Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkar as Test match batsman?

Harsh Thakor

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Runs
3,506
Post of the Week
2
Arguably there has never been an era dominated by 2 such great batsman have been so close to each other as Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar.In pure test cricket Lara overshadowed Tendulkar in his peak because of his marginally greater flair.His best individual scores and series aggregates were better than Tendulkar.Lara could also singlehandedly turn games.However Sachin has been more consistent than Lara with a longevity incomparable by an sportsman,let alone cricketer.Sachin overcame a lean period to make a Muhamad Ali style comeback in 2010.What is significant is that both batsmen peaked in different periods.In Lara's peak time Tendulkar declined while in Tendulkar's reign at his best Lara lost form.In his peak period Ricky Ponting had the best average amongst any great .However I don't think Ponting faced half the pressure Lara and Sachin did.

Tendulkar has a better average,run aggregate and number of centuries.However Lara has better match performances as evaluated by Anantha Narayana and has also scored a greater average percentage of the team's total score.What may have worked in favour of Lara was that he peaked in a weak West Indian batting line up while Sachin played for a stronger batting side.Lara also scored 11 double-centuries against Sachin's 4.

Tendulkar was technically better but Lara revealed greater artistry.Sachin was like an architect while Lara was like a poet and surgeon combined.Alan Donald rated Tendulkar the best batsman he ever bolwed to while Glen Mcgrath gave the most marginal of verdicts in favour of Lara.Mcgrath felt Lara was more attacking and took the initiative away from the bowler more than Lara.

Personally if I had to choose between the two for pure test match cricket I would choose Brian Lara.He would give the marginally greater impetus to a team to launch a win and could single-handedly lift the team in a crisis with his marathon scores.Sachin in terms of consistency could be the best of all sportsman but was not as explosive as Lara who never curbed his scoring rate.Overall Tendulkar is the more complete batsman and definitely ahead combing test and one day Cricket.

The truest test would have witnessing Lara and Tendulkar in Kerry Packer World Series Cricket.I would have backed Sachin to top the averages but backed Brian to score more class match-wining scores.Below I have compile ed tables which reveal the facets of both these icons.

Below I have posted an article Written by Brian Asirvadham on 06 February 2011 on Sporting Inquirer

How big a role does longevity play, when assessing sporting greatness.
The comparison between Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, essentially comes
down to whether you favor a sportsman who produces consistent excellence
over an extended period of time, or whether you place more emphasis on
the peak years of an athlete’s career, and prefer a pure sporting genius,
who was just frighteningly brilliant. Don’t get me wrong, Lara had over a
decade, as arguably the game’s best player, it’s just that Tendulkar has
had an even more extraordingary reign at the pinnacle of his sport.
Most people feel that Brian Lara, in his prime, was the better player. He
was more dynamic, more likely to take an attack by the throat, and played
more match-winning innings. The reality is that most of Tendulkar’s
records are purely a product of longevity, which is obviously a talent in
itself, but not the most important criteria, for assessing sporting
greatness.
Longevity is a result of mental hunger, and obviously great physical
fitness and endurance. While the bodies of some professional sportsmen
break down quite early, others take great pride in their diet, nutrition,
and physical preparation, and carry on close to the age of 40. These
types of athletes seem to have an insatiable appetite for success, and
genuinely love to compete.
But, what of the sportsperson that retires in the prime of his career.
What do we make of them. Do we acknowledge, that they have simply
accomplished everything they set out to do, and now want to explore other
opportunities in life. When both Brian Lara and Shane Warne retired from
international cricket in 2007, they were still good enough to carry on
playing for another couple of years. Is their legacy diminished, because
the likes of Tendulkar and Muttiah Muralitharan ended up playing for
longer, and eclipsing all of their records. Only a very, very hard marker
would believe that to be the case.
At no level, is longevity a product of skill, brilliance, or any real
form of sporting greatness. Like any job, it’s simply a result of a
desire to keep performing. You can’t penalize a sportsman, because they
choose to end their career at a certain point, and do something else with
their life. The real key to assessing sporting greatness, is to base it
on quality, not quantity. For however long an athlete chooses to compete,
you evaluate their impact in that period of time, and then compare their
resumes to their peers. As long as you have at least seven or eight
years of real dominance and pure brilliance, then the emphasis should be
placed on those peak years, and not on the longevity of a sportsman.
There have been plenty of sporting champions who had more of an impact
in 10 seasons, than other greats had in close to 20 seasons.
The gap between Lara and Tendulkar is minute, and you can make an
argument for either of them, depending on whether you prefer the
technical mastery of Tendulkar, or the sheer genius and pure brilliance
of Lara. Interestingly enough, I have always felt that there are plenty
of differences in their styles of play to determine who was better,
without even considering the issue of longevity, which to me is not all
that important, for the simple reason that Lara was still good enough to
continue his career for another couple of years, when he announced his
retirement. I don’t plan on penalizing him for wanting to spend more
time with his family, and do something else with his life.
For most of his career, Brian Lara was regarded as the world’s most
dangerous, and formidable batsman. His best has always been the best. He
had the stunning ability to destroy an attack, and play the type of
innings that literally dragged his team over the finish line. If you had
to choose one of them when they were at the peak of their powers, a lot
of good judges would choose Lara, because he was such a dynamic
match-winner. He was a real game-changer, who so often played the
defining innings of the match, that carried the West Indies to victory.
Throughout the second half of his career, the fact that he did it in a
very weak team, where all the opposition’s bullets were pointed at him,
much like his legendary West Indian predecessor, George Headley, only
adds to his greatness. A lot of batsman would have crumbled under that
sort of pressure, but Lara took it in his stride, and never once
complained.
Then there are the aesthetic qualities of Lara’s batsmanship that made
him such a compelling sportsman to watch. It would be a reasonable
assumption to say, that in the minds of most neutral cricket fans, Lara
was the batsman that most people genuinely loved watching. He was a
box-office attraction, and you simply couldn’t take your eyes off the
cricket, when he was at the crease. The man was mercurially brilliant,
and the game has been poorer since his retirement.
All cricket fans have the greatest admiration for Sachin Tendulkar’s
meticulous approach, and his continued commitment. But, ultimately in
the eyes of this cricket observer, it’s safe to say that Tendulkar’s
longevity doesn’t trump the pure genius of Brian Lara.


