What's new

Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkar as Test match batter?

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.
 
Junaids said:
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!
Click to expand...
Anybody from your school days sir?
 
Adil_94 said:
Younis is also better than SRT then in tests because he averages 50 in the 4th innings
Click to expand...

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.
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know mate i was trolling. Younis is better than SRT in one aspect. Every other aspect SRT is head and shoulders above him
 
Adil_94 said:
I know mate i was trolling. Younis is better than SRT in one aspect. Every other aspect SRT is head and shoulders above him
Click to expand...

I took your comment as sarcastic anyway ;)

I was just adding and not really replying.
 
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.
 
Junaids said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Buffet said:
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
Click to expand...
100% agree. Its more important to do damage up front.
 
hk031992 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...

fair enough. I have to agree. He was a terrible captain and his attitude towards winning wasn't great either. Can't disagree there
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lara. On his day he was just unstoppable, a left-handed Viv Richards.
 
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.
 
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.
 
While Sachin and Lara had almost same batting performance with 53.78 and 52.88 average respectively,one thing to consider is that Sachin started playing at age 16 and ended in 40 while Lara didn't start until age 20 and ended in 37.So Lara didn't bat when he was too young bor he didn't play many at late 30s.From 1993 to 2011 Sachin batting average was 38 as if he had played similar length of Lara.But at the same time one can argue Sachin had more not outs than Lara that help him to boost his batting average.Since Lara was in a weak side and many times they become all out and can't chase the target in 4th innings unlike Ind.
Now let's look at their career more closely.

Lara (overall):
He played 131 matches and among the 4 teams he played most were Aus (31),Eng (30),SA (18) and Ind (17).Lara played well against first 3 (with 51,62 and 49 average respectively) but he average just 34.6 vs Ind.

Sachin (overall):
He played 200 matches and among the 4 teams he played the most were Aus (39),Eng (32),SA (25) and SL (25). Except SA (42.46) he average above 50 in all of them.

Sachin vs Lara (overall):Lara unlike Sachin tend to be home track bully.As he ave 59 in home and 48 in away while Sachin has 2 runs gap between home and away.Since Lara played his 23.7% and 13.7% matches against top bowling side like Aus and SA while Sachin faced on 19.5% and 12.5% respectively, people can argue Lara is better and also Lara had better average vs Eng.But there is a problem with that reasoning.

Lara vs Sachin (90s):L:Lara(17) faced weak Eng bowling team more than Sachin(9).Eng was obviously not as strong as 2000s side as during 90s global bowling average was 31.51 while Eng had 34.85.Even Ind (33.46) was better.As a result Lara ave 79 vs them while Sachin ave 81.So if Sachin played more vs Aus he would average more.But unlike Lara Sachin also played too many vs early 90s SL team.Even though late 90s SL team was strong (ave 33.59) but early 90s SL team was weak (ave 39) and Sachin played half his match vs SL in early 90s.But off course Sachin was 4 years younger than Lara during 90s.
Lara vs Sachin (2000s):In 2000s Lara ave 54 while Sachin 53.Against 2000s Aus Lara ave 47 while Sachin 54.Vs Eng Lara ave 56 and Sachin ave 51. Lara played 11% vs SA and ave 37 but Sachin played 18% vs SA and ave 57.Lara ave 86 vs Pak and Sachin ave 51.But unlike Sachin Lara didn't faced Shoaib or Sami.Lara only dominance was against SL where he ave 123.But besides that he doesn't show anything better results than Sachin.

So you decide which had better test career.
 
No need to dissect...Sachin was the best test batter and 2nd greatest batsman after Bradman. Move on.

Sachin has more runs, more centuries, more man of the matches and played longer than Lara. I thought in the Bumrah & Wasim/Waqar comparison thread people were saying longevity is the key for test cricket.
 
Love how people squeeze all percentages and selective stats to pin down the great man. However, same stats somehow don't apply for Bumrah.
 
Rajdeep said:
No need to dissect...Sachin was the best test batter and 2nd greatest batsman after Bradman. Move on.

Sachin has more runs, more centuries, more man of the matches and played longer than Lara. I thought in the Bumrah & Wasim/Waqar comparison thread people were saying longevity is the key for test cricket.
Click to expand...
Yeah but debate was there in late 90s and 2000s unlike Sachin vs Ponting or someone else.Longevity is for Sachin because he played at age 16 but after late 30s his average dropped.Some players benefit from not playing before 20 and late 30s.As for man of the match WI was below average team so Lara can't win many
 
There are some very good points made over here.

