What's new

The league of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara | Does any other modern era batsman belong in it?

The league of Tendulkar-Lara | Does any other modern era batsman belong in it?

  • None

    Votes: 13 13.7%
  • Ricky Ponting

    Votes: 41 43.2%
  • Kumar Sangakkara

    Votes: 15 15.8%
  • Rahul Dravid

    Votes: 12 12.6%
  • Jaques Kallis

    Votes: 7 7.4%
  • Kevin Pieterson

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • Total voters
    95
I'm sorry but what league is that again?
When I hear the word "league" I assume there's clear superiority and what not but there isn't. Cricket is all about winning games for your country and both these two failed to win a series in either SA or AUS the two holy grails of cricket. Lara once had the company of Ambrose, Walsh and Dillon but failed miserably when it countered.
Sehwag, Gambir, Ganguly, Laxman, Srisanth, Kumble, Bhaji etc and no series win playing alongside these players? That's criminal
 
And why is AB included here (by some members) who hasn't even been in the top three test bats in this country.
 
I'm sorry but what league is that again?
When I hear the word "league" I assume there's clear superiority and what not but there isn't. Cricket is all about winning games for your country and both these two failed to win a series in either SA or AUS the two holy grails of cricket. Lara once had the company of Ambrose, Walsh and Dillon but failed miserably when it countered.
Sehwag, Gambir, Ganguly, Laxman, Srisanth, Kumble, Bhaji etc and no series win playing alongside these players? That's criminal

You think Sehwag, Kumble etc can be counted as good support outside Asia? Like most other spinners Kumble was not very good outside Asia. Which great bowlers did Sachin play with who had good records outside of Asia?
 
Occasionally coming into bat early and having a good innings is different from regularly playing at the top of the order. The average scoreline at which Tendulkar comes into bat is around 80/2 and by then the new ball has been completely neutralized.

Believe me Tendulkar isn't great against the new ball (measured against greats of the game). In tests he played down the order and his weakness wasn't exposed. But he batted at the top of the order in ODIs and got exposed - and his ODI record outside Asia isn't great - throughout the 90s at the peak of his batting prowess, Sachin could not make a single ODI hundred (in 41 games) against one of the top eight ODI sides outside Asia. But he made 17 hundreds in Asia against top opponents during the same period. Can you tell me the reason why there is a huge disparity, seventeen hundreds in Asia and zero outside?

yeah I think Tendulkar averages in the low 40''s when he went in to bat around 50/2 or less
 
Some damning statistics and top analysis by [MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION]. This is why overall stats are always misleading. Only when thoroughly examined is the true picture painted.
 
You think Sehwag, Kumble etc can be counted as good support outside Asia? Like most other spinners Kumble was not very good outside Asia. Which great bowlers did Sachin play with who had good records outside of Asia?

well this excuse of bowlers has gone long enough. Tendulkar simply did not score enough runs himself when it mattered. He averaged 37 in SA then plundered Tsotsobe and Harris and survived Steyn and went up his average in SA. Laxman twice stepped up for India when the opportunity presented itself to win a test, Tendulkar didn't contribute much in those two solo victories.
I would expect players in "league's" of their own to step up when they sense blood.
You can have a good attack but you must still score a truck-load of runs to win matches against tough.
Kallis is a great example, in the 200's I think he averaged 46 against McGrath/Warne/Lee and 50 odd in Australia. Those are good numbers, but they were not enough, SA needed more to win there. This is despite having a good attack behind him, our batting was light, Kallis couldn't do it on his own. As such he is in no "league" of his own, just like Tendulkar.
 
Last edited:
This "league of their own" business is farcical and reeks of insecurity. It is not enough for Sachin fans that their hero be rated above players like Kallis and Sanga, there has to be a streak of day-light in between Tendulker and the mortals for their insecure souls to rest in peace.
 
46 % votes for Ponting alone. Most people seem to believe, if at all, only Ponting belongs in that league.

Some very interesting observations. Kallis seems to be totally rejected by people with 3 votes out of 43. I thought PP loved him to no end, great to see the neutrality in poll so far. Eye opening.

You can't even 'read' the result of the poll.

As it is not a multi-choice poll and people can vote for only one batsman, it only prooves that people think Ponting is the best batsman from the list offered.
 
This "league of their own" business is farcical and reeks of insecurity. It is not enough for Sachin fans that their hero be rated above players like Kallis and Sanga, there has to be a streak of day-light in between Tendulker and the mortals for their insecure souls to rest in peace.

For "day light" difference I would expect the concerned player to have an average (and other measurable parameters) that exceeds his nearest rivals by at least 10%. Bradman was indeed in a league of his own - he exceeded his peers by 40%!! In Sachin's and Lara's case the difference isn't even 5% - more correctly, their stats are not even the best in business. So "league of their own" thing is a pure opinion not backed up by evidence.

Lara at least had some iconic knocks to backup his claim of being the best. Sachin does not even have historical innings comparable to Lara 153, Laxman 281, or pressure/gutsy knocks comparable to Dravid 180 and Gambhir 137. Sachin usually depended on other top batsmen to play a good knock and often failed if the top order failed in difficult conditions. Often India were up against the wall in the 4th innings due to our bowlers and you would be hoping that Sachin would put up a fightiing knock and see India through, but mostly these hopes were met with disappointment. He would also join the procession to the pavilion along with other batsmen, causing a crushing defeat to the team.

Sachin surely showed great glimpses of having the ability to be in a league of his own early in his career, which is why he was so popular in India in the 90s. But by around 2000 it was clear that he was not above his illustrious peers when it came to performing under pressure or difficult conditions.
 
For "day light" difference I would expect the concerned player to have an average (and other measurable parameters) that exceeds his nearest rivals by at least 10%. Bradman was indeed in a league of his own - he exceeded his peers by 40%!! In Sachin's and Lara's case the difference isn't even 5% - more correctly, their stats are not even the best in business. So "league of their own" thing is a pure opinion not backed up by evidence.

Lara at least had some iconic knocks to backup his claim of being the best. Sachin does not even have historical innings comparable to Lara 153, Laxman 281, or pressure/gutsy knocks comparable to Dravid 180 and Gambhir 137. Sachin usually depended on other top batsmen to play a good knock and often failed if the top order failed in difficult conditions. Often India were up against the wall in the 4th innings due to our bowlers and you would be hoping that Sachin would put up a fightiing knock and see India through, but mostly these hopes were met with disappointment. He would also join the procession to the pavilion along with other batsmen, causing a crushing defeat to the team.