Tendulkar's Test career(compiled from S.Rajesh of cricinfo)

Period Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Till Dec 1992 20 1085 37.41 4/ 4
Jan 1993 to Dec 1996 26 2021 59.44 6/ 11
Jan 1997 to Dec 2002 59 5705 63.38 21/ 20
Jan 2003 to Dec 2006 29 1779 44.47 4/ 7
Jan 2007 onwards 32 2857 58.30 12/ 12
Career 166 13,447 55.56 47/ 54
During that six-year period from January 1997 to December 2002, Tendulkar was unquestionably the best batsman in the world, handling pace in Australia and South Africa as effectively as he did spin in Sri Lanka. And then, of course, there was the epic 136 against Pakistan in Chennai which, unfortunately for him, wasn't enough to take India to victory against Pakistan.

In only 59 Tests he managed 21 centuries - an average of one every 2.81 matches. His average during this phase was well ahead of the second-placed Andy Flower, who led a string of batsmen who averaged in the md-50s.

Best Test batsmen between Jan 1997 and Dec 2002
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Sachin Tendulkar 59 5705 63.38 21/ 20
Andy Flower 41 3464 56.78 9/ 18
Matthew Hayden 35 3054 56.55 12/ 10
Rahul Dravid 62 5178 55.08 14/ 25
Aravinda de Silva 38 3134 54.98 12/ 9
Inzamam-ul-Haq 49 3740 51.94 12/ 15
Jacques Kallis 63 4447 51.70 11/ 25
Ricky Ponting 57 3916 50.85 14/ 14
Unfortunately for Tendulkar, his best period coincided with one where India had a poor bowling attack, especially overseas, and a batting line-up that tended to crumble quite often on tours. In 69 Tests between the beginning of 1993 and the end of 2001, India won 23, but only three of those came abroad. During this period, Tendulkar contributed almost 20% of all runs scored off the bat by India, and more than 21% when they played in Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand or the West Indies. From 2002 onwards, there were many more batsmen contributing - Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and VVS Laxman weighed in consistently both home and away, which significantly reduced the dependence on Tendulkar: he has contributed only 14.30% of the team runs since 2002. With the bowling attack getting stronger as well, Tendulkar has been a part of 15 away Test wins during this period, and 32 wins in all in these eight-and-a-half years.

Tendulkar's contribution to the team
Period Tendulkar's runs Team runs Percentage
Till Dec 1992 1085 9122 11.89
Jan 1993 to Dec 2001 6334 32,048 19.76
Jan '93 to Dec '01, in Aus, SA, NZ, Eng, WI 1783 8368 21.31
Jan 2002 onwards 6028 42,140 14.30
Overall 13,477 83,310 16.18
A standout feature of Tendulkar's career has been his tendency to save his best for the greatest team of his generation. Few batsmen have consistently got the better of Australia over the last two decades, but Tendulkar is clearly one of them. His two stunning hundreds on his first tour to Australia announced him as a special talent, while his Boxing Day century in 1999 showed the gulf between him and the rest of the Indian batsmen. Later in his career some of the others - Laxman and Sehwag, especially - also showed their liking for the Australian attack, but Tendulkar is the one player who has sustained his performances against Australia for 20 years.

Highest Test averages against Australia since 1990
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Sachin Tendulkar 29 2748 56.08 10/ 11
VVS Laxman 24 2204 55.10 6/ 10
Virender Sehwag 15 1483 51.13 3/ 7
Brian Lara 31 2856 51.00 9/ 11
Kevin Pietersen 12 1116 50.72 2/ 7
Richie Richardson 14 1084 49.27 4/ 4
Graham Thorpe 16 1235 45.74 3/ 8
Shivnarine Chanderpaul 17 1303 44.93 4/ 8
Tendulkar's Test average in Australia is marginally higher than his average against them at home, while six of his ten hundreds against them have come in Australia.

Best Test averages by overseas batsmen in Australia since 1990 (Qual: 750 runs)
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Virender Sehwag 7 833 59.50 2/ 3
Sachin Tendulkar 16 1522 58.53 6/ 5
VVS Laxman 11 1081 54.05 4/ 3
Rahul Dravid 12 972 48.60 1/ 5
Jacques Kallis 12 915 45.75 2/ 5
Brian Lara 19 1469 41.97 4/ 4
Out of the 271 innings he has played in Tests, 220 have been at the No. 4 slot, where he has amassed more than 11,000 runs at an average exceeding 57. With a cut-off of 2500 runs at that position, only five batsmen have a higher average. And 41 of his 47 hundreds have been scored at this slot, with four coming at No. 5 and two at No. 6.