1. Sachin had a longer career where he started at age of 16 and played till 39. Lara debuted at age of 20 and played till 35. Now, that may give Sachin an advantage in terms of aggregate runs he scored over his entire career but people don’t talk about the disadvantage of the same. When you debut at 16, your average will hurt by the time you hit your peak. If he debuted around 1992, he too would have hit his peak early and the average would have been even higher.

As an example, Hussey debuted much later while Clarke debuted at a young age. Hussey ended up with higher average than Clarke for same reason but we all know Clarke was a better test batter.

2. The disparity in home and away average is pretty obvious in case of Lara(59 vs 42). This isn’t talked about enough for no reasons.

I would like to add one point to it. This is about all format greatness.

3. Sachin maintained his top level performance of Test cricket in ODI cricket too by dominating 3 World Cups. Lara was never top run scorer in any of the World Cups and he didn’t won a World Cup either. He doesn’t have an ODI record as invincible as SRT had,i.e. 18500 runs at avg of 44 and SR of 86 which was phenomenal in that era.
 
Ab Fan said:
There are some very good points made over here.

1. Sachin had a longer career where he started at age of 16 and played till 39. Lara debuted at age of 20 and played till 35. Now, that may give Sachin an advantage in terms of aggregate runs he scored over his entire career but people don’t talk about the disadvantage of the same. When you debut at 16, your average will hurt by the time you hit your peak. If he debuted around 1992, he too would have hit his peak early and the average would have been even higher.

As an example, Hussey debuted much later while Clarke debuted at a young age. Hussey ended up with higher average than Clarke for same reason but we all know Clarke was a better test batter.

2. The disparity in home and away average is pretty obvious in case of Lara(59 vs 42). This isn’t talked about enough for no reasons.

I would like to add one point to it. This is about all format greatness.

3. Sachin maintained his top level performance of Test cricket in ODI cricket too by dominating 3 World Cups. Lara was never top run scorer in any of the World Cups and he didn’t won a World Cup either. He doesn’t have an ODI record as invincible as SRT had,i.e. 18500 runs at avg of 44 and SR of 86 which was phenomenal in that era.
Click to expand...
1.Yeah.Except some players like Anderson or Waqar who had outliers.Like Anderson being better in late age and Waqar in early but they are minority example which Lara doesn't belongs
2.Some SA players has better away average than homes but that is because SA hard to bat.Except that players typically have high away records but Sachin was balanced which is rare.
3.Sachin is different tier in ODI.When people compare Lara with Sachin they always have test in mind.In test they are close.One can argue Sachin is in different league because he may be equal to Lara in test but in ODI as an opening batsman where you face Wasim,Shoiab, McGrath,Ambrose,Lee,Bond and Donald head on unlike Lara who more likely to face opponents spinners than Sachin (team send spinners later after 10-12 overs)
 
Junaids said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are players who are good during pressure like Kohli in ODI but rest of the times they are not.I mean in pressure situation you can pick Lara but most if the time such situations don't appear.Players who perform better in specific situations that is hard are few and most play better in batting friendly situation
 
Tendulkar for me (slightly Indian bias)

Tendulkars shots were so elegant and divine,

Lara was just an ugly batsmen at the crease, moves around too much, no still head and poor technique he was just awful on the eye. However somehow he managed to put things together with a bit of luck on his side, for example he was dropped early for like 25 on his way to 150 vs Aus, it was a regulation slip catch.

Both Lara and SRT were the best bats of thier time, only SRT is the second greatest bat of all time...
 
:sachin for Indians.

Lara for the rest of the world. His name was synonymous with big batting, big runs and big energy.

And thats fine. :sachin had his moments too, and should be appreciated for them.
 
Both of them along with Viv and Smith is in the absolute top tier amon post 1970 bats. Choosing between them is just a matter of preference.
I like lara more because don't think any one was better to watch at full flow.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
:sachin for Indians.

Lara for the rest of the world. His name was synonymous with big batting, big runs and big energy.
Click to expand...

If only Indians say Sachin and rest of the world say Lara, this suggests that Lara was better.
 
Ab Fan said:
If only Indians say Sachin and rest of the world say Lara, this suggests that Lara was better.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree thats what it suggests but you must also remember for a long term the cricketing media & mindset was very western centric and Lara was a big hit in Aus ( so was Sachin) but more so England.

The achievements of both should be respected.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Yeah I agree thats what it suggests but you must also remember for a long term the cricketing media & mindset was very western centric and Lara was a big hit in Aus ( so was Sachin) but more so England.