Sachin surely showed great glimpses of having the ability to be in a league of his own early in his career, which is why he was so popular in India in the 90s. But by around 2000 it was clear that he was not above his illustrious peers when it came to performing under pressure or difficult conditions.

Wow, that's a brilliant top post.

I mean as a neutral, you can think that Tendulkar is better than Ponting, or Ponting better than Tendulkar.
But saying someone is in a different league between the two is quite impossible.
 
For "day light" difference I would expect the concerned player to have an average (and other measurable parameters) that exceeds his nearest rivals by at least 10%. Bradman was indeed in a league of his own - he exceeded his peers by 40%!! In Sachin's and Lara's case the difference isn't even 5% - more correctly, their stats are not even the best in business. So "league of their own" thing is a pure opinion not backed up by evidence.

Sachin usually depended on other top batsmen to play a good knock and often failed if the top order failed in difficult conditions.

What the heck ? lol Can someone explain to me avging 40 when the openers out cheaply is a failure ? .. Yeah you will get props from the usual sour grapes such as Mobashir and CO, gratz on that :))

But by around 2000 it was clear that he was not above his illustrious peers when it came to performing under pressure or difficult conditions.

I do partly agree with this, after Tennis Elbow he wasnt the same however prior to Tennis Elbow, during the previous 2 Australian series he avgd 47 vs Mcgrath , Lee and Warne (Openers shooting ducks during the series) in Aus and 50 vs Mcgrath, Warne and Gillespie in India.. During the tennis elbow series which I believe in 2004 he avgd 17 vs Mcgrath causing his overall stats vs Mcgrath to drop but he can be forgiven as he was not fit and he sucked for a few more series after that and was not the same as he was during the 90s.

......bold
 
I don't know why this tennis elbow is used as an excuse for a career spanning 24 years? For a batsman who played for 200 tests (and hence got the most number of opportunities) Sachin does not have iconic test knocks that match several gutsy Laxman/Dravid/Gambhir like innings. Mind you, he played 200 tests and his achievements apart from volume based records are not much by his "in a league of his own" standards.
 
Point of entry less than 75 would have been ideal I think (ie within the first 20 or so overs) but since that data is not available for some less than 50 will have to do. Also couldn’t find Lara’s any where so not on the list.

Screen%20Shot%202015-09-23%20at%205.52.34%20pm_zps8nzd5nui.png


So Ponting is the standout there. Unlike the rest he has actually done much better when he has come in early. Not much of a surprise really given he has built his reputation on his counter-attacking ability. Plus quite easily the best bat against pace on the list. On another note the low number of innings for Kallis is a bit of a surprise. In contrast Sanga has only come in to bat with over 50 on the board 40 odd times.
 
......bold
Being in the top 5 batsman of your generation is not a failure.

The problem is that some Indian fans like you can't accept facts as they were living in a world were Tendulkar was unquestionably the best batsman and a god.

Same problem with some Pakistanis who rated Imran Khan as a better ODI player than Murli.

You guys think that your heroes have to be best at everything and downgrading other players make you feel good.

In my opinion there are enough facts that Lara was a superior player than Tendulkar. And that most of these players, especially
Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting Kallis, KP aur comparable.
 
Unfair to use 75 runs as the highest entry score. Clearly if you take the average from 0-49 it is higher, and 50-75 is generally considered to be easier to bat in than if the entry score is 0-49.

Actually just realised that the calculation there is not right. The number of innings shown on the pics also include not outs so the correct figure should be less than 75 (ie within the first 20 or so overs) he averaged 45 (147 innings). And for less than 50 (ie within the first 15 or so overs) he averaged 47 (105 innings). Btw the discussion was about how he fared against the newish ball not about the match situation.
 
Being in the top 5 batsman of your generation is not a failure.

The problem is that some Indian fans like you can't accept facts as they were living in a world were Tendulkar was unquestionably the best batsman and a god.

Same problem with some Pakistanis who rated Imran Khan as a better ODI player than Murli.

You guys think that your heroes have to be best at everything and downgrading other players make you feel good.

In my opinion there are enough facts that Lara was a superior player than Tendulkar. And that most of these players, especially
Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting Kallis, KP aur comparable.

I dont know how many times I have to repeat this, IMO Lara & SRT are equal and it is a matter of preference. However your Pakistani worship of Ponting, a player who had the best bowlers, the best fielders, best wicket keeper, umpires everything on his side through out most of his career is comical....... SRT or Lara playing on that legendary Australian side which Ponting played in wouldve score 30 K test runs IMO.....
 
I realised that later on. He derived Lara's stats on his own. Thought he was doing it from a site.

Worked out Ponting's by adding a few extra matches but can't find Lara's anywhere. Would have to manually go through all of his matches by the look of it. Not something I'm planning on doing :))
 
Point of entry less than 75 would have been ideal I think (ie within the first 20 or so overs) but since that data is not available for some less than 50 will have to do. Also couldn’t find Lara’s any where so not on the list.

Screen%20Shot%202015-09-23%20at%205.52.34%20pm_zps8nzd5nui.png


So Ponting is the standout there. Unlike the rest he has actually done much better when he has come in early. Not much of a surprise really given he has built his reputation on his counter-attacking ability. Plus quite easily the best bat against pace on the list. On another note the low number of innings for Kallis is a bit of a surprise. In contrast Sanga has only come in to bat with over 50 on the board 40 odd times.

50 is fine actually. I would even go for 40. The first hour of play (approx 15 overs @ 40-45 runs) is the real new ball territory (especially for the first innings). A batsman coming in at 40/2 surely has score board pressure but the new ball has been nearly seen through by then. India have a lot of 25/2 scores off 15-20 overs playing outside Asia - so, in many cases Indian openers made it easy for the middle order even though they got out cheaply in terms of runs. If I remember correctly Sachin made just one or two hundreds after walking into bat before the 10th over.
 
I don't know why this tennis elbow is used as an excuse for a career spanning 24 years? For a batsman who played for 200 tests (and hence got the most number of opportunities) Sachin does not have iconic test knocks that match several gutsy Laxman/Dravid/Gambhir like innings. Mind you, he played 200 tests and his achievements apart from volume based records are not much by his "in a league of his own" standards.

Tennis elbow did affect his batting for a good 2-3 years after he was diagnosed but even after making adjustments he never re captured his form pre injury, Waqar, Kapil Dev etc are examples of reduced potential due to injuries..........