Best No. 4s in Test history (Qual: 2500 runs)
Batsman Innings Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Everton Weekes 57 3372 63.62 11/ 17
Jacques Kallis 130 6943 61.99 25/ 31
Mahela Jayawardene 133 7287 59.72 24/ 24
Mohammad Yousuf 60 3373 59.17 11/ 13
Greg Chappell 86 4316 59.12 15/ 19
Sachin Tendulkar 220 11,239 57.34 41/ 45
Javed Miandad 140 6925 54.10 19/ 31
Denis Compton 86 4234 53.59 13/ 20
Inzamam-ul-Haq 98 4867 52.90 15/ 21
Brian Lara 148 7535 51.25 24/ 31
One of the criticisms levelled against Tendulkar has been his relative lack of runs in second innings: he averages only 42.76 in all second innings, and 36.72 in the fourth innings. However, that also means he has been exceptional in the first innings, thus setting up games for India. He averages 62.88 in all first innings for the team, and 71.72 in the first innings of a match. His overall first-innings average is among the highest: among the batsmen with 4000 such runs, only six have a higher average.

Performances of Brian Lara compiled from Ananta Narayan on cricinfo cordon

Top 5 innings analysis
Top 5 inns (Runs) : 400 375 277 226 221 Total: 1499 Avge: 299.8
These small analytical segments bring new insights. The first is the average of the top-5 innings played by the concerned batsman. Lara's average of almost 300 is the highest of all batsmen. Next comes Bradman with 292.2 and then comes Sehwag, with 275.2. This confirms Lara's penchant for playing huge innings.

Top 5 inns (Balls): 582 538 372 360 354 Total: 2206 Avge: 441.2
The next one is to look at the top 5 innings in terms of balls faced. The balls played data is available even for many older players. But this is not a complete analysis. Notwithstanding his attacking play, Lara has genuinely played many long innings. His average for the top-5 innings is a huge 441. The leader in this regards is Hutton with 588, followed by Hammond, with 566. Amongst modern batsmen, Jayawardene leads with 463 and Lara comes next. Dravid's average is 438.
Lara as the highest scorer
HS Inns: 65
% of inns: 28.0
HS Runs total: 7613
HS Next Best: 3623
% of Lara's total: 47.6
This is a new piece of analysis. I have determined the number of innings in which Lara was the leading scorer in the innings and worked out this as a % of total innings. More importantly, to get a handle on the level of support, I have added the next highest scores and determined this total as a % of the total of Lara's innings. The numbers are very illuminative.

Lara has top-scored in 28.0% of the innings he played in. His is the highest amongst modern batsmen. Only Gavaskar matches this number. Of course, many old timers have figures in excess of 30, Bradman leading with 37.5%. The matching with Gavaskar indicates how often Lara carried his team.

The next one is an even more enlightening one. This defines the support received. Lara received the least support amongst all batsmen. The next best batsmen have totalled 47.6% of Lara's aggregate, below even half-way stage. He is the only batsman to have received below 50% support. Sehwag is next with 53.5% and then comes Hutton with 53.7%. Just as a comparison, the number for Tendulkar is 65.4% and for Ponting, 64.9%. This is a clear confirmation of how often Lara carried the burden.

Innings break-down
Sub-10 innings: No- 62 % of total-26.7%
Sub-25 innings: No-100 % of total-43.1%
Sub-50 innings: No-147 % of total-63.4%
In this new analysis I look at the pattern of low scores. Lara has had 26.7% of single-digit scores, 43% of scores below 25 and a huge 63.4% of sub-50 scores. This indicates that Lara was not a great starter. I have not looked at all batsmen but Michael Clarke (27.5%) has a higher single-digit component. The older batsmen all have figures below 15%. Sangakkara has a below-20% tally.

Team runs/balls analysis
Runs added with late order batsmen (7-11) : 1487 (25)
Avge runs added with late order batsmen : 59.5
Team runs while at crease : 21448
Batsman's % Runs contribution : 55.7%
Team balls while at crease : 38562
% of balls faced while at crease: 51.2%
Total team runs : 63049
Batsman Runs % : 19.0%
The runs added with late order batsmen are not very high. Lara's average is around 60. Tendulkar is much higher at 69.6. But let me say that 100% data is not available for the batsmen who started the career before 1992 or so.

Lara's overall runs contribution to his team total is a reasonably high 19%. Bradman has contributed 25%. Most batsmen contribute between 15 and 17%. It is understandable that Lara scores 55% of runs while at crease. He outscored his fellow batsmen often.

Innings analysis
Description T I N Runs Avge 100 50 Freq Team-Runs %


Inns 1 58 1 4000 70.18 12 12 4.8 18111 22.1%
Inns 2 72 0 4249 59.01 13 21 5.5 23053 18.4%
Inns 3 56 0 2264 40.43 7 8 8.0 12704 17.8%
Inns 4 46 5 1440 35.12 2 7 23.0 9181 15.7%

The innings runs and averages follow a similar pattern. Most batsmen have high-first, high-second, reasonable-third and average-fourth innings values. Lara is no exception. There are many other top batsmen who have better third and fourth innings figures. Kallis has a third innings average of 68.8 and Gavaskar, a fourth innings average of 58.7.