The achievements of both should be respected.
Click to expand...

Yup, it’s probably down to cricketing media and mindset being western centric which is why Lara was often rated higher by Westerners. As a neutral fan, I look at their record and having watched them play in my childhood, I don’t think there was enough evidence to say that Lara was better than SRT.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Yeah I agree thats what it suggests but you must also remember for a long term the cricketing media & mindset was very western centric and Lara was a big hit in Aus ( so was Sachin) but more so England.

The achievements of both should be respected.
Click to expand...
Yeah some commentators and people from Aus/Eng mentioned Sachin but Lara hype is very common.Mcgrath rated Lara higher and so did Murali
 
Ab Fan said:
Yup, it’s probably down to cricketing media and mindset being western centric which is why Lara was often rated higher by Westerners. As a neutral fan, I look at their record and having watched them play in my childhood, I don’t think there was enough evidence to say that Lara was better than SRT.
Click to expand...
Also one can argue Lara tended to score more in 90s to early 2000s than Sachin (Sachin has more not out than Lara) and Lara was famous for high innings (400 vs Eng).While Sachin best was against Ban.That is why Lara tend to be in people memory.He is like John Cena of cricket.You respect Sachin for his batting and contribution but you grab popcorn if Lara play well
 
Fanboy375 said:
While Sachin and Lara had almost same batting performance with 53.78 and 52.88 average respectively,one thing to consider is that Sachin started playing at age 16 and ended in 40 while Lara didn't start until age 20 and ended in 37.So Lara didn't bat when he was too young bor he didn't play many at late 30s.From 1993 to 2011 Sachin batting average was 38 as if he had played similar length of Lara.But at the same time one can argue Sachin had more not outs than Lara that help him to boost his batting average.Since Lara was in a weak side and many times they become all out and can't chase the target in 4th innings unlike Ind.
Now let's look at their career more closely.

Lara (overall):
He played 131 matches and among the 4 teams he played most were Aus (31),Eng (30),SA (18) and Ind (17).Lara played well against first 3 (with 51,62 and 49 average respectively) but he average just 34.6 vs Ind.

Sachin (overall):
He played 200 matches and among the 4 teams he played the most were Aus (39),Eng (32),SA (25) and SL (25). Except SA (42.46) he average above 50 in all of them.

Sachin vs Lara (overall):Lara unlike Sachin tend to be home track bully.As he ave 59 in home and 48 in away while Sachin has 2 runs gap between home and away.Since Lara played his 23.7% and 13.7% matches against top bowling side like Aus and SA while Sachin faced on 19.5% and 12.5% respectively, people can argue Lara is better and also Lara had better average vs Eng.But there is a problem with that reasoning.

Lara vs Sachin (90s):L:Lara(17) faced weak Eng bowling team more than Sachin(9).Eng was obviously not as strong as 2000s side as during 90s global bowling average was 31.51 while Eng had 34.85.Even Ind (33.46) was better.As a result Lara ave 79 vs them while Sachin ave 81.So if Sachin played more vs Aus he would average more.But unlike Lara Sachin also played too many vs early 90s SL team.Even though late 90s SL team was strong (ave 33.59) but early 90s SL team was weak (ave 39) and Sachin played half his match vs SL in early 90s.But off course Sachin was 4 years younger than Lara during 90s.
Lara vs Sachin (2000s):In 2000s Lara ave 54 while Sachin 53.Against 2000s Aus Lara ave 47 while Sachin 54.Vs Eng Lara ave 56 and Sachin ave 51. Lara played 11% vs SA and ave 37 but Sachin played 18% vs SA and ave 57.Lara ave 86 vs Pak and Sachin ave 51.But unlike Sachin Lara didn't faced Shoaib or Sami.Lara only dominance was against SL where he ave 123.But besides that he doesn't show anything better results than Sachin.

So you decide which had better test career.
Click to expand...
Lara from what I can read.
 
Since this thread was made in 2013,

I will slot Steven Smith along side these two now. The three best test batsmen in 35 years.
 
sweep_shot said:
I would take Lara. He was more impactful.
Click to expand...

Lara has 6 tons in win against non-minnows despite playing along side couple of ATG bowlers.

To put it in context of impact, Shiv has the same number of tons as Lara in wins. Not saying that Shiv was in class of Lara, but impact wise Lara was not that great despite having service of couple pf ATG bowlers. Lara will be remembered for making those 375-400 kind of scores. No one else has done it, but not sure some of the calls to keep batting were good for team.