Another thing, your definition of iconic innings defers from mine, in my opinion the 136 SRT played against Pakistan is tied with Lara's 150 vs Aus for the best innings. SRT played a match winning knock while rest of his team let him down however in Lara's case his team mates did just enough to secure they victory...... Both the innings are legendary it came down to which batsmen got the better support.......
 
Some excellent stats by [MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] and [MENTION=132270]SL_Fan[/MENTION].

I would expect Lara to average the highest coming in early.
 
Tennis elbow did affect his batting for a good 2-3 years after he was diagnosed but even after making adjustments he never re captured his form pre injury, Waqar, Kapil Dev etc are examples of reduced potential due to injuries..........

Another thing, your definition of iconic innings defers from mine, in my opinion the 136 SRT played against Pakistan is tied with Lara's 150 vs Aus for the best innings. SRT played a match winning knock while rest of his team let him down however in Lara's case his team mates did just enough to secure they victory...... Both the innings are legendary it came down to which batsmen got the better support.......

Great match winners do not leave the finishing touches to the tail. Anyway one 136 in a 25 year old career isn't a big deal. For a batsman of Sachin's calibre (claimed to be "in a league of his own") I would like his die hard fans to rattle off some 5-10 legendary knocks some of which would find place in all all time list. But it never goes past that 136. Why? Even that 136 was ranked #105 in Wisden's list. (Note that Wisden's top 100 list was prepared by an Indian who happens to be an ardent Sachin fan!, so it was not deliberate - yeah, India's loss prevented that knock from entering top 100)
 
Great match winners do not leave the finishing touches to the tail. Anyway one 136 in a 25 year old career isn't a big deal. For a batsman of Sachin's calibre (claimed to be "in a league of his own") I would like his die hard fans to rattle off some 5-10 legendary knocks some of which would find place in all all time list. But it never goes past that 136. Why? Even that 136 was ranked #105 in Wisden's list. (Note that Wisden's top 100 list was prepared by an Indian who happens to be an ardent Sachin fan!, so it was not deliberate - yeah, India's loss prevented that knock from entering top 100)

I have honestly never understood the obsession with "match-winning" knocks when it comes to Sachin. Sachin has played tons of great innings. Has he played as many great innings as someone like Lara? No. But it's very weird how tendulkar is singled out for criticism that he didn't play many "single-handed" match winning knocks. Neither did Sir Viv or Greg Chappell or Len Hutton or Jack Hobbs or Ricky Ponting. But they've all played lots of brilliant innings. As has Sachin. There are so many variables at play for a batsman to win a match off his own bat that it's absurd to use this "has he played match winning knocks consistenctly" a very important criteria.

Yes, a great batsman should play great innings. I will always remember Sachin's 136, his 114 at Perth, his 169 at Capetown, his 111 vs Donald, his 146 vs Steyn at his best, his 122 at Edgbaston in 1996 on a dodgy pitch, etc. Imo, these are all great innings. As great as some of Lara's knocks? No. But innings worthy of a great batsman without a doubt. Regardless of match result, they were as brilliant displays of batting as I have seen.

It all comes down to what you value in batsmen. Tendulkar trumps most batsmen in terms of longevity, spotless consistency, Lara was far better at playing iconic knocks and big double hundreds, Sanga too was far better at getting massive scores, Viv was the greatest at tearing an attack to pieces. They all have their pros and none of them is better at everything than everyone else.
 
Great match winners do not leave the finishing touches to the tail. Anyway one 136 in a 25 year old career isn't a big deal. For a batsman of Sachin's calibre (claimed to be "in a league of his own") I would like his die hard fans to rattle off some 5-10 legendary knocks some of which would find place in all all time list. But it never goes past that 136. Why? Even that 136 was ranked #105 in Wisden's list. (Note that Wisden's top 100 list was prepared by an Indian who happens to be an ardent Sachin fan!, so it was not deliberate - yeah, India's loss prevented that knock from entering top 100)

136 is every bit as good as that Lara's best innings which was the 150, few things you have to take into account during that match such as Moin Khan's bumped catch of Ganguly this sort of incident didnt happen in Lara's innings. SRTs stat speaks for itself he has batted well all over the globe while his sides predominately had terrible bowling attacks, even the Lara's 150 innings consisted of Ambrose and Walsh. Lara and SRT are both equal and legendary and nothing can convince me that one is better than the other.. There was a reason majority of the players including legendary bowlers like Mcgrath, Wasim, Donald etc all rated SRT ahead of Lara pre tennis elbow.......

Lara and SRT are the macdaddys of batsmenship, however dont put a batsmen like Ponting in their league lol :))
 
Last edited:
IAs great as some of Lara's knocks? No.

We need to define 'great' it seems ppl are using Lara's 200's or other high scores as great innings when it didnt create a win for his side most were loses with the occasional draws, however SRTs innings are not 'great' because his side did not win but lost/drew the game. A curious question; how many match winning 100s have Lara played vs SA & AUS ? 150 is the only one I can remember..... The majority of the rest have been in loses and a few draws.
 
I have honestly never understood the obsession with "match-winning" knocks when it comes to Sachin. Sachin has played tons of great innings. Has he played as many great innings as someone like Lara? No. But it's very weird how tendulkar is singled out for criticism that he didn't play many "single-handed" match winning knocks. Neither did Sir Viv or Greg Chappell or Len Hutton or Jack Hobbs or Ricky Ponting. But they've all played lots of brilliant innings. As has Sachin. There are so many variables at play for a batsman to win a match off his own bat that it's absurd to use this "has he played match winning knocks consistenctly" a very important criteria.

Yes, a great batsman should play great innings. I will always remember Sachin's 136, his 114 at Perth, his 169 at Capetown, his 111 vs Donald, his 146 vs Steyn at his best, his 122 at Edgbaston in 1996 on a dodgy pitch, etc. Imo, these are all great innings. As great as some of Lara's knocks? No. But innings worthy of a great batsman without a doubt. Regardless of match result, they were as brilliant displays of batting as I have seen.

It all comes down to what you value in batsmen. Tendulkar trumps most batsmen in terms of longevity, spotless consistency, Lara was far better at playing iconic knocks and big double hundreds, Sanga too was far better at getting massive scores, Viv was the greatest at tearing an attack to pieces. They all have their pros and none of them is better at everything than everyone else.

That is what it is. No one denies that Sachin was a great test batsman. No one denies that he was among the best of his generation. Is he in a separate league of his own in test cricket? His records and achievements don't point to that conclusion. There is no such thing as "league of Tendulkar" - he is in the same league of Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis, Dravid etc. If we take both ODIs and test cricket, perhaps Sachin is in a league of his own, but as shown in this thread he did have weaknesses in ODIs outside Asia, so his ODI records aren't flawless either.
 
