How does Brian Lara compare with Don Bradman and where does he rank overall?

[Tusker]

How fast was he?
Speed cameras were decades away from being invented, but researchers somehow worked out a way to register Larwood's bowling at 96mph. Jeff Thomson holds the record at 99.7mph.

Does the source from where you quote that statement elaborate on the "somehow" part by any chance ? And no the record is held by Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[Hasan123]

I'll take Lara over the don.

 

[New Yorker]

Does the source from where you quote that statement elaborate on the "somehow" part by any chance ? And no the record is held by Shoaib Akhtar.

Yes Akthar. He's the fastest. That's the key takeaway here.

I think you are just being flatly mendacious. And you know that yourself.

The point is not how fast was Larwood, the point is that he was certainly not slow.

Did you not catch the video clip of him?

I'm not even remotely engaging your speed theory here. Just providing an example out how careless are your conjectures.

Again, you really need to revisit what was written about lineage.

We can compare players if they played against the same opposition. And since players overlapped with Bradman who later overlapped with Sobers etc etc, we know that there was never the kind of leap in standards
to would make us believe that a 99 point average would only be worth 50 something today.

Or that a 50 something average would be worth 5.

Nor is that kind of shift even remotely plausible.

Even a very mediocre can manage to sustain an average of 30 something.

The difference between a great batsman and a mediocre one in the current era is on the order of 15
percentage points. Which has something to do perhaps with why averages shift less than one might
perhaps expect when batsmen move from FC to international cricket.

Whether at home or abroad, SRT was a 55-60 something average player. He scored a century every
3.5 innings but he kept that up longer than most anyone else. He never scored a triple, though many
lesser batsmen did. That doesn't say everything about him, but it says something.

Bradman was 100 averaging player, whether at home or abroad. He scored a century every other
Test on average. That says something rather extraordinary.

But you know these things. I am tired of making the same point all over again.

 

[New Yorker]

Correction, Bradman scored a century in 36 % of innings, 11 points more than the next best batsman historically. For Sachin the figure is 15%. So Bradman scored centuries more than twice as often as his
would be modern incarnation.

 

[Cric1234]

If we bring Bradmans average down from 100 to 55 in today's terms then a player like Hammond would average 13 and he is rated by some to be the best English batsman of all time.
Some people would take Lara over Bradman but is it down to personal preference or actual performance we all have our favourites.

 

[Tusker]

Correction, Bradman scored a century in 36 % of innings, 11 points more than the next best batsman historically. For Sachin the figure is 15%. So Bradman scored centuries more than twice as often as his
would be modern incarnation.

Ergo ... Scoring a hundred against the Likes of McGrath, Johnson, Gillespie, Shoaib, Wasim , Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Steyn etc etc requires the same skill levels as that against Tate, Larwood,Bowes,Bedser,Voce in your opinion ? This is what your Cricketing know-how reckons ?

please note the emphasis on Skill Levels.

We can compare players if they played against the same opposition. And since players overlapped with Bradman who later overlapped with Sobers etc etc, we know that there was never the kind of leap in standards
to would make us believe that a 99 point average would only be worth 50 something today.

Not one single noteworthy fast bowler that Bradman faced bowled to Sobers. Moreover the next really noteworthy shift in standards came about only in the mid 70s.

 

[Cric1234]

Ergo ... Scoring a hundred against the Likes of McGrath, Johnson, Gillespie, Shoaib, Wasim , Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Steyn etc etc requires the same skill levels as that against Tate, Larwood,Bowes,Bedser,Voce in your opinion ? This is what your Cricketing know-how reckons ?

please note the emphasis on Skill Levels.




Not one single noteworthy fast bowler that Bradman faced bowled to Sobers. Moreover the next really noteworthy shift in standards came about only in the mid 70s.

Let's safely assume that Tendulkar didn't face one of those bowlers in FC and he averages 57 there how you would explain that?
We can say the same for Lara and others.

 

[Tusker]

Let's safely assume that Tendulkar didn't face one of those bowlers in FC and he averages 57 there how you would explain that?
We can say the same for Lara and others.

It does not matter. A cricketers is judged based on how he did against the best of the best. Have you ever seen anyone use SRT and Lara's FC stats ? Nobody cares about that. Today ODI cricket has replaced FC in stature.