Steven Smith has over taken Lara now. Yes, for watching Lara may be better to watch, but we are not comparing good to watch.

1736261074860.png
 
Smith ave 54 if we ignore teams like WI and SL since they have become weak.In 2000s Lara ave 54 with minnows but during his time global bowling average was 33.9 while Smith time it is 31.7.In 90s Lara ave 51.6 and global bowling average was 31.5 yet after 2017 when Smith ave 49 global bowling average became 29.9.Also Lara played some match vs 90s Eng and NZ who unlike modern Eng and NZ had weak bowling
 
Fanboy375 said:
Also one can argue Lara tended to score more in 90s to early 2000s than Sachin
Click to expand...
Not in 90s, the Gap between these two was massive in 90s when playing away. They were at similar level at home in 90s.

Lara performed better than SRT in 00s.

90A.jpg
 
Buffet said:
Lara has 6 tons in win against non-minnows despite playing along side couple of ATG bowlers.

To put it in context of impact, Shiv has the same number of tons as Lara in wins. Not saying that Shiv was in class of Lara, but impact wise Lara was not that great despite having service of couple pf ATG bowlers. Lara will be remembered for making those 375-400 kind of scores. No one else has done it, but not sure some of the calls to keep batting were good for team.

Steven Smith has over taken Lara now. Yes, for watching Lara may be better to watch, but we are not comparing good to watch.

View attachment 149416
Click to expand...
Also Smith away records is better
 
Buffet said:
Not in 90s, the Gap between these two was massive in 90s when playing away. They were at similar level at home in 90s.

Lara performed better than SRT in 00s.

View attachment 149418
Click to expand...
Yeah also Lara played too many match against Eng and scored many unlike Ten.Lara also didn't faced peak 2000s bowling of Eng and SA.I believe late 2000s SA bowling was better than mid 2000s or early 2000s.
 
Buffet said:
Not in 90s, the Gap between these two was massive in 90s when playing away. They were at similar level at home in 90s.

Lara performed better than SRT in 00s.

View attachment 149418
Click to expand...
I think the gap in Lara ave in WI is different in two eras because unlike 90s WI pitch during 2000s was more spin friendly.In 2000s era WI pitch was more spin friendly than SENA but less than Ind and SL.And they were more space friendly than Ind and SL but less than SENA.As a result since Lara gets destructive against spin he played similar to Sachin when playing home in 2000s
 
Fanboy375 said:
I think the gap in Lara ave in WI is different in two eras because unlike 90s WI pitch during 2000s was more spin friendly.In 2000s era WI pitch was more spin friendly than SENA but less than Ind and SL.And they were more space friendly than Ind and SL but less than SENA.As a result since Lara gets destructive against spin he played similar to Sachin when playing home in 2000s
Click to expand...
Lara on song was the best sight to watch though. His series against SL was fun.

Lara was a bit weak against great pacers who could crank it up. I don't think Lara got to three figures in matches against SA/Pak home or away when Donald/Wasim/Waqar played.

Anyway, Smith doing so well is fantastic for cricket. Hope to see some one taking over SRT as well. Great players should be surpassed otherwise what's the fun in waching.
 
Buffet said:
My impression is based on having watched full career of Lara and Smith. Smith has over taken Lara. Stats may show the same.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣 go get your eyes and brain tested.

Smith is vastly overated.

Seems you like to again use stats selectively to push your weak agenda for certain players.
 
Amjid Javed said:
🤣🤣 go get your eyes and brain tested.

Smith is vastly overated.

Seems you like to again use stats selectively to push your weak agenda for certain players.
Click to expand...
Is there any point to discuss when you think only Root and Kohli are the great batsmen in their generation?

Smith is better than both by a landslide. Anyone waching them will say the same and stats simply confirms it.
 
501*, 400* and 375 are the reasons why Lara is far superior than Sachin in the red ball game. Sachin does not even have a 250 in FC cricket.

There is literally no difference between Sachin and any other batsman who averaged 50 in Test cricket. Sachin holds 0 records that are not dependent on number of matches played.

This fact automatically disqualifies Sachin from the debate of the greatest Test batsmen in history. He, at best, is a top 10 shout.
 
Mamoon said:
501*, 400* and 375 are the reasons why Lara is far superior than Sachin in the red ball game. Sachin does not even have a 250 in FC cricket.

There is literally no difference between Sachin and any other batsman who averaged 50 in Test cricket. Sachin holds 0 records that are not dependent on number of matches played.