There is no such thing as "league of Tendulkar" - he is in the same league of Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Kallis, Dravid etc. If we take both ODIs and test cricket, perhaps Sachin is in a league of his own, but as shown in this thread he did have weaknesses in ODIs outside Asia, so his ODI records aren't flawless either.

Dravid has a terrible avg in Aus & SA
Kallis was consistently mediocre when McWarne played.
Sanga: Came into his own when bowling quality went down with the wickets becoming more batsmen friendly.
Ponting: I dont know how anyone can come to this conclusion, this guy had everything going for him playing in that legendary Australian side lol This is the one that cracks me up the most....... Not saying Ponting was a bad batsmen but come on, how scary would it be had Lara or SRT played in that Australian side instead of Ponting................
 
For "day light" difference I would expect the concerned player to have an average (and other measurable parameters) that exceeds his nearest rivals by at least 10%. Bradman was indeed in a league of his own - he exceeded his peers by 40%!! In Sachin's and Lara's case the difference isn't even 5% - more correctly, their stats are not even the best in business. So "league of their own" thing is a pure opinion not backed up by evidence.

Lara at least had some iconic knocks to backup his claim of being the best. Sachin does not even have historical innings comparable to Lara 153, Laxman 281, or pressure/gutsy knocks comparable to Dravid 180 and Gambhir 137. Sachin usually depended on other top batsmen to play a good knock and often failed if the top order failed in difficult conditions. Often India were up against the wall in the 4th innings due to our bowlers and you would be hoping that Sachin would put up a fightiing knock and see India through, but mostly these hopes were met with disappointment. He would also join the procession to the pavilion along with other batsmen, causing a crushing defeat to the team.

Sachin surely showed great glimpses of having the ability to be in a league of his own early in his career, which is why he was so popular in India in the 90s. But by around 2000 it was clear that he was not above his illustrious peers when it came to performing under pressure or difficult conditions.

I have to say that you are a brave man for speaking so openly about the fallibility of Tendulker.

I would agree that only Bradman was in a league of his own. No batsman coming after him has been able to match his output, regardless of the quality of pitches, bowlers, etc. Apart from him, the difference between all the other great players has been small.

Sachin surely had his moments, like Richards, Imran, Waqar and Ponting, but ultimately they were not able to sustain it throughout their career.
 
136 is every bit as good as that Lara's best innings which was the 150, few things you have to take into account during that match such as Moin Khan's bumped catch of Ganguly this sort of incident didnt happen in Lara's innings. SRTs stat speaks for itself he has batted well all over the globe while his sides predominately had terrible bowling attacks, even the Lara's 150 innings consisted of Ambrose and Walsh. Lara and SRT are both equal and legendary and nothing can convince me that one is better than the other.. There was a reason majority of the players including legendary bowlers like Mcgrath, Wasim, Donald etc all rated SRT ahead of Lara pre tennis elbow.......

Lara and SRT are the macdaddys of batsmenship, however dont put a batsmen like Ponting in their league lol :))

Even Afridi made 141 in the match - in the second innings. In Lara's 153, the batting conditions were very tough in the second innings - in terms of both pitch and bowling quality. Australia were shot out for 146, and 308 was an astronomical target under those conditions (even 150 was a tough target for the conditions), and at 5/105 the match was all but lost. Lara's innings would be way beyond Sachin's knock even if Sachin's knock had won it for India. No wonder it is rated one of the best innings of all time.
 
We need to define 'great' it seems ppl are using Lara's 200's or other high scores as great innings when it didnt create a win for his side most were loses with the occasional draws, however SRTs innings are not 'great' because his side did not win but lost/drew the game. A curious question; how many match winning 100s have Lara played vs SA & AUS ? 150 is the only one I can remember..... The majority of the rest have been in loses and a few draws.

I don't define "great" innings exclusively as match-winning ones.

For me, a great innings has to have some of the following components:
1) played in a dire match situation with team in trouble
2) played against a brilliant attack either in terms of great opposition bowlers or even merely good bowlers in brilliant form (like for example Broad and Anderson in 2010-11)
3) match and series has to be "alive". (ie) the innings has to come in a situation where the result of the game isn't a foregone conclusion and both teams still have a chance of winning/saving the match
4) Pitch conditions
5) Other intangible factors like the pressure the batsman is under currently, or the aesthetic quality of the innings, etc

Whether the innings results in a win or a loss or a draw isn't that important for me in judging the true quality of the knock. A match result is often so far removed from the quality of a single performance. That's the beauty of test cricket.

You certainly are right in saying that Lara's "match winning ability" is overrated. It was. Because his batsmen around him were often rubbish. And after Walsh/Ambrose retired, his bowlers were utterly incapable of converting his great innings into so-called "match winning" ones. That's why it's important to look at all those other factors on display and judge an innings properly. In my personal opinion, Sachin's 136 was a ATG innings. As was Lara's 196 out of a total of 150 odd vs SA. As was Sangakkara's 203 vs NZ in the recent tour. As was Michael Clarke's 151 at Capetown in 2011. Unless you have watched those innings, they get put down by idiots as "meaningless" because they were not "match winning". Which is total nonsense.
 
If Kallis and Pointing were not in Lachin's league than neither were Lachin in the league of Richards and Sobers, who were not in the league of Bradman.
 
Even Afridi made 141 in the match - in the second innings. In Lara's 153, the batting conditions were very tough in the second innings - in terms of both pitch and bowling quality. Australia were shot out for 146, and 308 was an astronomical target under those conditions (even 150 was a tough target for the conditions), and at 5/105 the match was all but lost. Lara's innings would be way beyond Sachin's knock even if Sachin's knock had won it for India. No wonder it is rated one of the best innings of all time.

You're being completely unfair here honestly. Saying "even Afridi" scored 141 is meaningless. Afridi played a high quality knock. That is totally independent of Sachin's performance. I could very well argue that the match with Lara's 153 had Steve Waugh get 199, Mark Waugh scored a ton, even Sherwin Campbell scored a hundred. Even Ridly Jacobs scored 68. See what I did? It becomes easy to put down an innings by concentrating on factors like other players' performances to draw incorrect conclusions about the pitch.

Lara's 153 was a superior innings no doubt, but not for the reasons you outlined. Imo, it was better because of how brilliant Aus's attack was overall (Waqar was a shadow of himself in 1999).
 
