Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkar as Test match batsman?

[Junaids]

I don't think FAF is better than Sachin and Lara - but he's a damn sight better at saving lost causes.

I just think SRT and Lara were both very, very flawed.

 

[EliteCynical]

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!

Anybody from your school days sir?

 

[Buffet]

Younis is also better than SRT then in tests because he averages 50 in the 4th innings

As much I appreciate batsmen like Smith scoring in 4th inning, you have only 4 batsmen in entire history with 1500+ runs in 4th inning. Smith's has 1500+ runs to make it a bit meaningful.

You win test matches by setting the game upfront. Average hardly means anything if we are talking about very few runs. Average in 4th inning is way less important than average in 1/2 inning for winning test matches. It's not like you have batsmen scoring lots of runs in 4th inning. Only Smith has 1500+ with 50+ avg in 4th inning.

 

[Adil_94]

As much I appreciate batsmen like Smith scoring in 4th inning, you have only 4 batsmen in entire history with 1500+ runs in 4th inning. Smith's has 1500+ runs to make it a bit meaningful.

You win test matches by setting the game upfront. Average hardly means anything if we are talking about very few runs. Average in 4th inning is way less important than average in 1/2 inning for winning test matches. It's not like you have batsmen scoring lots of runs in 4th inning. Only Smith has 1500+ with 50+ avg in 4th inning.

I know mate i was trolling. Younis is better than SRT in one aspect. Every other aspect SRT is head and shoulders above him

 

[Buffet]

I know mate i was trolling. Younis is better than SRT in one aspect. Every other aspect SRT is head and shoulders above him

I took your comment as sarcastic anyway

I was just adding and not really replying.

 

[Junaids]

No Buffet.

The fourth innings is the measure of a man. You have to negotiate a pitch at its worst - which tests your technique - and you have to preserve your wicket to minimise the risk of defeat, all the while while keeping up with scoreboard pressure if a win is feasible.

Lara and Tendulkar lost more Tests batting fourth than any batsmen in history, while also having terrible personal fourth innings averages.

It fundamentally undermines their claims to greatness.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Lara...purely for the Daddy 100s. Wasim Akram has a higher test score than Sachin !!!

 

[Buffet]

No Buffet.

The fourth innings is the measure of a man. You have to negotiate a pitch at its worst - which tests your technique - and you have to preserve your wicket to minimise the risk of defeat, all the while while keeping up with scoreboard pressure if a win is feasible.

Lara and Tendulkar lost more Tests batting fourth than any batsmen in history, while also having terrible personal fourth innings averages.

It fundamentally undermines their claims to greatness.

You are taking average as some measure of greatness when most batsmen don't have even 1500 runs. Let me walk through with one example of player you quoted earlier due to having a high 4th inning average. 4th inning wickets are not always tough to bat. Sometime they are pretty easy to bat.

YK made 130* in 4th inning when 3rd inning saw only 2 wickets and 4th inning saw only 3 wicket.

YK made 131 in 4th inning when 3rd inning saw only 4 wickets and 4th inning also saw only 4 wickets.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/461571.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/299005.html

So that 260 runs will take average very high but hardly the circumstances you are depicting here. If you have lots of runs at high average then it's under stable to tout 4th inning average. When you have only 4 batsmen in entire history with 1500+ in 4th inning then defining greatness based on average on 4th inning seems bit of stretch by looking at data to suit your argument.

You could in fact talk about players who scored runs in 4th inning under tough circumstances and saved the match. That's a better way to see this thing rather than taking 4th inning average and drawing some conclusion. Basically, you will take individual examples to show if they stepped up or not. I don't think that SRT did it many times and it's a valid criticism but you are reading too much into average of 4th inning here.

I will happily take batsmen who step up in 1st/2nd inning because that's what will win me most games and even help me draw most games. If you want to put too much emphasis on 1000 odd runs to define greatness then it's fine. I just don't put that high an emphasis on that. I do appreciate Faf and anyone playing dead block knocks to save the game by batting for hours but that's always an isolated example for me. I will simply recall what they did rather than looking at average to draw any conclusion. Reasons are obvious and I shared them

 

[hk031992]

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.

this is partially true. I did not like how Lara went after England to reclaim his record (the 400 run innings). To be fair, post 1995, he had a rather fragile batting line up. And while Ambrose and Walsh were great, the 3rd and 4th bowlers for west indies post Bishop weren't that good. All this made it harder for WI to win matches.

Still, i don't think SRT could have played that knock vs Aus (153 one). Tendulkar was definately technically the better batsmen and beats him in terms of longevity as well. I have no problem with anyone who ranks SRT a little higher.

 

[hk031992]

You are taking average as some measure of greatness when most batsmen don't have even 1500 runs. Let me walk through with one example of player you quoted earlier due to having a high 4th inning average. 4th inning wickets are not always tough to bat. Sometime they are pretty easy to bat.

YK made 130* in 4th inning when 3rd inning saw only 2 wickets and 4th inning saw only 3 wicket.

YK made 131 in 4th inning when 3rd inning saw only 4 wickets and 4th inning also saw only 4 wickets.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/461571.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/299005.html

So that 260 runs will take average very high but hardly the circumstances you are depicting here. If you have lots of runs at high average then it's under stable to tout 4th inning average. When you have only 4 batsmen in entire history with 1500+ in 4th inning then defining greatness based on average on 4th inning seems bit of stretch by looking at data to suit your argument.