 

[Tusker]

Let's safely assume that Tendulkar didn't face one of those bowlers in FC and he averages 57 there how you would explain that?
We can say the same for Lara and others.

so according to you there is no difference in skill levels reqd to make a 100 against Wasim, Waqar, Donald,Steyn etc as compared to bowlers that Bradman faced ?

 

[Cric1234]

so according to you there is no difference in skill levels reqd to make a 100 against Wasim, Waqar, Donald,Steyn etc as compared to bowlers that Bradman faced ?

Of course when facing great bowlers it's harder to score 100s but we're trying to bridge a gap of over 45 points which is a big gap.
Imagine comparing Lara to a batsman averaging 6 because taken literally that's the gap between him and Bradman.

 

[Tusker]

Of course when facing great bowlers it's harder to score 100s but we're trying to bridge a gap of over 45 points which is a big gap.
Imagine comparing Lara to a batsman averaging 6 because taken literally that's the gap between him and Bradman.

If todays batsmen were facing similarly friendly bowlers their stats would have been inflated too why is that soo hard to understand ?

Lets look at it a different way ... according to you which level of Cricket that is played today is approximately equal to the standards of Test Cricket in 1930s ? Is it FC in one of the Test playing counties ... is it Associate level is it U19 or something else ?

 

[Cric1234]

If todays batsmen were facing similarly friendly bowlers their stats would have been inflated too why is that soo hard to understand ?

Lets look at it a different way ... according to you which level of Cricket that is played today is approximately equal to the standards of Test Cricket in 1930s ? Is it FC in one of the Test playing counties ... is it Associate level is it U19 or something else ?

Most likely close to FC in England today where batsman struggle to average over 60 long term.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Most likely close to FC in England today where batsman struggle to average over 60 long term.

England has the most mediocre set of players in the world, when was the last time England produced an ATG player?

 

[Tusker]

Most likely close to FC in England today where batsman struggle to average over 60 long term.

Which bowler in English FC Cricket opens the bowling bowling at 110Ks for 30+ Overs in a Day ? All English Test players come from the same FC setup and they generally struggle in Asian conditions and have been doing so for decades. Vice Versa for Asian players. I suspect you will have to go to a much lower levels where slow medium bowlers are kings.

 

[Cric1234]

Which bowler in English FC Cricket opens the bowling bowling at 110Ks for 30+ Overs in a Day ? All English Test players come from the same FC setup and they generally struggle in Asian conditions and have been doing so for decades. Vice Versa for Asian players. I suspect you will have to go to a much lower levels where slow medium bowlers are kings.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scQMhQjAbcA

This is associate level bowling Lara facing such bowling there is every chance he could average over 90 long term but the fitness and actions of these bowlers are worse than the ones in Bradmans time.
We can safely say they were better than associate level easily.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

And people keep talking about bowling standard, pitches blah blah blah, but all batsmen have one key characteristic in common: immense mental strength. This is pretty obviously where Bradman surpassed everyone. Because being that ruthless day after day scoring hundred after hundred and not making a single mistake while batting the whole day... that is what he has above others, even other ATGs.

It's not that he had some supernatural technique... just a normal one, but he just didn't make mistakes as often as other batsmen.

somehow i stil dont think bradman would surpass Lara at his best.See his best inings in terms of domination and impact .Lara traversed regions even Bradman did not.Bowling standadrds higher in Lara's era s well as fielding.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Bradman critics dismiss his era as village cricket at the same time get upset when Kohli who is a few points ahead average wise in ODIs is said to cash in against easier bowling on flat wickets.
Then they say Tendulkar is more complete and better than Bradman but don't realise Tendulkar relatively failed batting against the new ball averaging 40 but still he's better than Bradman who averaged 103 at no3 position.
The best ever have to pass these tests already Dravid and Gavasker become better against the new ball than Sachin.

good analysis.Still overall Tendulkar was more complete if you ases his style of play and mastery.Against spin Sachin was certainly ahead.Bradman hardly played great spin bowling.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

If we bring Bradmans average down from 100 to 55 in today's terms then a player like Hammond would average 13 and he is rated by some to be the best English batsman of all time.
Some people would take Lara over Bradman but is it down to personal preference or actual performance we all have our favourites.