Home/Away analysis
Home 65 111 5 6217 58.65 17 26 6.5 32020 19.4%
Away 66 121 1 5736 47.80 17 22 7.1 31029 18.5%
This again has the same pattern as most batsmen. Lara has averaged 20% better at home. There are batsmen who have done 30-40% better at home. On the flip side, Cook averages 43.5 at home and 54.3 away. Dravid also averages better away. However no one can beat Barrington who averages 51.2 and 68.9. It is clear that Lara has not set the foreign grounds alight, barring probably Sri Lankan.

Result based analysis
Won 32 52 4 2929 61.02 8 16 6.5 15645 18.7%
Drawn 36 54 2 3708 71.31 12 10 4.5 18400 20.2%
Lost 63 126 0 5316 42.19 14 22 9.0 29004 18.3%
This is a dicey area. The common tendency is only to talk about performances in won matches only. That is very nice in strong teams. However in weaker teams it is essential to look at how the player has performed in drawn and lost matches. Anyhow when your team only has won only 25% of matches you have played in, there is no other alternative. This point was also emphasized by in a comment made recently.

Lara's average of 42 in lost matches is the highest amongst all contemporary batsmen. Similarly the % of team runs scored in lost matches is a very high 18.3%, the highest amongst all modern batsmen. His performance in drawn matches is also very good and is matched only by Kallis.

Probably the more important factor is that Lara has maintained his contributions to the team runs at an even keel whether the matches are won, drawn or lost. This is a trait most batsmen lack in and most followers do not understand and appreciate. The emphasis is on winning.

Analysis by country faced
Australia 31 58 2 2856 51.00 9 11 6.4 13963 20.5%
Bangladesh 2 2 0 173 86.50 1 1 2.0 911 19.0%
England 30 51 3 2983 62.15 7 11 7.3 13918 21.4%
India 17 29 0 1002 34.55 2 6 14.5 8908 11.2%
New Zealand 11 17 0 704 41.41 1 5 17.0 5080 13.9%
Pakistan 12 22 0 1173 53.32 4 3 5.5 6109 19.2%
South Africa 18 35 0 1715 49.00 4 9 8.8 9432 18.2%
Sri Lanka 8 14 1 1125 86.54 5 2 2.8 3577 31.5%
Zimbabwe 2 4 0 222 55.50 1 0 4.0 1151 19.3%
It is clear that Lara met his match against the Indian bowlers. Any talk about weakness against spin should be killed at birth because of his performance against Sri Lanka. New Zealand was another team which troubled him. But bring on England and Sri Lanka, he was on song. The average against Australia might not look great but let us not forget the quality of Australian bowling he faced. He played only 4 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and probably did not care much about accumulating runs. It is amazing that Lara has scored nearly a third of the team runs scored against Sri Lanka. And over 20% of the team runs scored against Australia and England.

Batting position analysis
Bat-Pos 1 1 0 20 20.00 0 0 0.0
Bat-Pos 2 1 0 91 91.00 0 1 0.0
Bat-Pos 3 66 4 3749 60.47 9 13 7.3
Bat-Pos 4 148 1 7535 51.26 24 31 6.2
Bat-Pos 5 14 1 536 41.23 1 3 14.0
Bat-Pos 6 1 0 8 8.00 0 0 0.0
Bat-Pos 8 1 0 14 14.00 0 0 0.0
Avge Batting Position: 3.78
Like Tendulkar, no.4 was his favourite batting position. However unlike his fellow not-so-tall-legend, he batted at no.3 often. He averaged over 60 at no.3 and above 50 at no.4. These were his bread-and-butter positions and he performed very well there. Incidentally the sole no.5 century was the most famous of all: the Bridgetown classic of 153*.
Analysis by year
1990 1 2 0 49 24.50 0 0 0.0
1991 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0
1992 3 6 0 195 32.50 0 3 0.0
1993 7 10 0 586 58.60 1 3 10.0
1994 8 14 0 996 71.14 2 4 7.0
1995 12 20 2 1222 67.89 4 6 5.0
1996 5 9 0 226 25.11 0 1 0.0
1997 12 21 0 859 40.90 3 3 7.0
1998 9 15 1 608 43.43 0 5 0.0
1999 8 15 1 832 59.43 3 4 5.0
2000 9 17 0 497 29.24 2 1 8.5
2001 9 18 0 1151 63.94 3 4 6.0
2002 7 10 0 351 35.10 0 3 0.0
2003 10 19 1 1344 74.67 5 5 3.8
2004 12 21 1 1178 58.90 3 4 7.0
2005 9 17 0 1110 65.29 5 0 3.4
2006 10 18 0 749 41.61 3 2 6.0
Ignoring the starting years, Lara probably had three bad years, 1996, 2000 and 2002. The spreading of these years also was responsible for Lara comfortably maintaining averages of well over 50 over multi-year spans. He made up for his small scores with huge scores.

Peer comparisons
Peer-All-T7 232 11953 52.89 14372 523291 36.41 1.45
Peer-Team-T7 232 11953 52.89 1268 40252 31.74 1.67
Lara out-performed his peers by a margin of 45% and his team-mates by 67%. While there are others who have out-performed their peers by higher margins, Kallis by 52%, there is no one even close in the team-mates comparisons. He was head-and-shoulders above them.
 
Tendulkar was better at performing consistently in away tours, while Lara was just a beast in home conditions.

Tendu had the luxury of batting with some great batsmen in the later half of his career while Lara had an ATG bowling pair of Ambrose/Walsh in the team till 2002.
 