Dravid has a terrible avg in Aus & SA
Kallis was consistently mediocre when McWarne played.
Sanga: Came into his own when bowling quality went down with the wickets becoming more batsmen friendly.
Ponting: I dont know how anyone can come to this conclusion, this guy had everything going for him playing in that legendary Australian side lol This is the one that cracks me up the most....... Not saying Ponting was a bad batsmen but come on, how scary would it be had Lara or SRT played in that Australian side instead of Ponting................

Tendulkar played in a very strong batting team, shielded by the likes of Sehwag and Dravid. Sachin was a kind of timid batsman in that he rarely seized control of any match by moving up the order and taking the challenge to the opposition (the same reason he never became a good captain - he always liked to play second fiddle to some one else). He almost always played in his comfort zone (the #4 slot) and made mountains of runs after others had setup the platform.
 
You're being completely unfair here honestly. Saying "even Afridi" scored 141 is meaningless. Afridi played a high quality knock. That is totally independent of Sachin's performance. I could very well argue that the match with Lara's 153 had Steve Waugh get 199, Mark Waugh scored a ton, even Sherwin Campbell scored a hundred. Even Ridly Jacobs scored 68. See what I did? It becomes easy to put down an innings by concentrating on factors like other players' performances to draw incorrect conclusions about the pitch.

Lara's 153 was a superior innings no doubt, but not for the reasons you outlined. Imo, it was better because of how brilliant Aus's attack was overall (Waqar was a shadow of himself in 1999).

All first innings knocks. The second highest score in Lara's match for the second innings was 38. In case of Sachin there were two hundreds and two fifties in the second innings.
 
Tennis elbow did affect his batting for a good 2-3 years after he was diagnosed but even after making adjustments he never re captured his form pre injury, Waqar, Kapil Dev etc are examples of reduced potential due to injuries..........

Another thing, your definition of iconic innings defers from mine, in my opinion the 136 SRT played against Pakistan is tied with Lara's 150 vs Aus for the best innings. SRT played a match winning knock while rest of his team let him down however in Lara's case his team mates did just enough to secure they victory...... Both the innings are legendary it came down to which batsmen got the better support.......
It was a great innings, but it came down to the most important thing, Lara finished it himslef while Tendulkar was out with 32 runs remaining with 3 wickets.
 
All first innings knocks. The second highest score in Lara's match for the second innings was 38. In case of Sachin there were two hundreds and two fifties in the second innings.

So what? Australia's collapse to 146 allout and West Indies' batsmen (apart from Lara) failing in second innings had precious little to do with the pitch, which was typical 4th-5th day standard. Walsh bowled a magnificent spell and McGrath did the same in the 4th innings.

And as I said before, mediocre/decent players can sometimes produce brilliant performances. Afridi's 141 and Prasad'd 6 fer were brilliant performances. On the one hand you say the pitch wasn't tough because Afridi scored a hundred. I can stupidly say the pitch was a minefield because Prasad got 6 wickets. See how silly this is? You are making independent statements (Afridi scored 141) and using that to somehow lead to a completely independent and inaccurate conclusion (pitch was easy).

Again, I agree, Lara's 153 was clearly superior. Your reasons for justifying that are totally false however.
 
.......................

Can you quote the post while replying? Instead of giving your reply in bold? It is difficult to reply to posts of this format.

Indian bowling was bad? Facing Kumble at home is one of the most daunting prospects for a visiting batsman ever!

Wasim and Waqar were nearing the end of their careers and I wouldn't rate the Pakistani bowling attack very formidable during that tour. Wasim during the post diabetic era was not the same bowler he was in the early 90s, and Waqar was only half the bowler (he was at his peak) in 1999. Saqlain was the real threat, but Indian batsmen of that era were very good against spin so the bowling strength they had to negotiate was in no way comparable to the one Lara faced.
 
So what? Australia's collapse to 146 allout and West Indies' batsmen (apart from Lara) failing in second innings had precious little to do with the pitch, which was typical 4th-5th day standard. Walsh bowled a magnificent spell and McGrath did the same in the 4th innings.

And as I said before, mediocre/decent players can sometimes produce brilliant performances. Afridi's 141 and Prasad'd 6 fer were brilliant performances. On the one hand you say the pitch wasn't tough because Afridi scored a hundred. I can stupidly say the pitch was a minefield because Prasad got 6 wickets. See how silly this is? You are making independent statements (Afridi scored 141) and using that to somehow lead to a completely independent and inaccurate conclusion (pitch was easy).

Again, I agree, Lara's 153 was clearly superior. Your reasons for justifying that are totally false however.

Pitch was easier compared to Lara. Pakistan was about to run away with the match at 4/275 (I was watching the match live and we all thought they would get 400 which would be curtains for India) until a miraculous spell from Prasad felled them. In Lara's match nobody save for Lara was able to score anything significant in the second innings.
 
What are your reasons for it being clearly superior then?

- I rate Aus' attack in that match higher than Pakistan. Both in terms of personnel and the form of the bowlers and how well they bowled that innings. Warne was in awful form but McGrath, Gillespie, MacGill were all superb throughout the series. That's a far superior attack imo than Pak, which had Saqlain and Wasim bowling beautifully, but the rest of the workload was handled by a sub-par Waqar,Afridi and Nadeem Khan. I know which attack was clearly better

- In both the 153 and the 213 in the previous match, Lara was under immense pressur ebecause it was coming off the back of a 0-5 whitewash in SA where he batted terribly and his captaincy had been criticized heavily, and after West Indies were bowled out for 51 in the 1st match vs Aus, his popularity in the WI media and fans took a nosedive. The popular opinion was that Walsh was the rightful captain and Lara didn't have the temperamant to be a responsible leader at all.

- I just think he batted better. Hard to put this into words objectively. Sachin was magnificent as well, but it's just my personal opinion that Lara's masterful control of the strike and his calming influence on the tail (especially Ambrose) was outstanding.

Now, obviously, Sachin's innings had some amazing aspects to it as well... him surviving Wasim's initial spell where he set up Dravid like a magician, the way he attacked Saqlain despite the slowness of the pitch, his back injury hampering his strokeplay, etc. But Lara's was just a tad better overall.
 
Saqlain was the real threat, but Indian batsmen of that era were very good against spin so the bowling strength they had to negotiate was in no way comparable to the one Lara faced.