In term sof raw ability or creative genius.I would choose Lara.I would bring bradman's average to around 75 but still think it is erroneous to scale Hammond down so low.It is a world of difference scaling a 99+ average froma 58+ one.Never forget how the likes of Headley or Hobbs overshadowed Bradman on wet wickets or sticklers which the Don did not conquer.Again Hammond at his bset was very close scoring the fastest ever triple century and almsot matching his rival in term sof strike rate.Ridiculuos to imagine Hobs ,Hammond and Headley aaveraging below 45 in era of 1970's or 80's.A different set of mathematical scaling has to be done for Bradman's contemporaries.If you ases the tracks Hobbs and Trumper championed they could have even averaged around 55 in the modern era.Hobbs performed far better than Bradman on broken or wet wickets like Trumper.

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scQMhQjAbcA

This is associate level bowling Lara facing such bowling there is every chance he could average over 90 long term but the fitness and actions of these bowlers are worse than the ones in Bradmans time.
We can safely say they were better than associate level easily.

You took one of the Worst Associate Team - Bermuda. Watch Nepal, Afghan, Ireland, Scotlad etc ...

Here this is India-A vs Nepal-A teams : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4eXuqyjEs

 

[Cric1234]

You took one of the Worst Associate Team - Bermuda. Watch Nepal, Afghan, Ireland, Scotlad etc ...

Here this is India-A vs Nepal-A teams : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4eXuqyjEs

Looking at the footage Nepal will struggle to produce a decent player India won't some are already close to being good enough to be selected for India.
India are not an associate team but which batsman from Nepal or Bermuda and other teams comes close to Hammond Hutton and others in your opinion?

 

[Tusker]

Looking at the footage Nepal will struggle to produce a decent player India won't some are already close to being good enough to be selected for India.
India are not an associate team but which batsman from Nepal or Bermuda and other teams comes close to Hammond Hutton and others in your opinion?

The point is it does not matter because of the poor bowling quality ... Bowling quality decides the batting quality ... But if any of the modern greats Kohli,Smith,Root,ABD etc ... were to play against these lower associate teams then they would never get out.

Here is another match Nepal vs AFG ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89oxrFiFn9g

Most fast bowlers in there are above 125K even at that level. But I can guarantee you that absolutely NONE of them will avg under 25 in Test Cricket.

Here is another Namibi vs Scotland : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvkHwc4A_o

and From a lower level .... Thailand vs China : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oYcYfMLxEY

bowling here is at slightly higher pace but i will pretend that it is 100-100K ... do you see modern greats getting out facing such bowlers ?

 

[Cric1234]

The point is it does not matter because of the poor bowling quality ... Bowling quality decides the batting quality ... But if any of the modern greats Kohli,Smith,Root,ABD etc ... were to play against these lower associate teams then they would never get out.

Here is another match Nepail vs AFG ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89oxrFiFn9g

Most fast bowlers in there are above 125K even at that level. But I can guarantee you that absolutely NONE of them will avg under 25 in Test Cricket.

Here is another Namibi vs Scotland : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvkHwc4A_o

and From a lower level .... Thailand vs China : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oYcYfMLxEY

bowling here is at slightly higher pace but i will pretend that it is 100-100K ... do you see modern greats getting out facing such bowlers ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_HJIVKkIrBU

The best bowler Philander is bowling 125-30kph speed isn't everything I won't say it again.
Bedser with his build and broad shoulders could bowl 120-30kph even with a shorter run up there's no reason to say otherwise.
Yes they could do well against associate bowling because it's inconsistent and plenty of bad balls will be bowled watch clips of Bedser and tell me how many of these you see.

 

[Tusker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_HJIVKkIrBU

The best bowler Philander is bowling 125-30kph speed isn't everything I won't say it again.
Bedser with his build and broad shoulders could bowl 120-30kph even with a shorter run up there's no reason to say otherwise.

There is simply no way Bedser was bowling at those speeds. we discussed this in detail in the other thread ... he had bowled more balls than Ashwin in lesser innings. Just doesn't pass the common sense test. If you think fast bowlers used to be sooo superfit back then I have nothing to say except that it is highly unlikely.

Also Philander struggles to pick wkts if the conditions are not helpful despite his accuracy. Nobody considers Philander to be the best bowler today.

