy hit him flush.
 
Bewal Express said:
For the reputations they had, neither was that good against real pace. Donald made mince meat out of Lara in 97-98 and I lost count of the number of times Tendulkar got hit on the head, even a medium fast bowler like Jimmy hit him flush.
Click to expand...

Against real pace, Ponting was arguably best of the three but Tendulkar and Lara both were still excellent against quality pace. If they won't have been great against pace, they won't have achieved close to what they did in the 90s era which was actually known for high quality pace and spin bowling.

Against spin, Lara was the best with Tendulkar being really very close to him and Ponting was leagues behind them.
 
Ab Fan said:
Against real pace, Ponting was arguably best of the three but Tendulkar and Lara both were still excellent against quality pace. If they won't have been great against pace, they won't have achieved close to what they did in the 90s era which was actually known for high quality pace and spin bowling.

Against spin, Lara was the best with Tendulkar being really very close to him and Ponting was leagues behind them.
Click to expand...

They were both good players of pace but when i watched them they were far too uncomfortable for the reputations they had. To cut a long story short, they reputations merited better
 
therealAB said:
I feel that Tendulkar was vastly more consistent, unlike Lara never having dire series. However, Tendulkar was not really capable of dominating series (no series with more than 500 runs)

Tendulkar averaged 37 when playing against McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Ambrose, Waqar or Akram

Lara averaged 43, likely due to his ability to dominate series

So I would say Lara slightly better vs top bowlers
Click to expand...

Nah a few mistakes you made:

You compared SRT record against: Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Mcgrath, Walsh & Ambrose and his Avg turns out to be 39.2 not 37. If you look at his Pre Tennis Elbow stats, it will show a different avg here.

Lara you only got to compare against: Wasim, Waqar (where he flopped), Against Mcgrath in Aus (He flopped) At home he was good, Against a Donald less South Africa where he played well. However when Donald played his avg drops to 34 with Zero 100s. You obviously could not compare Walsh & Ambrose and how Lara would have done against them, SRT played well against the WI bowlers, so SRT has proven to be a better player overall as he played against more quality bowlers than Lara.

All in All Lara didn't have any injury issues, a Pre Tennis Elbow SRT was the best bat in the world with Lara coming in at second, finally Tennis Elbow had to come through so Lara could take the lead...
 
therealAB said:
averages 40 including steyn, so still 3 worse than Lara

Both mainly faced these bowlers during their peaks, so longevity looking at peak periods doesn't matter
Click to expand...

Wrong again, if you include Steyn his avg is 42.4. Steyn is an ATG bowler, given the way how Lara struggled to put bat on ball against Donald, high chance Steyn would have had Lara in a knot causing his avg to dip quite a bit.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...;spanval2=span;template=results;type=allround
 
Last edited:
Romali_rotti said:
Nah a few mistakes you made:

You compared SRT record against: Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Mcgrath, Walsh & Ambrose and his Avg turns out to be 39.2 not 37. If you look at his Pre Tennis Elbow stats, it will show a different avg here.

Lara you only got to compare against: Wasim, Waqar (where he flopped), Against Mcgrath in Aus (He flopped) At home he was good, Against a Donald less South Africa where he played well. However when Donald played his avg drops to 34 with Zero 100s. You obviously could not compare Walsh & Ambrose and how Lara would have done against them, SRT played well against the WI bowlers, so SRT has proven to be a better player overall as he played against more quality bowlers than Lara.

All in All Lara didn't have any injury issues, a Pre Tennis Elbow SRT was the best bat in the world with Lara coming in at second, finally Tennis Elbow had to come through so Lara could take the lead...
Click to expand...

Those bowlers only bowled pre-elbow so that isn't a valid point. The tennis elbow has nothing to do with my analysis here. By the by, I think Sachin is better, but it is very close and lara was slightly better vs the best. Sorry, missed walsh in statsguru. Averaged was 39, still less than lara.

Doing some top quality cherry picking. If Sachin did well vs Walsh and Ambrose then he did worse
against the bowlers that lara faced so that statement is illogical.

Sachin's average vs Pollock is 3 higher than his average with both Donald, Pollock so he also has an inflated average due to Donald not always playing. If Lara flopped then Sachin must have flopped more, as he did worse

You can't say Lara did bad therefore sachin is better. Sachin was worse than Lara vs top bowling and no amount of cherry picking fixes that
 
therealAB said:
Those bowlers only bowled pre-elbow so that isn't a valid point. The tennis elbow has nothing to do with my analysis here. By the by, I think Sachin is better, but it is very close and lara was slightly better vs the best. Sorry, missed walsh in statsguru. Averaged was 39, still less than lara.

