Is Lara the second best of all time?

[Gunner786]

only reason sachin has alot of runs in odi's is cos he is an opener,
im not saying he isnt a good player but lara is better than sachin by miles!!
if lara was still opening he would have been upthere in stats with inzi and sachin!!

 

[SaiSrini]

only reason sachin has alot of runs in odi's is cos he is an opener,
im not saying he isnt a good player but lara is better than sachin by miles!!
if lara was still opening he would have been upthere in stats with inzi and sachin!!

definitely not! Lara is not new to opening! If I remember right, he has played at No.3 for a long long time and that position is periliously close to the opening slot. He has been able to bat for longer periods too!

Sachin is more consistent and is technically more sound than Lara! Lara might be a bit more entertaining, but there is very rare sights in world cricket than seeing Sachin Tendulkar in just 'above average' form!

 

[angryangy]

Lara averaged 47 as an opener. As he moves down the order, he scored less runs.

 

[puddleduck]

if lara was opening he would have been upthere in stats with inzi and sachin!!

To be fair over the last 5-6 years with the batting lineup of the Windies, he is practically opening anyway

For all those who want to debate the merits of Lara or Sachin, here's a helping hand courtesy of good old cricinfo,

Lara:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/52337.html
Sachin:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/35320.html

My advice to all of you, enjoy them both while they are still here, in 5 years time, neither of them are likely to still be playing With them are likely to have gone Warne, McGrath, Murali too, the changing of the guard is in the process of taking place. Makes me feel old

 

[koolkarts]

Lara has played an extra 10 innings in tests than Sachin. It's unfair to say he's scored more runs than Sachin at a quicker rate. Although Sachin has played more Tests he has batted less times than Lara. Check it out on cricinfo stats. Also 39 and 36 CENTURIES are a lot. I don't think Lara will ever be able to beat them. Sachin is also regarded higher by his opponents than Lara, with an exception being Murali, who rates Lara higher. I think Sachin is the better batsman. If I were to choose a batsman for my team, it would definitely be Sachin.

 

[Shoaib87]

If his technique was so bad why would he average 99.94?

Because he didn't face any quality pacers barring Larwood.He is definitely the best batsman of alltime but I don't think that he would've been averaging more than 60 if he had faced fast bowlers like Malcom Marshall,Courtney Walsh,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis,Garner,Croft,Imran Khan,Ambrose,Sarfaraz Nawaz,Michael Holding & Allan Donald etc.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Because he didn't face any quality pacers barring Larwood.He is definitely the best batsman of alltime but I don't think that he would've been averaging more than 60 if he had faced fast bowlers like Malcom Marshall,Courtney Walsh,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis,Garner,Croft,Imran Khan,Ambrose,Sarfaraz Nawaz,Michael Holding & Allan Donald etc.

Oh really? Let me name some who don't belong in that list:
Garner
Croft
Donald
Nawaz
Imran Khan (Wasim and Waqar are better bowlers)
Ambrose
Holding

He did face better bowlers than those^
He also played on pitches if when used now would be called underprepared and deemed unproper for international level, had hardly any padding (So he was almost literally playing for his life), and at a time when Bodyline was the norm. Also, he had more strain on his body, travelling by ship to and forth is tiring enough. But he also didn't have any professional physicians around to help keep him in shape (And yet he played to his mid-forties).
Also, they weren't as tough on chucking as now, and the balls used to seam and swing more (not so sure about that). So he could be facing bowlers who chucked quicker than Akhtar without a helmet on a deadly pitch with the ball swinging like a bannana. And he averaged 99.94.
He also didn't have the comfort of minnows.

 

[James219]

Oh really? Let me name some who don't belong in that list:
Garner
Croft
Donald
Nawaz
Imran Khan (Wasim and Waqar are better bowlers)
Ambrose
Holding

He did face better bowlers than those^
He also played on pitches if when used now would be called underprepared and deemed unproper for international level, had hardly any padding (So he was almost literally playing for his life), and at a time when Bodyline was the norm. Also, he had more strain on his body, travelling by ship to and forth is tiring enough. But he also didn't have any professional physicians around to help keep him in shape (And yet he played to his mid-forties).
Also, they weren't as tough on chucking as now, and the balls used to seam and swing more (not so sure about that). So he could be facing bowlers who chucked quicker than Akhtar without a helmet on a deadly pitch with the ball swinging like a bannana. And he averaged 99.94.
He also didn't have the comfort of minnows.