Yes they could do well against associate bowling because it's inconsistent and plenty of bad balls will be bowled watch clips of Bedser and tell me how many of these you see.

Cannot make out Bedser's accuracy from those angles. Also remember that he is not bowling to modern batsmen who will not hesitate to attack. It is just sooo obvious that he is a very very friendly bowler with keeper standing up. Just don't understand how you do not see that at all. This is the main reason for the difference between our understanding of ERA's.

 

[Cric1234]

There is simply no way Bedser was bowling at those speeds. we discussed this in detail in the other thread ... he had bowled more balls than Ashwin in lesser innings. Just doesn't pass the common sense test. If you think fast bowlers used to be sooo superfit back then I have nothing to say except that it is highly unlikely.

Also Philander struggles to pick wkts if the conditions are not helpful despite his accuracy. Nobody considers Philander to be the best bowler today.



Cannot make out Bedser's accuracy from those angles. Also remember that he is not bowling to modern batsmen who will not hesitate to attack. It is just sooo obvious that he is a very very friendly bowler with keeper standing up. Just don't understand how you do not see that at all. This is the main reason for the difference between our understanding of ERA's.

Philander averages 22 we have to look at overall average that's well ahead of the express bowlers in the modern era.
I'll give you another example Sachin came to play county cricket for Yorkshire in 1992 averaging 46.5 in 16 first class games now the bowlers wouldn't have been in the class of Wasim McGrath Waqar Warne Ambrose etc we keep hearing about yet still Tendulkar failed to average even half of Bradman but no doubt there's an explanation for this like everything else.
They bowled 5mph faster than Bedser so automatically they are better and more potent.

 

[Tusker]

Philander averages 22 we have to look at overall average that's well ahead of the express bowlers in the modern era.
I'll give you another example Sachin came to play county cricket for Yorkshire in 1992 averaging 46.5 in 16 first class games now the bowlers wouldn't have been in the class of Wasim McGrath Waqar Warne Ambrose etc we keep hearing about yet still Tendulkar failed to average even half of Bradman but no doubt there's an explanation for this like everything else.
They bowled 5mph faster than Bedser so automatically they are better and more potent.

There are many reasons why Tendulkar only avgd 46 ... and they all come down to standards + conditions + experience. You have a simplistic assumption that any cricket that was labeled FC in 1930 was played at the same standard in what we call FC cricket in the modern ERA. This is when all those difficult questions that I asked will be asked again. Didn't I just prove to you earlier that standards are far higher today at every organized level of Cricket or you are not convinced yet ? Do you have a proper logical explanation for Bedser having sent down more overs than Ashwin in lesser inngs ? It just is soo absurd that I don't understand how you can believe that he was a proper fast bowler that you try to compare with Philander ! And no he is not just 5mph faster than Bedser.

 

[IndianWillow]

Let's safely assume that Tendulkar didn't face one of those bowlers in FC and he averages 57 there how you would explain that?
We can say the same for Lara and others.

Simple. Tendulkar and Lara nearly stopped playing domestic cricket once they moved to the international arena. Tendulkar's FC average, if you discount the test matches from it, is mostly made up numbers he had as a sixteen year old who had played two years of domestic cricket.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lara IMO is 2nd greatest batsmen of his era and arguably among the top 10 greatest cricketer of all time.

Among WI, he would be ranked as 3rd or 4th greatest cricketer behind Sobers,Viv and Malcolm Marshall.

 

[Cric1234]

Simple. Tendulkar and Lara nearly stopped playing domestic cricket once they moved to the international arena. Tendulkar's FC average, if you discount the test matches from it, is mostly made up numbers he had as a sixteen year old who had played two years of domestic cricket.

Of course all 120 first class matches played were when he was 16 that's why the average is under 60.

 

[Tusker]

Of course all 120 first class matches played were when he was 16 that's why the average is under 60.

Tendulkar only played 110 FC matches (excluding tests). And he averaged 62 in those matches.

 

[bujhee kom]

In the 35 years I have watched cricket Lara is the best batsman. Then Viv. Then Sachin then Ponting. 5th probably KP.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

In the 35 years I have watched cricket Lara is the best batsman. Then Viv. Then Sachin then Ponting. 5th probably KP.