This fact automatically disqualifies Sachin from the debate of the greatest Test batsmen in history. He, at best, is a top 10 shout.
Click to expand...

Lara is in another stratosphere compared to Sachin.

I witnessed the 501* on day 4 at my local club, my uncle took me; I wish I was old enough to jump over the barricade with the other kids to celebrate with the GOAT.
 
Mamoon said:
501*, 400* and 375 are the reasons why Lara is far superior than Sachin in the red ball game. Sachin does not even have a 250 in FC cricket.

There is literally no difference between Sachin and any other batsman who averaged 50 in Test cricket. Sachin holds 0 records that are not dependent on number of matches played.

This fact automatically disqualifies Sachin from the debate of the greatest Test batsmen in history. He, at best, is a top 10 shout.
Click to expand...
Yeah true.But nor did Viv Richards.Sachin is consistent.Lara benefited from places where he is comfortable like Asia and WI.Lara made great innings but between them he didn't do much well.Mcgrath once said if you want to get Lara out than do it early because he has a habit of scoring giant runs.So he is dangerous when he is above 150
 
Buffet said:
Is there any point to discuss when you think only Root and Kohli are the great batsmen in their generation?

Smith is better than both by a landslide. Anyone waching them will say the same and stats simply confirms it.
Click to expand...
Feel free go through all the series when Smith help his team win test series outside of Australia, where he also contributed to victories?

Smith scored a lot of career runs but is nowhere near Root or kohli.
 
shaz619 said:
Lara is in another stratosphere compared to Sachin.

I witnessed the 501* on day 4 at my local club, my uncle took me; I wish I was old enough to jump over the barricade with the other kids to celebrate with the GOAT.
Click to expand...
Just admit it, you were a 'darra hua, kamzour' bacha otherwise you would have jumped over even then :)
 
shaz619 said:
Lara is in another stratosphere compared to Sachin.

I witnessed the 501* on day 4 at my local club, my uncle took me; I wish I was old enough to jump over the barricade with the other kids to celebrate with the GOAT.
Click to expand...
Lara was next level. People mock his 400 and 501 claiming 400 was a selfish innings and 501 was a local one but do people even know how difficult it is to even score a 300?

You need a lot of concentration and stamina to bat that long. Something Sachin and frankly no one really had.
 
Lara was the best in Test cricket with better temprament while sachin was a white ball great
 
Mamoon said:
501*, 400* and 375 are the reasons why Lara is far superior than Sachin in the red ball game. Sachin does not even have a 250 in FC cricket.
Click to expand...

That 400 amounted to nothing. I remember Ponting scolding Lara for selfishly playing onto 400 not out instead of declaring for the team.
 
mominsaigol said:
Lara was next level. People mock his 400 and 501 claiming 400 was a selfish innings and 501 was a local one but do people even know how difficult it is to even score a 300?

You need a lot of concentration and stamina to bat that long. Something Sachin and frankly no one really had.
Click to expand...

Immense mental fortitude and to think he broke the record a good few times and each time was more and more driven, his rise did come with the start of WI’s decline but that didn’t deter him and he always batted out of his skin, ultimately you are remembered by great sporting moments and Lara has not one but a dozen, no one will ever forget Bridgetown or Edgbaston. Sachin is well known for dragging his career along to get to certain milestones, the biggest one wont last long :root Can’t wait to see how the resident stat-tards will justify his greatness then, he will be a mere drop in a filthy Indian ocean.
 
Amjid Javed said:
Feel free go through all the series when Smith help his team win test series outside of Australia, where he also contributed to victories?

Smith scored a lot of career runs but is nowhere near Root or kohli.
Click to expand...
Steve smith's ashes 2019 is literally the best away series for any batsmen not named Bradman. His performance in BGT 2016-2017 is at least the best a visting batsmen has played in India since 1990
 
Mamoon said:
501*, 400* and 375 are the reasons why Lara is far superior than Sachin in the red ball game. Sachin does not even have a 250 in FC cricket.

There is literally no difference between Sachin and any other batsman who averaged 50 in Test cricket. Sachin holds 0 records that are not dependent on number of matches played.

This fact automatically disqualifies Sachin from the debate of the greatest Test batsmen in history. He, at best, is a top 10 shout.
Click to expand...
Sachin had a much better away record than lara, if lara is superior why was he a htb?
 
anikrc1 said:
Sachin had a much better away record than lara, if lara is superior why was he a htb?
Click to expand...
I think Lara succeed in WI because it is more spin friendly than SENA.Now Lara is good vs pace and spin but he is probably the best spin player in 150 years of test cricket.WI and Asia help him out.
 