You could in fact talk about players who scored runs in 4th inning under tough circumstances and saved the match. That's a better way to see this thing rather than taking 4th inning average and drawing some conclusion. Basically, you will take individual examples to show if they stepped up or not. I don't think that SRT did it many times and it's a valid criticism but you are reading too much into average of 4th inning here.

I will happily take batsmen who step up in 1st/2nd inning because that's what will win me most games and even help me draw most games. If you want to put too much emphasis on 1000 odd runs to define greatness then it's fine. I just don't put that high an emphasis on that. I do appreciate Faf and anyone playing dead block knocks to save the game by batting for hours but that's always an isolated example for me. I will simply recall what they did rather than looking at average to draw any conclusion. Reasons are obvious and I shared them

100% agree. Its more important to do damage up front.

 

[Buffet]

this is partially true. I did not like how Lara went after England to reclaim his record (the 400 run innings). To be fair, post 1995, he had a rather fragile batting line up. And while Ambrose and Walsh were great, the 3rd and 4th bowlers for west indies post Bishop weren't that good. All this made it harder for WI to win matches.

Still, i don't think SRT could have played that knock vs Aus (153 one). Tendulkar was definately technically the better batsmen and beats him in terms of longevity as well. I have no problem with anyone who ranks SRT a little higher.

I do rank Lara's 153 very high and I wasn't even comparing him with anyone particular here. I was only pointing out his attitude towards winning the match and his record not being really great to label him much better than others when it comes to winning matches. You are right about other factors. It's a subjective thing because players have different set of 10 players with them and you win due to 11 players putting their effort.

 

[hk031992]

I do rank Lara's 153 very high and I wasn't even comparing him with anyone particular here. I was only pointing out his attitude towards winning the match and his record not being really great to label him much better than others when it comes to winning matches. You are right about other factors. It's a subjective thing because players have different set of 10 players with them and you win due to 11 players putting their effort.

fair enough. I have to agree. He was a terrible captain and his attitude towards winning wasn't great either. Can't disagree there

 

[Fallen King]

This comparatively thread is in wrong forum. India and Pakistan didn't play Test format that much during 90's especially when Pakistan was powerhouse, a dominant bowling attack back then. Pakistan played West Indies a lot; home and abroad, including VB series in Australia. We saw a lot of Brain Lara, but not me personally as i couldn't watched LIVE as a kid, so we relied on highlights covered the past content. Brian Lara was a fiery batsman, a someone who could literally butcher quality bowlers when on song.

I cannot comment on Tendulkar nor i watched a lot of Indian cricket apart from Pakistan-India. I started watching Tendulkar in the late 90's, and that's when he as captain became choker, couldn't handle under pressure, and saw the matches where he threw tailenders to deep end to remain unbeaten so he could have century and remain unbeaten for the sake of his average. Poor tailenders did their best, but lost the match during the chasing against England in Sharjah i think. India team was very close to win, but I was shocked by selfish approach of Tendulkar, and the way he threw his team under the train, and poor tailenders must have been blamed for the loss of the match. During that time, India was crazily addicted to Tendulkar. That's when i lost the respect for him.

As a batsman, Tendulkar was amazing, and he was a batsman any batsmen can learn a lot from like any kind of shot selections; strokes, cover drive and everything.

 

[Fallen King]

CORRECTION:

As a batsman, Tendulkar was amazing, and he was a text-book batsman and good example for any future and present batsmen to learn basic techniques for instance, strokes, cover drives, front-foot attack and defense, back-foot attack and defense and everything.

 

[Fallen King]

CORRECTION:

As a batsman, Tendulkar was amazing, and he was a text-book batsman and good example for any future and present batsmen to learn basic techniques for instance, strokes, cover drives, front-foot attack and defense, back-foot attack and defense and everything.

 

[ForeverIndian]

Not again.

 

[Dulex9]

Was is the better Test player between Brian Lara vs Tendulkar?

Lara is highly rated by many of his peers such as McGrath who I heard/read somewhere would take him over Tendulkar, so does Ponting saying "if you want to chase 350 you would have Lara.

So too Warne, I read somewhere even on New Zealand he thought Lara was better than Tendulkar.

Murali rates Lara highly and so does Donald.

Tendulkar was more consistent and has hundreds against every attack bearing Ambrose, Walsh I think.

Wereas Lara does have memorable, match winning knocks but was inconsistent and never scored a hundred against Donald, Wasim or Waqur.

 

[Robert]

Lara. On his day he was just unstoppable, a left-handed Viv Richards.

 

[Hitman]

Hmmmm .... who made it to Richie Benaud's All Time XI, Don Bradman's All Time XI, Richie Benaud's All Time XI, Cricinfo's All TIme XI, WISDEN's All TIme XI?

Also, who made it ahead in Christoper Martin's Jenkin's 100 Greatest Test players, David Gower's 50 Greatest Test players, Shane Warne's 100 Greatest Test players, Sky's list of 100 Greatest Test Players, ESPN Legends of Cricket 25 Greatest Cricketers of All Time ....... you name any damn list.

 

[Hitman]

Anyways, let's watch this clip -

 

[Hasan123]

I would take Sachin.

 

[Ab Fan]

SRT for me as well. Lara would go big or go missing. SRT gives you consistency on any track and against any bowler and for me that's what matters more.

 

[ManFan]

Tendulkar.

But if I need to chase 300+ on Day 5, I’m going for Lara.