Also adding ODI's.Are not Viv and Sachin better in test and ODI combined?

 

[bujhee kom]

Also adding ODI's.Are not Viv and Sachin better in test and ODI combined?

I was looking at Tests which were the initial context of this thread (WRT Bradman). You cannot compare different formats in the same discussion - if you want a combined rating you have to assign each format a weighting. Better to rate them independently in each format.

In Tests: Lara, Viv, Sachin, Ponting, 5th is open.
In ODIs: Viv, Sachin, Ponting, Kohli, maybe Lara

As greatness is determined in most expert minds primarily in Test terms, Lara has to be #1.

 

[bujhee kom]

Also can I add that really you can only rate a player with credibility if you have seen them. So guys who are born in 2000 talking about Sobers or Viv is a bit silly. Stats tell you only so much, you have to have seen these guys to form really informed opinions. A statistical freak like Bradman - ok those numbers cant really lie and archives/peer review matter (PR is most important), but a fully rounded opinion means having seen the players in question.

The worst offender here for just forming opinions based on nothingness is [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but others who are also basically still in school do the same thing.

 

[Tusker]

Also can I add that really you can only rate a player with credibility if you have seen them. So guys who are born in 2000 talking about Sobers or Viv is a bit silly. Stats tell you only so much, you have to have seen these guys to form really informed opinions. A statistical freak like Bradman - ok those numbers cant really lie and archives/peer review matter (PR is most important), but a fully rounded opinion means having seen the players in question.

The worst offender here for just forming opinions based on nothingness is [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but others who are also basically still in school do the same thing.

Peer reviews in cricket are not even worth the price of the paper they are printed on. Especially from older ERAs. They are nothing but an exercise in mutual appreciation and is one of crickets most idiotic problems. If you go by them then basically you are saying that cricket quality has gone down.

For example Bradman rating Bedser as the best bowler lol

 

[bujhee kom]

^
Obviously PR within an era to determine who was regarded as the best in that time. It was obvious to all.

 

[Tusker]

^
Obviously PR within an era to determine who was regarded as the best in that time. It was obvious to all.

It's obvious now that it is meaningless PR once you watch Bedser bowl. But people will keep harping about how Bradman rated him so highly.

 

[bujhee kom]

Let me illustrate. What a players contemporaries say about him in the context of his own era says a lot. IE Lots of the batsmen of the 1990s say Wasim was the best quick they faced meaning when we discuss who was #1 in that time we have to afford great weight to those who faced the bowlers in consideration.

 

[bujhee kom]

It's obvious now that it is meaningless PR once you watch Bedser bowl. But people will keep harping about how Bradman rated him so highly.

It is feasible that Bedser was the #1 in his era. 1 opinion isnt a valid data sample but if most of his eras batsmen rated him.1st it would mean a lot when discussing that era.

 

[Cric1234]

It is feasible that Bedser was the #1 in his era. 1 opinion isnt a valid data sample but if most of his eras batsmen rated him.1st it would mean a lot when discussing that era.

Bradman said the best ball he faced was from Bedser a leg cutter pitching leg hitting off not a conventional spin bowl a medium paced one.
Bedser was known to bowl inswingers then developed the ball which Bradman called the best.
Not sure about best bowler he said O'reilly was the toughest a leg spinner his own team mate whom he faced in FC.

 

[Tusker]

It is feasible that Bedser was the #1 in his era. 1 opinion isnt a valid data sample but if most of his eras batsmen rated him.1st it would mean a lot when discussing that era.

It doesnt matter one or 100 ... the point is you take a look at his bowling footage and you instantly will know what the problem is with these "Peer Reviews".

Here is one: https://youtu.be/1YRM6oQSuyI?t=1s

anybody who has followed the game for a decent amount of time will know that such bowlers will not get anywhere close to playing Test Match cricket today.

 

[bujhee kom]

It doesnt matter one or 100 ... the point is you take a look at his bowling footage and you instantly will know what the problem is with these "Peer Reviews".

Here is one: https://youtu.be/1YRM6oQSuyI?t=1s

anybody who has followed the game for a decent amount of time will know that such bowlers will not get anywhere close to playing Test Match cricket today.