RexRex said:
That 400 amounted to nothing. I remember Ponting scolding Lara for selfishly playing onto 400 not out instead of declaring for the team.
Click to expand...
Ponting was just crying because lara took back his own HS record back from harden.
 
RexRex said:
That 400 amounted to nothing. I remember Ponting scolding Lara for selfishly playing onto 400 not out instead of declaring for the team.
Click to expand...
Well there might have been a tinge of selfishness to it because Lara took Hayden’s 380 personally, but in terms of selfishness, it wasn’t a patch on Tendulkar’s chase for century #100.

Also, I wouldn’t pay much heed to what Ponting says about Lara, since Ponting was never as good as Lara in Test cricket.
 
anikrc1 said:
Sachin had a much better away record than lara, if lara is superior why was he a htb?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t look too much into such statistics when post 1995, India was a consistently stronger side than WI in Test cricket.

If you put Lara and Tendulkar in the same Test team, I don’t think Tendulkar outperforms Lara.
 
Buffet said:
Lara has 6 tons in win against non-minnows despite playing along side couple of ATG bowlers.

To put it in context of impact, Shiv has the same number of tons as Lara in wins. Not saying that Shiv was in class of Lara, but impact wise Lara was not that great despite having service of couple pf ATG bowlers. Lara will be remembered for making those 375-400 kind of scores. No one else has done it, but not sure some of the calls to keep batting were good for team.

Steven Smith has over taken Lara now. Yes, for watching Lara may be better to watch, but we are not comparing good to watch.

View attachment 149416
Click to expand...

Lara any day.

He faced far better bowlers than what's Smiths ever faced.
 
Sachin scored a century in about 15.49% of his innings, while Lara scored a century in about 14.66% of his innings.Don't see Lara overcoming Sachin century converting rate with those fancy 300+ runs.
 
Mamoon said:
I wouldn’t look too much into such statistics when post 1995, India was a consistently stronger side than WI in Test cricket.

If you put Lara and Tendulkar in the same Test team, I don’t think Tendulkar outperforms Lara.
Click to expand...
But that was a valid criticism in Babar vs Head thread.Many acknowledge that and surprised that Head had bad away record
 
aboveandbeyond said:
Lara any day.

He faced far better bowlers than what's Smiths ever faced.
Click to expand...
Lara succeed vs Murali is only good example.It is not until mid 2000s when England bowling attack became respectable.Same goes to NZ.Smith faces Bumrah who is top tier bowler plus with Ash/Jad.Now batting average decreased a lot in last decade because bowlers can analyse batsman unlike 90s and see their weak area.Also ball and pitch are less batting friendly in test.2000s was more batting friendly than 2010s and 2020s is lesser batting friendly.
 
Whilst Smith has volume of runs he's won 1 test series in Asia as a player vs pakistan. No series win vs india, Sri Lanka of Bangladesh.

No away Ashes series wins

1 win out of 2 series in South Africa.

2 wins out of 2 series in new zealand

Thats a pretty abysmal record for a player who scores heavily. The reality is there is no legacy defining Away series win on his record as a player.
 
Fanboy375 said:
Lara succeed vs Murali is only good example.It is not until mid 2000s when England bowling attack became respectable.Same goes to NZ.Smith faces Bumrah who is top tier bowler plus with Ash/Jad.Now batting average decreased a lot in last decade because bowlers can analyse batsman unlike 90s and see their weak area.Also ball and pitch are less batting friendly in test.2000s was more batting friendly than 2010s and 2020s is lesser batting friendly.
Click to expand...

Ash/jad

Take them out of india and their Canon fodder.
 
Lara was Flat Track bully like Zaheer Abbas.

SRT was an all conditions all format batsman with unmatched longevity and consistent performance vs all kind of bowling attack in all conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
The Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy: Significance?
Replies
45
Views
962
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Mamoon
The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?
6 7 8
Replies
560
Views
9K
Ball Blazer
Ball Blazer
atreus
  • Article Article
Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar — are they really far apart statistically?
Replies
7
Views
612
atreus
atreus
S
  • Poll Poll
Rate Virat Kohli's impact in Test cricket as a batter
2 3
Replies
176
Views
5K
Romali_rotti
Romali_rotti
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURE] Wiaan Mulder declares the Innings while being at 367* - A homage to Brian Lara or historical blunder?
2 3
Replies
161
Views
3K
gazza619
gazza619
Back
Top