WRONG!!!, Indian batsmen were good against Leg Spin but mediocre against off spin... Surely Wasim was good back in 99 :angel: :

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WFOjvZaXeQ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Both SRT & Lara faced brutal pressure during those final innings both were on tough wickets on the last day
 
Pitch was easier compared to Lara. Pakistan was about to run away with the match at 4/275 (I was watching the match live and we all thought they would get 400 which would be curtains for India) until a miraculous spell from Prasad felled them. In Lara's match nobody save for Lara was able to score anything significant in the second innings.

Are you going to completely ignore the fact that the Chennai test finished inside 4 days and the Lara test went till the end of day 5? I mean, come on.

Neither pitch was particularly unplayable or anything though.
 
Can you quote the post while replying? Instead of giving your reply in bold? It is difficult to reply to posts of this format.

Indian bowling was bad? Facing Kumble at home is one of the most daunting prospects for a visiting batsman ever!

Wasim and Waqar were nearing the end of their careers and I wouldn't rate the Pakistani bowling attack very formidable during that tour. Wasim during the post diabetic era was not the same bowler he was in the early 90s, and Waqar was only half the bowler (he was at his peak) in 1999. Saqlain was the real threat, but Indian batsmen of that era were very good against spin so the bowling strength they had to negotiate was in no way comparable to the one Lara faced.

False. Wasim had a superb resurgence in 99-2001. Apart from the 99 tour to Aus, he was bowling brilliantly. His bowling in India in 99, SL in 200 and WI in 200 were some of his best series performances.
 
Can you quote the post while replying? Instead of giving your reply in bold? It is difficult to reply to posts of this format.

Indian bowling was bad? Facing Kumble at home is one of the most daunting prospects for a visiting batsman ever!

Wasim and Waqar were nearing the end of their careers and I wouldn't rate the Pakistani bowling attack very formidable during that tour. Wasim during the post diabetic era was not the same bowler he was in the early 90s, and Waqar was only half the bowler (he was at his peak) in 1999. Saqlain was the real threat, but Indian batsmen of that era were very good against spin so the bowling strength they had to negotiate was in no way comparable to the one Lara faced.

Huh.. Wasim was the main destroyer of Indian batting.. stop reading match scoreboards and players' health conditions to judge their impact or danger.
 
- I rate Aus' attack in that match higher than Pakistan. Both in terms of personnel and the form of the bowlers and how well they bowled that innings. Warne was in awful form but McGrath, Gillespie, MacGill were all superb throughout the series. That's a far superior attack imo than Pak, which had Saqlain and Wasim bowling beautifully, but the rest of the workload was handled by a sub-par Waqar,Afridi and Nadeem Khan. I know which attack was clearly better

- In both the 153 and the 213 in the previous match, Lara was under immense pressur ebecause it was coming off the back of a 0-5 whitewash in SA where he batted terribly and his captaincy had been criticized heavily, and after West Indies were bowled out for 51 in the 1st match vs Aus, his popularity in the WI media and fans took a nosedive. The popular opinion was that Walsh was the rightful captain and Lara didn't have the temperamant to be a responsible leader at all.

- I just think he batted better. Hard to put this into words objectively. Sachin was magnificent as well, but it's just my personal opinion that Lara's masterful control of the strike and his calming influence on the tail (especially Ambrose) was outstanding.

Now, obviously, Sachin's innings had some amazing aspects to it as well... him surviving Wasim's initial spell where he set up Dravid like a magician, the way he attacked Saqlain despite the slowness of the pitch, his back injury hampering his strokeplay, etc. But Lara's was just a tad better overall.

Your arguments are subjective and do not prove "clearly".

1. Waqar was off colour but he was still able to get both the openers off early, so in that particular innings he was more effective.

2. Everyone is under pressure, and an India-Pakistan Test is hyped much more than an Aus-WI Test where not many expected WI to win anyway, specially when the series was being played after 10 years. Add to that, Tendulkar got out on 0 in the first innings, the pressure almost doubled on him in the second.

3. I think it's personal preference of watching people play. Nothing "clear" about it.
 
- I rate Aus' attack in that match higher than Pakistan. Both in terms of personnel and the form of the bowlers and how well they bowled that innings. Warne was in awful form but McGrath, Gillespie, MacGill were all superb throughout the series. That's a far superior attack imo than Pak, which had Saqlain and Wasim bowling beautifully, but the rest of the workload was handled by a sub-par Waqar,Afridi and Nadeem Khan. I know which attack was clearly better

- In both the 153 and the 213 in the previous match, Lara was under immense pressur ebecause it was coming off the back of a 0-5 whitewash in SA where he batted terribly and his captaincy had been criticized heavily, and after West Indies were bowled out for 51 in the 1st match vs Aus, his popularity in the WI media and fans took a nosedive. The popular opinion was that Walsh was the rightful captain and Lara didn't have the temperamant to be a responsible leader at all.

- I just think he batted better. Hard to put this into words objectively. Sachin was magnificent as well, but it's just my personal opinion that Lara's masterful control of the strike and his calming influence on the tail (especially Ambrose) was outstanding.

Now, obviously, Sachin's innings had some amazing aspects to it as well... him surviving Wasim's initial spell where he set up Dravid like a magician, the way he attacked Saqlain despite the slowness of the pitch, his back injury hampering his strokeplay, etc. But Lara's was just a tad better overall.


Right.

The only additional thing IndianWillow is saying is that the conditions were tougher in Bridgetown than in Chennai, though to say it like even Afridi scored a century is not the best way to prove it. Not much to disagree then.


False. Wasim had a superb resurgence in 99-2001. Apart from the 99 tour to Aus, he was bowling brilliantly. His bowling in India in 99, SL in 200 and WI in 200 were some of his best series performances.


No mate. It wasn't like that.

Wasim had lost his ability to run through the batting line-ups after that diabetes issue. He was brilliant in patches like he showed against Dravid, but he couldn't consistently bowl long and accurate spells during that phase of his career. The ten-for in WI was the only exception. He failed in both Australia series before and after that India series. There is a reason that after 1999 he remained effective in ODIs but couldn't be the same bowler in tests.

Though talking about that particular Chennai innings, I do feel that Wasim had a huge impact on the match. One of the reasons Sachin was forced to attack Saqlain and eventually lost his wicket was because Wasim created enough pressure from the other end.

Waqar, though was nothing bowler in that series.
 
Last edited:
Tendulkar played in a very strong batting team, shielded by the likes of Sehwag and Dravid. Sachin was a kind of timid batsman in that he rarely seized control of any match by moving up the order and taking the challenge to the opposition (the same reason he never became a good captain - he always liked to play second fiddle to some one else). He almost always played in his comfort zone (the #4 slot) and made mountains of runs after others had setup the platform.