I agree BUT we are not judging him in today's context. It is PEER REVIEW in HIS ERA.
9/10 player of that time are gully players by today's standards but within their own era we can only judge them against their contemporaries.

 

[Tusker]

I agree BUT we are not judging him in today's context. It is PEER REVIEW in HIS ERA.
9/10 player of that time are gully players by today's standards but within their own era we can only judge them against their contemporaries.

We are in agreement then ... but none of the Bradman fanatics realize this ... if you read the numerous Bradman vs XYZ threads some of them contend that there is not much difference in standards. So many people here truly believe that current standard of cricket is poor lol

 

[bujhee kom]

We are in agreement then ... but none of the Bradman fanatics realize this ... if you read the numerous Bradman vs XYZ threads some of them contend that there is not much difference in standards. So many people here truly believe that current standard of cricket is poor lol

They are in delusion

 

[Tusker]

They are in delusion

Finally someone talking sense !!. Whats your reasoning for Rating Lara ahead of the rest of the modern players especially SRT , Ponting etc.

 

[bujhee kom]

Finally someone talking sense !!. Whats your reasoning for Rating Lara ahead of the rest of the modern players especially SRT , Ponting etc.

Legends are mostly made in Test cricket (whatever format we most enjoy) and Lara was more dominant in that format. More capable of great innings, capable of resisting ATG teams on his own ( V Aus 99 series), more artistry and more dominating.

Others were above him in ODIs but in Test cricket he was #1.

 

[Tusker]

Legends are mostly made in Test cricket (whatever format we most enjoy) and Lara was more dominant in that format. More capable of great innings, capable of resisting ATG teams on his own ( V Aus 99 series), more artistry and more dominating.

Others were above him in ODIs but in Test cricket he was #1.

Naah ... Tendulkar has numerous significant inngs against great fast bowlers of 90s and 00s. Lara has none against Wasim Waqar, Shoaib, Donald and he obviously never had to face Walsh,Bishop and Ambrose.

 

[bujhee kom]

I would have to disagree. Sachin lacks those epic knocks. IIRC wisden didnt cite him in the 100 top test knocks or if he was listed it was low. Lara has 4 of the greatest knocks ever : 375, 400*, 277 and 153*. His 213 v Aus was immense too. I saw 4 of those 5. None of SRTs Test knocks stand out like that.

 

[Tusker]

I would have to disagree. Sachin lacks those epic knocks. IIRC wisden didnt cite him in the 100 top test knocks or if he was listed it was low. Lara has 4 of the greatest knocks ever : 375, 400*, 277 and 153*. His 213 v Aus was immense too. I saw 4 of those 5. None of SRTs Test knocks stand out like that.

I have actually chated with the guy who did that joke list for Wisden. He was not a happy chappy after serious flaws were exposed in his ratings and shallow understanding of cricket . The biggest of all flaw in that list is listing old era knocks ahead of modern era.You will agree that there is no point in ranking any big inngs against the likes of Bowes, Bedser, Tate, etc.

For Stand out knocks : 169, 146, 155, 112 vs SA. 155 , 214, 112, vs Aus and 136, 193 vs Pakistan . Tendulkar has made runs against all good bowlers which is the main thing you look for in a batsman, and he did that before Lara started to play and continued to do that well after Lara retired.

Also you cannot ignore ODIs just because you don't like that format. There is a good reason why the WC is the premier event of cricket.

 

[bujhee kom]

I like ODIs but this thread was WRT Bradman which means Tests as that us the only format he played.

You cant conflate formats. Lara was #1 in Tests.

 

[Tusker]

I like ODIs but this thread was WRT Bradman which means Tests as that us the only format he played.

Thats just technicalities or legalese. In reality no modern cricketer should be compared with players from Older ERA.

You cant conflate formats. Lara was #1 in Tests.

Even in Tests Tendulkar beats Lara on most counts

1. Overall Stats ( Avg, 100s, 50s etc )
2. Head to Head Stats
3. vs Best Team (AUS)
4. vs Best Bowlers
5. Away Runs and Avg ( 8700+ Runs thats more than 70% of Lara's entire Career !! )
6. Consistency ( Has a 40+ Avg in All countries , 50+ Avg in 7 Countries , Lara avgs 50+ in just 3 countries )

just a complete player.