I have a headache from reading that, can you please paragraph better and highlight please..
 
agreed with Romali_rotti but very good post
 
Lara a show stopper,sachin for consistency and handling pressure better,over all I like Lara more for style but Sachin over all...anyday
 
I think Lara was a better test batsman than tendukalr. Lara has scored BIG hundreds while Tenduklar failed to score BIG hundreds. Also tendu has 3 great test batsman with him unlike Lara who dont have any big test player with him to bat. So, he was mostly a lone warrior.
 
I think Lara was a better test batsman than tendukalr. Lara has scored BIG hundreds while Tenduklar failed to score BIG hundreds. Also tendu has 3 great test batsman with him unlike Lara who dont have any big test player with him to bat. So, he was mostly a lone warrior.

Lara being a lone warrior is slightly over rated.

While he didn't have any other competent batsmen in the team (till Chanders/Gayle/Sarwan) he had two of the greatest bowlers of the era bowling in his team till 2002, something which Sachin never had in his 24 year career.
 
i had earlier posted a thread selecting 34 100s of SRT with highest strike rates and then comparing them with all 34 100s of Lara.the str: rate difference was only marginal , infact a mere 5.55.but the difference in average was over 39 in favour of SRT. That clearly indicates that though Lara had some huge scores like 375,400 in his home conditions(credit for that though), over all there is nothing to choose between them as far as aggressiveness is concerned.

On the other hand Sachin led Lara quite comfortably in all other factors. he has 17 more 100s. he has much variety in his 100s.(he could score 100s against Akram,Waqar and Donald unlike Lara). Lara didn't score a 100 in India too.Sachin's abroad average is quite consistant in that his lowest abroad avg: is 40 vs Zimbabwe.Lara hugely lagged Sachin in this regard.

Lara had little support is also overrated. Walsh and Ambrose played till 2000s along with him.his 'flair' is also a matter of personnel choice. it is like that if 100 people tell a matter, 101st person will simply repeat the statement with out knowing any thing.i found Sachin more compact and attractive to watch. to me Sachin over Lara any day.

then his 'match winning' matter is also a hype.infact i can't get its definition.a player winning a match on his own?his 153* vs Aus comes to mind. other than that what?
 
AT LEAST ASK YOURSELF WHY TENDULKAR IS THE ONLY ONE THROUGHOUT THE history of the game to inspired everyone including the Australian Media to compare him with Don. U wont find many experts or mediapersons raising the debate whether Lara is as good as Don but everyone has given some thot to whether Sachin was a modern day Don. Plus all the batting greats n top class fast bowlers like Donald , Akram have conceded that Tendu was best of this era.
 
Lara pleasing to the eyes (Lefties generally have that flair), while Tendulkar was 'more' complete test batsman.
 
AT LEAST ASK YOURSELF WHY TENDULKAR IS THE ONLY ONE THROUGHOUT THE history of the game to inspired everyone including the Australian Media to compare him with Don. U wont find many experts or mediapersons raising the debate whether Lara is as good as Don but everyone has given some thot to whether Sachin was a modern day Don. Plus all the batting greats n top class fast bowlers like Donald , Akram have conceded that Tendu was best of this era.

Lara touched heights that Tendulkar didn't come close to.

Both are the best batsmen since IVA Richards.
 
Tendulkar hit the likes of Donald, Waqar n Akram on their homesoil then again Qadir and Warne n Saqlain on turners to all corners in many innings that he domiinated the bowling. I've never seen Lara dominate Donald or Akram or Waqar on a fast wicket. But he was a great no Doubt.
 
Tendulkar hit the likes of Donald, Waqar n Akram on their homesoil then again Qadir and Warne n Saqlain on turners to all corners in many innings that he domiinated the bowling. I've never seen Lara dominate Donald or Akram or Waqar on a fast wicket. But he was a great no Doubt.

Well, he never played a Test against the 2W's at anywhere near their peak.
 
Lara touched heights that Tendulkar didn't come close to.

Both are the best batsmen since IVA Richards.

Viv was better than both, this is the most brutal piece of chart I have ever seen.

There were many good batsmen around during that time.
 

Attachments

  • viv.jpg
    viv.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 495
Viv was better than both, this is the most brutal piece of chart I have ever seen.

There were many good batsmen around during that time.

Hence why I said since.

I think Lara has hit highs that even the likes of Gavaskar, Border and Miandad couldn't match. Tendulkar's longevity and consistency also can't be discounted.

Ideally, you'd want both in your team.

One you can rely on to deliver for you day in, day out. Whilst the other does things that just leave you in awe.
 
Last edited:
Well, he never played a Test against the 2W's at anywhere near their peak.

I think he played a few ODI's against Pakistan between 1990-1994 (the period when both W's were supposed to be at their peak) and he averaged 54 at an SR of 106 or something.

But yeah, few tests between the W's and Sach during the mid 90's would have sealed the deal though!
 
Hence why I said since.

I think Lara has hit highs that even the likes of Gavaskar, Border and Miandad couldn't match. Tendulkar's longevity and consistency also can't be discounted.

Ideally, you'd want both in your team.

One you can rely on to deliver for you day in, day out. Whilst the other does things that just leave you in awe.

well said sums up the comparison.
 
I think he played a few ODI's against Pakistan between 1990-1994 (the period when both W's were supposed to be at their peak) and he averaged 54 at an SR of 106 or something.

But yeah, few tests between the W's and Sach during the mid 90's would have sealed the deal though!

Chances are just like in ODIs all three would have walked away with some memorable perfomances.