Dead right, pitches were uncovered, plus he had to work for a decent salary. But I think he played to forty not mid, not sure though. Listing former great bowlers of the past is just rubbish, every era requires new approaches and have different sorts of players/characters.

 

[Sureshot]

No one compares to Bradman, he averaged 99 on Uncovered pitches. Ie when he played in England alot of the pitches would've been slow, low bounce and terribly uneven.

 

[angryangy]

Also, you guys forget bats. Bradman's bat didn't have much meat and a very small sweet spot compared to more modern bats.

Bats used by Sir Donald Bradman & Sir Jack Hobbs were much lighter than those used by most contemporary internationals. The weight was in the region of 2lb2 - 2lb4. The shape constituted a very slim profile with thin edges - no more than 1/2 an inch thick. The meat of the bat was also much higher up the blade to get the feather light balance desired in this era.

Having the meat of the bat much higher meant the toe was often very thin as well. The handle was also narrow and round, which helps the batsman with smaller hands. The length of the bat would have also been a bit shorter than a standard short handle - a super short handle by today's standards.

 

[James219]

Also, you guys forget bats. Bradman's bat didn't have much meat and a very small sweet spot compared to more modern bats.

Bats used by Sir Donald Bradman & Sir Jack Hobbs were much lighter than those used by most contemporary internationals. The weight was in the region of 2lb2 - 2lb4. The shape constituted a very slim profile with thin edges - no more than 1/2 an inch thick. The meat of the bat was also much higher up the blade to get the feather light balance desired in this era.

Having the meat of the bat much higher meant the toe was often very thin as well. The handle was also narrow and round, which helps the batsman with smaller hands. The length of the bat would have also been a bit shorter than a standard short handle - a super short handle by today's standards.

Very true, forgot about that. Imagine trying to combat the indecision of the wickets, the bowler at hand and still maintaining that average with the low quality of equipment. No on else in the modern era can come near that record and status with the high quality of equipment that we produce today.

 

[Cricketville]

Tendulkar and Lara do not have fielders stand in attention and clap while the ball passes 3 feet away from them towards the boundary. IMo todays fielding standards would have had bradman average 60-75.

 

[James219]

That's not the point. No other batsman in his era averaged 99 with the fielding standards, just normal averages with the very good players having similar records to the very good players of today, hence no one compares to Bradman. Very simple.

 

[Indiangod]

only reason sachin has alot of runs in odi's is cos he is an opener,
im not saying he isnt a good player but lara is better than sachin by miles!!
if lara was still opening he would have been upthere in stats with inzi and sachin!!

Rubbish that Lara is better then Sachin by miles, Sachin has 18 of his test 100s away.

Tendulkar in the 90s

M 73>Inns115>50s23>100s22>runs5838>ave 50.77 ( only counting the number of innings played for the average.)

Lara in the 90s

M67>Inns114>50s29>100s13>runs5572>Ave48.85

Tendulkar in the 00s

M56>Inns91>50s16>100s14>runs4545>ave>49.94

Lara in the 00s

M57>Inns102>50s17>100s19>runs4631>ave45.50

We all know who is the best in odis by far.

Tendulkar is far more consistant.

Lara is in the top 10 but the not the second best batsmen of all time.

 

[Sureshot]

Also, you guys forget bats. Bradman's bat didn't have much meat and a very small sweet spot compared to more modern bats.

Bats used by Sir Donald Bradman & Sir Jack Hobbs were much lighter than those used by most contemporary internationals. The weight was in the region of 2lb2 - 2lb4. The shape constituted a very slim profile with thin edges - no more than 1/2 an inch thick. The meat of the bat was also much higher up the blade to get the feather light balance desired in this era.

Having the meat of the bat much higher meant the toe was often very thin as well. The handle was also narrow and round, which helps the batsman with smaller hands. The length of the bat would have also been a bit shorter than a standard short handle - a super short handle by today's standards.

And it was handmade completely whereas most these days use machines.