Seriously and neither Dravid made any big impact moving up the order when openers didn't protect him.. you have always ignored it while praising Dravid for scoring 100s opening on flat tracks and/or average bowling attacks.
 
Huh.. Wasim was the main destroyer of Indian batting.. stop reading match scoreboards and players' health conditions to judge their impact or danger.

Wasim rarely run through sides post 1997. While Wasim had a career tally of 25 five wicket hauls, between 1997-2002 he had just four. If Wasim and/or Waqar were any where near their best it is difficult to see how India would have even come close in this match.
 
Seriously and neither Dravid made any big impact moving up the order when openers didn't protect him.. you have always ignored it while praising Dravid for scoring 100s opening on flat tracks and/or average bowling attacks.

But Dravid had the guts to open the innings (many times) and carry his bat amidst carnage against a formidable home bowling side. Can you imagine Sachin ever doing this? He did not even dare to come in at #3 any time.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/474475.html
 
Wasim rarely run through sides post 1997. While Wasim had a career tally of 25 five wicket hauls, between 1997-2002 he had just four. If Wasim and/or Waqar were any where near their best it is difficult to see how India would have even come close in this match.

Waqar was off color and that's the reason.. by the way they still had India reeling at 80/5 by taking 3 top wickets.

As you also watched that match live, it's surprising you didn't rate Wasim's bowling in that match to be top-class.
 
But Dravid had the guts to open the innings (many times) and carry his bat amidst carnage against a formidable home bowling side. Can you imagine Sachin ever doing this? He did not even dare to come in at #3 any time.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/474475.html

2011 England was the only exception (one or two others you would find if search hard) where he handled the batting together.. against tough bowling on difficult pitches (not one of the match winning innings, mind you, one of your favourite criteria, but that's beside the point).

I have seen him fail in Australia and SA far too many times to trust him at the top of the order. It's not about the runs he scored, but he was being consistently beaten/getting out on no-balls and once being bailed out by Laxman, that made me believe he didn't really have the "guts" people talk about.
 
Waqar was off color and that's the reason.. by the way they still had India reeling at 80/5 by taking 3 top wickets.

As you also watched that match live, it's surprising you didn't rate Wasim's bowling in that match to be top-class.

Wasim was good in patches, but he didn't maintain the pressure that he was capable of, at his peak. Anyway we are comparing Pakistani and Australian bowling here, so when we say Lara faced better bowling we are only comparing the two bowling units. Pakistani bowling was distinctly weaker relative to the Australian side - with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne at the peak of their careers.
 
Also playing against the new ball is not the sole criteria of being a great batsman.. in fact in the list of criteria it will come way down.

In Test matches, there are plenty of times you go and face the first ball of the day, and many occasions you face the new ball too even if you come lower down the order..
 
Wasim was good in patches, but he didn't maintain the pressure that he was capable of, at his peak. Anyway we are comparing Pakistani and Australian bowling here, so when we say Lara faced better bowling we are only comparing the two bowling units. Pakistani bowling was distinctly weaker relative to the Australian side - with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne at the peak of their careers.

Warne at the peak of his career ? Please.. look at Warne's overall record in WI.

Wasim did bowl well in fact throughout the innings.. and Saqlain got benefited at the other end due to the pressure created by Wasim. Sometimes wickets don't tell the full story.
 
Last edited:
Warne took 2 wickets in 3 tests in the 1999 series.

He was terrible and far from his peak.
 
Point of entry less than 75 would have been ideal I think (ie within the first 20 or so overs) but since that data is not available for some less than 50 will have to do. Also couldn’t find Lara’s any where so not on the list.

Screen%20Shot%202015-09-23%20at%205.52.34%20pm_zps8nzd5nui.png


So Ponting is the standout there. Unlike the rest he has actually done much better when he has come in early. Not much of a surprise really given he has built his reputation on his counter-attacking ability. Plus quite easily the best bat against pace on the list. On another note the low number of innings for Kallis is a bit of a surprise. In contrast Sanga has only come in to bat with over 50 on the board 40 odd times.


Interesting.

I expected Dravid's to be in 50s.

Ponting's numbers are amazing. I have seen him playing great innings against new ball but I couldn't be decisive in my opinion because of him being covered by Langer, Slater and Hayden. Ponting's achievements sometimes go under-appreciated as compared to other great batsmen because of him playing in a team full of match-winners.


Just found Sachin's number's breakdown in different countries

nX04ERv.png


These are upto 2009. He scored 5 overseas centuries after than and only one of them while coming at scoreboard showing less than 50, his Cape Town century. So I guess, averages wouldn't have changed much by the end of his career, except in case of South Africa.
 
Warne took 2 wickets in 3 tests in the 1999 series.

He was terrible and far from his peak.
[MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] is usually pretty good at stats, and is very thorough.. but his aversion to Sachin makes him lose track of his own good quality of posts.
 
Warne took 2 wickets in 3 tests in the 1999 series.

He was terrible and far from his peak.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Steve Waugh dropped Warne from the line up at the "peak of his career" in the very same WI tour, didn't he ?
 
Interesting.

I expected Dravid's to be in 50s.

Ponting's numbers are amazing. I have seen him playing great innings against new ball but I couldn't be decisive in my opinion because of him being covered by Langer, Slater and Hayden. Ponting's achievements sometimes go under-appreciated as compared to other great batsmen because of him playing in a team full of match-winners.


Just found Sachin's number's breakdown in different countries

nX04ERv.png


These are upto 2009. He scored 5 overseas centuries after than and only one of them while coming at scoreboard showing less than 50, his Cape Town century. So I guess, averages wouldn't have changed much by the end of his career, except in case of South Africa.

Those are pretty balanced stats i think. His average would be up to around 40 in SA as well after the 2010/11 tour. He stats in WI should not be taken as stats against weak bowling as he did not play a single test there after 2002.





Would be interesting to see how other batsmen fared
 
1999 was a very average year for Warne in Test cricket, but people don't remember that because he was fantastic in ODIs and had a brilliant World Cup.
 
Warne was out of form, I remember.

But MacGill wasn't. Infact IIRC, MacGill was having his career best rating and ranking, somewhere in top 10.

McGrath and Gillespie were in top form though, there is no doubt.

Australian bowling attack was easily better than Pakistan's either way we look at it.
 
I think there is a flaw in the SA stats of [MENTION=59284]stallion[/MENTION]_ post.