Doing some top quality cherry picking. If Sachin did well vs Walsh and Ambrose then he did worse
against the bowlers that lara faced so that statement is illogical.

Sachin's average vs Pollock is 3 higher than his average with both Donald, Pollock so he also has an inflated average due to Donald not always playing. If Lara flopped then Sachin must have flopped more, as he did worse

You can't say Lara did bad therefore sachin is better. Sachin was worse than Lara vs top bowling and no amount of cherry picking fixes that
Click to expand...

Not cherry picking at all, It is a fact SRT faced more quality bowlers.

SRT:

- Did better than Lara against Wasim & Waqar,

- Did better than Lara against Aus in Aus with Mcgrath but Mcgrath got the better of SRT for 1 series in
2004 (Tennis Elbow Series),

- Did better than Lara against Donald. (This is not cherry picking, Donald was SA's best bowler at the
time)

- Faced Steyn SA's ATG bowler and did well.

- Faced the WI quicks and did well



Lara:

Did better than SRT at home against Mcgrath, but struggled against Mcgrath on the fast bouncy Australian wickets.

Did bad against Donald, couldn't get a single 100 out of 10 test matches when Donald played, in the WI and in SA. Fact his avg dips to what a 34 when Donald plays with no 100s tells a sorry tale for a batsmen that supposedly did better against the best quick bowlers,

Did bad against Wasim and Waqar, again could not get a 100, so again for a batsmen that is supposed to be better than SRT, this is another sad tale.



If SRT didnt have that tennis elbow phase for the 3 odd years, there would not even be a discussion today of a Lara comparison. SRT would have been the best with Lara second, I mean I still believe it is but the debate would have been sealed..
 
[MENTION=428]Romali_rotti[/MENTION]

You say 'did better', but Lara has an ATG series against probably top 5 bowlers of all time. Sachin has nothing like that. That is a huge difference

Lara's average vs Donald, Pollock is only like 5 runs short of Sachin's. Yes, it is not great but neither is Sachin's.

When limiting sample sizes to 3/4 tests, which is what you are doing, the data is not going to be reliable. Over the 35 tests they both played, we can get a reliable argument, that covers when both players are in and out of form/injured. Not getting a proper sample size is cherry picking
 
therealAB said:
[MENTION=428]Romali_rotti[/MENTION]

You say 'did better', but Lara has an ATG series against probably top 5 bowlers of all time.
Click to expand...

Credit where it is due, he had an amazing series at home vs the McGrath and co. However where is the other 4 at series you are talking about ?

- He sure did not face off against his own bowlers Ambrose and Walsh (obvious) who are considered atg.

- He sure didn't face Steyn

- He sure didn't have any atg series vs wasim and waqar.

- He sure didn't have any at series when Donald played.


So where are these 4 legeandary atg series he had when playing against atg fast bowlers ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't mean the five greatest bowlers, nor more than one ATG series. However it was potentially the greatest series by any batsman ever, and Sachin has no ATG series vs anyone. Lara also has the GOAT series vs spin vs Sri Lanka
 
[MENTION=151648]therealAB[/MENTION] sachin had atg series against Australia in 1998. 446 run in 3 test avg-112, sr over 70
 
India played very few 4 or 5 tests during Tendulkar's pomp.

In fact, in '90s only such series I can remember are,

5 tests series in Australia in '92 when he was hardly 18.

4 tests series in SA, the same year.

5 tests series in WI in '97.

In comparison, Lara played in multiple such series which gave him chance to score more.

He dominated too many series to be termed just a consistent scorer.

Just because some obscure keyboard warrior thinks that it's imperative to score 500 runs in a test series, doesn't make it a gospel's truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

atreus
  • Article Article
Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar — are they really far apart statistically?
Replies
7
Views
612
atreus
atreus
MenInG
The Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy: Significance?
Replies
45
Views
962
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
BouncerGuy
[PICTURE] ICC Test Team of the Year (2024) announced
Replies
48
Views
899
charlie007
C
Ab Fan
Joe Root versus Ricky Ponting versus Kumar Sangakkara in Tests
2 3
Replies
175
Views
6K
shamaan
S
Z
Mohammad Abbas and the Legacy of Pakistani Fast Bowlers in County Cricket
Replies
1
Views
420
cricfan432
C
Back
Top