It's a shame it didn't happen. A bit like Mayweather and Pacquiao not fighting (sorry for the boxing analogy). All we are left with are fans debating what would have happened.
 
Viv was better than both, this is the most brutal piece of chart I have ever seen.

There were many good batsmen around during that time.

Viv was the greatest of his era.

But whenever i've witnessed a Sachin vs Lara debate, there are always arguments how Lara was superior to Sachin because he played for a weak team. But somehow that argument seems to go out of the window when discussing IVA, who played for arguably the greatest team of all time.

Chances are just like in ODIs all three would have walked away with some memorable perfomances.

It's a shame it didn't happen. A bit like Mayweather and Pacquiao not fighting (sorry for the boxing analogy). All we are left with are fans debating what would have happened.

Yes, that would have been the contest of the 90's for sure.

But its not like Lara set the stage on fire against the two W's. While he played some good innings against them at home (none like the Chennai 1999 by Tendulkar) he played two test series against the W's in Pakistan during the 90's and failed in both, averaging in his mid-20's.

Now imagine, had Tendulkar been in Lara's place we'd have to hear about these failures everytime someone mentioned Sach as an ATG :p

But in Lara's case it is conveniently overlooked.
 
Last edited:
Viv was the greatest of his era.

But whenever i've witnessed a Sachin vs Lara debate, there are always arguments how Lara was superior to Sachin because he played for a weak team. But somehow that argument seems to go out of the window when discussing IVA, who played for arguably the greatest team of all time.



Yes, that would have been the contest of the 90's for sure.

But its not like Lara set the stage on fire against the two W's. While he played some good innings against them at home (none like the Chennai 1999 by Tendulkar) he played two test series against the W's in Pakistan during the 90's and failed in both, averaging in his mid-20's.

Now imagine, had Tendulkar been in Lara's place we'd have to hear about these failures everytime someone mentioned Sach as an ATG :p

But in Lara's case it is conveniently overlooked.

I don't think it's over-looked. The 2 Ws had the better of him. Then again not many batsmen did exceptionally against them. Had Tendulkar played a significant innings against them it could have been used as a distinguishing factor between the two.

Like Tendulkar, Lara was fairly successful against us in ODIS.
 
Viv was the greatest of his era.

But whenever i've witnessed a Sachin vs Lara debate, there are always arguments how Lara was superior to Sachin because he played for a weak team. But somehow that argument seems to go out of the window when discussing IVA, who played for arguably the greatest team of all time.



Yes, that would have been the contest of the 90's for sure.

But its not like Lara set the stage on fire against the two W's. While he played some good innings against them at home (none like the Chennai 1999 by Tendulkar) he played two test series against the W's in Pakistan during the 90's and failed in both, averaging in his mid-20's.

Now imagine, had Tendulkar been in Lara's place we'd have to hear about these failures everytime someone mentioned Sach as an ATG :p

But in Lara's case it is conveniently overlooked.

Interesting point ,I think likes of Imran praise him so highly that no body consider this angle.
From what I have read his eye was so strong that he sometimes used to play likes of Imran and Lillee(at peaks) like spinners, I mean this is freakish!!!
 
Interesting point ,I think likes of Imran praise him so highly that no body consider this angle.
From what I have read his eye was so strong that he sometimes used to play likes of Imran and Lillee(at peaks) like spinners, I mean this is freakish!!!

Many consider him to be the best player of pace bowling ever.
 
I don't think it's over-looked. The 2 Ws had the better of him. Then again not many batsmen did exceptionally against them. Had Tendulkar played a significant innings against them it could have been used as a distinguishing factor between the two.

Like Tendulkar, Lara was fairly successful against us in ODIS.

I would say the innings at Chennai 1999 is one of the best i've ever seen against the 2 W's, and could be used as a distinguishing factor between both. Some unreal strokes, fighting severe backache. And dont forget, he was facing Saqlain too on a fifth day pitch, who was in tremendous form throughout the series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpgGayBp2OY

Sachin maybe didn't score consistently against the two W's (played two series averaged 38 in one and 44 in the other, correct me if i'm wrong) but then again, not many batsmen have done exceptionally well against the two W's.

The only ones i remember having consistent success against them are the Aussie duo of Taylor/Slater. Andy Flower played a few good innings too.
 
Last edited:
I would say the innings at Chennai 1999 is one of the best i've ever seen against the 2 W's, and could be used as a distinguishing factor between both. Some unreal strokes, fighting severe backache. And dont forget, he was facing Saqlain too on a fifth day pitch, who was in tremendous form throughout the series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpgGayBp2OY

Sachin maybe didn't score consistently against the two W's (played two series averaged 38 in one and 44 in the other, correct me if i'm wrong) but then again, not many batsmen have done exceptionally well against the two W's.

The only ones i remember having consistent success against them are the Aussie duo of Taylor/Slater. Andy Flower played a few good innings too.

great share my favorite Tendu shot is when he plays leg glance from almost 7th off stump, I have seen him doing that to 140 clicks deliveries, it looks like time pause for a moment.
 
one major problem i found with Lara was that his inconsistancy coinciced with a set of bowlers or bowling conditions.as we all know Lara had great series where he accumulated huge where as when he was poor he indeed was poor.he accumulated against Murali in SL and WI, against AUS home and abroad, against ENG in home conditions.on the other hand the same Lara couldn't cross 99 against Wasim,Waqar,Donald and against India in India(where from 3rd day onwards generally pitches changed to rack turners) .that is his inconsistancy had a pattern which is based on his deficiency in technique rather than being out of form.this to me is a major draw back in one to one comparison with Sachin.
 
one major problem i found with Lara was that his inconsistancy coinciced with a set of bowlers or bowling conditions.as we all know Lara had great series where he accumulated huge where as when he was poor he indeed was poor.he accumulated against Murali in SL and WI, against AUS home and abroad, against ENG in home conditions.on the other hand the same Lara couldn't cross 99 against Wasim,Waqar,Donald and against India in India(where from 3rd day onwards generally pitches changed to rack turners) .that is his inconsistancy had a pattern which is based on his deficiency in technique rather than being out of form.this to me is a major draw back in one to one comparison with Sachin.

interesting angle.