He scored 3 tons in SA before 2009 and came in early in each of those innings but the chart shows only 2 centuries.
 
1999 was a very average year for Warne in Test cricket, but people don't remember that because he was fantastic in ODIs and had a brilliant World Cup.

Actually in 98-99 he faced two of his worst opposition teams in India and WI.
 
No mate. It wasn't like that.

Wasim had lost his ability to run through the batting line-ups after that diabetes issue. He was brilliant in patches like he showed against Dravid, but he couldn't consistently bowl long and accurate spells during that phase of his career. The ten-for in WI was the only exception. He failed in both Australia series before and after that India series. There is a reason that after 1999 he remained effective in ODIs but couldn't be the same bowler in tests.

Never said he was as good as he was in early-mid 90s. Of course not. But he was still excellent imo.
 
Warne was out of form, I remember.

But MacGill wasn't. Infact IIRC, MacGill was having his career best rating and ranking, somewhere in top 10.

McGrath and Gillespie were in top form though, there is no doubt.

Australian bowling attack was easily better than Pakistan's either way we look at it.

You can't say that on the quality of attack.. because that is decided by the match and opposition.. you can only talk about overall reputations..

If you consider just that match, I think the attacks were equivalent (give or take a few points).. though it can't be objectively proven.

Saqlain was far more dangerous in the series.. he took 20 wickets in 2 matches.. and on top of that, he was coming up with Doosra which was a totally new concept in those days.. so it's not one-on-one quality comparison.

Anyway, that is a futile comparison to make when you compare two opposition batting performances.. it was not like the attacks had too much difference in quality.
 
1999 was a very average year for Warne in Test cricket, but people don't remember that because he was fantastic in ODIs and had a brilliant World Cup.

Was coming off his shoulder injury for the west indies series if my memory is correct.
 
Was coming off his shoulder injury for the west indies series if my memory is correct.

I think so to, If I recall correctly he only played one or two Tests of the 98-99 Ashes, and then went on to have a poor series in West Indies in Feb/March.

By the summers, he was back to his best and had a wonderful World Cup.
 
I think so to, If I recall correctly he only played one or two Tests of the 98-99 Ashes, and then went on to have a poor series in West Indies in Feb/March.

By the summers, he was back to his best and had a wonderful World Cup.

In the WC, what were his great performances apart from SF and Final ?
 
In the WC, what were his great performances apart from SF and Final ?

What more do you want from a player than to perform brilliantly in the semifinal and final of the World Cup? He was consistent throughout and had only one terrible game against India. Jadeja and Robin Singh took him to the cleaners.

Can be partially blamed for Australia's defeat in their opener vs. New Zealand, but it was a long tournament and he was their most consistent performer. The level of control and skill that he showed in the middle-overs was amazing.

Him and Saqlain were pretty much the only two spinners who had a great tournament.
 
Tendulkar played in a very strong batting team, shielded by the likes of Sehwag and Dravid.

Shielded by Sehwag from 2002 onwards, The same Sehwag that avg 20 odd in SA ? :))) Also the same Dravid that has been horrible in SA and in Aus (unless Mcwarne did not play ) ? When Touring SA & AUS and when 'great' bowlers played, wannabes like Dravid and Sehwag dissappeared, SRT was the odd saving grace that stood out occasionally, he was a one man team.. You seriously cannot compare the legendary side Ponting played in with any of the sides SRT played with, this is weak argument, you are starting to lose your way here buddy....
 
Last edited:
I think there is a flaw in the SA stats of [MENTION=59284]stallion[/MENTION]_ post.

He scored 3 tons in SA before 2009 and came in early in each of those innings but the chart shows only 2 centuries.


These are the stats of him batting at number 4. One of his innings (169 I think), was scored when he was batting at 5.


You can't say that on the quality of attack.. because that is decided by the match and opposition.. you can only talk about overall reputations..

If you consider just that match, I think the attacks were equivalent (give or take a few points).. though it can't be objectively proven.

Saqlain was far more dangerous in the series.. he took 20 wickets in 2 matches.. and on top of that, he was coming up with Doosra which was a totally new concept in those days.. so it's not one-on-one quality comparison.

Anyway, that is a futile comparison to make when you compare two opposition batting performances.. it was not like the attacks had too much difference in quality.


Yeah, on reputation coming into that particular match, was what I was talking about.

How they performed in the match is based on watching the match and is subjective. I would still say Australian bowlers bowled better.
 
Shielded by Sehwag from 2002 onwards, The same Sehwag that avg 20 odd in SA ? :))) Also the same Dravid that has been horrible in SA and in Aus (unless Mcwarne did not play ) ? When Touring SA & AUS and when 'great' bowlers played, wannabes like Dravid and Sehwag dissappeared, SRT was the odd saving grace that stood out occasionally, he was a one man team.. You seriously cannot compare the legendary side Ponting played in with any of the sides SRT played with, this is weak argument, you are starting to lose your way here buddy....

I think he is clutching at the straws with his favourite Dravid shielding the timid and incompetent Tendulkar.
 
These are the stats of him batting at number 4. One of his innings (169 I think), was scored when he was batting at 5.





Yeah, on reputation coming into that particular match, was what I was talking about.

How they performed in the match is based on watching the match and is subjective. I would still say Australian bowlers bowled better.

It again depends on how well they were allowed to bowl in those respective innings.. I honestly hadn't watched Lara innings so can't say how well Australians bowled. I can say that Pakistani bowlers bowled pretty well and one of the toughest examinations Indian batsmen faced at home, specially because of Saqlain who made Indian batting look like club batsmen who are usually masters at playing spin. Had Waqar bowled slightly better, it would have been extremely tough.
 
Last edited:
I think he is clutching at the straws with his favourite Dravid shielding the timid and incompetent Tendulkar.

Ohh dont worry, we will dissect Dravid. I always thought he was fraud batsmen he could never score against top quality bowlers. I remember during the 99 India tour of Aus, Dravid had a taste of Mcwarne, the result: he was nothing but a shooting duck avging something like 15 for the series lol, and his legendary avg in the 20's series after series in SA ...... Dravid Sheilded SRT he says ,, Ohh lord the world must be square :))
 
These are the stats of him batting at number 4. One of his innings (169 I think), was scored when he was batting at 5.





Yeah, on reputation coming into that particular match, was what I was talking about.

How they performed in the match is based on watching the match and is subjective. I would still say Australian bowlers bowled better.

Yup, he came in at no.5 at 25/3 during that match.
 
Back
Top