BTW do you consider VIV better than both??
 
^ I will take either of them when it comes to quality in test arena..... But because Tendu started so early and is still playing I will rate Tendu ahead of Lara.... 24 years in test arena is not a joke.

Regarding Viv.. I used to be big fan but the reason I discount Viv is same why i discount Warne against Murali... They played in great sides and more often then not oppositions was mostly decimated by other players...
 
interesting angle.

BTW do you consider VIV better than both??

Definitely.. Viv for me is the 2nd best after Don Bradman.3rd comes Sachin.reasons are his str: rate of 69 from the 80s.his amazing one day figures of avg: 47 and str: rate 90+. all this with out wearing a helmet...this is extraordinary.on the other hand Viv had advantages in that he belonged to a formidable team ,hence less pressure. but yet him doing all what he did with out a helmet puts him in the 2nd place.
 
Well, he never played a Test against the 2W's at anywhere near their peak.

Well my point was specifically referring to the two Ws but to the top fast bowlers of our times. Kinda inspired by Holding's comments on Lara, where he said that Lara got more runs against spinners n medium pacers but struggles a bit against Quicks. I dont think he struggles but I cant imagine Lara hitting Waqar for a six over long on or haven't seen him belt Donald arnd either. No disrespect to his greatness but I dont remember seeing him hitting a ATG fast bowler to all corners. Of course there may be, and wud really like to see the link to some of Laras innings where he disproves the above point, But Lara did struggle against Shoaib whereas Tendulkar was at times imperious against bowlers of serious pace. I also think Laras style was different as he used a lighter bat than tendulkar so he had more timing yet not quite tendulkars power, but his shuffle across the crease n high backlift was good to watch. I guess the best way to see these ATGs is to treat them one like Michaelangelo other like Picasso with their works displayed in the same hall of fame, u wud be so much in awe of each painting that u wudnt try to reason why one was better than the other n if u did it would take you a lifetime to perhaps arrive anywhere. Pretty much a great work of art does not lend itself to comparative analysis IMO.
 
Ponting was a gun player but a notch below Tendu and Lara. my opinion Tendu's consistency makes him the best but Lara on sing was a genius.
 
Tendulkar was a better batsman. No doubt in my mind.
But there was more about Lara you could sit back and admire than there is to Sachin.
 
I think there are more Threads about Sachin-Lara than the number of runs hafeez scored this year in tests.

Back to topic, Tendulkar no doubt though Lara had to carry a lot of load onto his shoulders along with chanderpaul so I think Lara was the better player under pressure.
 
Lara was probably more "Pakistani" with all of that inconsistency.

BUT, I'd take Sachin cause we'd make him a match winner with our bowling. :wasim :waqar
 
Tendulkar was a better batsman. No doubt in my mind.
But there was more about Lara you could sit back and admire than there is to Sachin.

If there is more to Lara which we can sit back and admire, it obviously would make him better than Sachin, wouldn't it ?

Unless of course our rational thinking gets affected by sitting back.
 
If there is more to Lara which we can sit back and admire, it obviously would make him better than Sachin, wouldn't it ?

Unless of course our rational thinking gets affected by sitting back.

No, since the thread is totally about batting ability.
 
His unorthodox, yet pleasing to the eyes batting style. A sight we don't usually see in cricket a lot.

I am not sure about unorthodox, but pleasing to the eye batting style is applicable to the other man also.
 
Shewag is even more destructive than Lara and unorthodox too. He too has scored 300+ scores. His average too is 50 that too as an opener.
 
Both? They are even left and right handed bats so no competition for a place. :kami
 
Lara was probably more "Pakistani" with all of that inconsistency.

BUT, I'd take Sachin cause we'd make him a match winner with our bowling. :wasim :waqar

That send a chill down my spine; The thought of 2 W's & SRT in the same team, world would have been at their feet...
 
Sehwag over Lara ?? Ha ha ha..

Well going by this thread its quite alright to say things like 'Probably Sehwag at his best is more brilliant than Lara, more aggressive, unorthodox style of play which is unique to himself and no one else can bat like that, exiting when u want to sit back and watch, although Lara is a better overall player. .... on & on .........'

n guess what it would actually be somewhat true !
 
I'd rate the genius Garry Sobers the best batsman from the post war era, slightly ahead of another legendary genius Viv Richards.

With regards to Sachin and Lara, if you speak of natural talent, I'd put Lara slightly (mind you, just slightly, by a hair) ahead of Sachin. But over all in terms of their accomplishments, I'd rate Sachin better (once again, just slightly, by a hair). And yea, there's no doubt that I'm BIASED :D

Who cares, we fans of the 90's got to witness so many great players - Lara, Sachin, S.Waugh, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock. Such a shame fans not from that era will never get to witness such legends again, just like we fans of the 90's won't get to witness legends like Viv, Chappell, Sunny, Hadlee, Imran (The 'Great' Khan), Marshall, Holding, Garner, etc.
 
I'd rate the genius Garry Sobers the best batsman from the post war era, slightly ahead of another legendary genius Viv Richards.

With regards to Sachin and Lara, if you speak of natural talent, I'd put Lara slightly (mind you, just slightly, by a hair) ahead of Sachin. But over all in terms of their accomplishments, I'd rate Sachin better (once again, just slightly, by a hair). And yea, there's no doubt that I'm BIASED :D

Who cares, we fans of the 90's got to witness so many great players - Lara, Sachin, S.Waugh, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock. Such a shame fans not from that era will never get to witness such legends again, just like we fans of the 90's won't get to witness legends like Viv, Chappell, Sunny, Hadlee, Imran (The 'Great' Khan), Marshall, Holding, Garner, etc.

You have a strange habit of bumping old threads. Now this thread will go another two pages or so..with analysis, stats, contexts, blah blah...
 
You have a strange habit of bumping old threads. Now this thread will go another two pages or so..with analysis, stats, contexts, blah blah...

It's fun bumping up old threads. Add to that, I've merely given my honest opinion. Haven't tried to troll this thread.
 
You have a strange habit of bumping old threads. Now this thread will go another two pages or so..with analysis, stats, contexts, blah blah...

Just noticed lol, thought we've had enough of these threads already
 
Tendulkar for sheer consistency in all parts of the world over a couple of decades, but he could not play an ATG knock in 200 tests. Lara in contrast had a knack of scoring great innings but had mediocre records in India, New Zealand and Australia, and was somewhat of a home bully.

Tendulkar edges it for me if i factor in everything.
 
What's up with these old threads bumping?

Anyway, SRT for me.
 
One thing that isn't mentioned is match winning innings. Lara played probably the greatest match winning innings of the last 20 years against Australia with that 153. I don't think Tendulkar could have played that innings.

Anyway 50-50 for me, Tendulkar was more consistent but Lara was better in some situations as i mentioned.
 
One thing that isn't mentioned is match winning innings. Lara played probably the greatest match winning innings of the last 20 years against Australia with that 153. I don't think Tendulkar could have played that innings.

Anyway 50-50 for me, Tendulkar was more consistent but Lara was better in some situations as i mentioned.

Lara wasn't some great match winner and much ahead of others in playing match winning knocks. Bowlers win you test matches but Lara has only 5-6 match winning centuries against non-minnows despite having Ambrose and Walsh with him. Lara has played too many knocks to simply get records rather than winning matches for WI.
 
AT LEAST ASK YOURSELF WHY TENDULKAR IS THE ONLY ONE THROUGHOUT THE history of the game to inspired everyone including the Australian Media to compare him with Don. U wont find many experts or mediapersons raising the debate whether Lara is as good as Don but everyone has given some thot to whether Sachin was a modern day Don. Plus all the batting greats n top class fast bowlers like Donald , Akram have conceded that Tendu was best of this era.
He's not.

The Australian media and Bradman were just as effusive about Sobers and Pollock. And the Don complimented Sachin before his catastrophic fourth innings record became visible.

The answer to the OP's question is simple?

Lara or Tendulkar?

NEITHER! They were a pair of geniuses whose mental defects made them inferior to less gifted batsmen ranging from Kumar Sangakkara to FAF du Plessis, who had the mental strength to dig in and save lost causes.

Dumb and Dumber. Wasted talent.

And by the way:

1960s: Sobers and Pollock
1970s: Barry Richards and Viv Richards.

All four of whom were significantly better than Lara or Tendulkar!
 
He's not.

The Australian media and Bradman were just as effusive about Sobers and Pollock. And the Don complimented Sachin before his catastrophic fourth innings record became visible.

The answer to the OP's question is simple?

Lara or Tendulkar?

NEITHER! They were a pair of geniuses whose mental defects made them inferior to less gifted batsmen ranging from Kumar Sangakkara to FAF du Plessis, who had the mental strength to dig in and save lost causes.

Dumb and Dumber. Wasted talent.

And by the way:

1960s: Sobers and Pollock
1970s: Barry Richards and Viv Richards.

All four of whom were significantly better than Lara or Tendulkar!
In what world is Du Plessis better than Tendulkar. Tendulkar is universally recognised as one of the greatest batsman in the modern era.
 
In what world is Du Plessis better than Tendulkar. Tendulkar is universally recognised as one of the greatest batsman in the modern era.

You probably don't know his views about SRT, lol.
 
You probably don't know his views about SRT, lol.
Ive seen him go on long winded bizarre rants. Rating SRT as the 20th best batsman in history because of his average. You can make a case for Lara Viv being better than Tendulkar. But Faf du plessis come on that is beyond the joke.
 
SRT is rated as one of the greatest in the modern era. I dont even think Fafs Parents would say hes better than SRT.
 
Younis is also better than SRT then in tests because he averages 50 in the 4th innings
 
I'd pick Brian Lara just to see the reaction for Sachinistas. :))

They were a pair of geniuses whose mental defects made them inferior to less gifted batsmen ranging from Kumar Sangakkara to FAF du Plessis, who had the mental strength to dig in and save lost causes.
- Junaids on Lara and Tendulker

Who wants to the make the above their signature?
 
Du Plessis better than SRT B.C Lara. This is the second worst statement i have seen since Ahmed Shehzad is more talented than Sachin
 
Back
Top