Ricky Ponting rates Lara above Tendulkar

[AkshayC]

Talking about great innings How can one forget the contributions of Mike Hussey (since longevity is not taken into account).

I feel this is going all the way to anti & pro. A pro has never agreed to anti, no matter how logical his propositions are & vice versa.

 

[ATMega169P]

Let the stats do the talking:

-Sachin Tendulkar
--Tests = 192
--Test average = 53.86
--ODIs = 463
-- ODI average = 44.83

Source: Sachin Tendulkar | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

-Brian Lara
--Tests = 131
--Test average = 52.88
--ODIs = 299
-- ODI average = 40.48

Source: Brian Lara | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo


Reply to when Ponting said "We always found a way to stop Sachin":

Sachin's test record vs Australia:
--Tests = 39
--Test average = 51.54

How do you call an average of 51.54 being controlled??? This average means that he smashed your behind all over the park Mr. Punter.

Enough said!!

Mr. Ponting was either drunk when he said that or his math is really week. This guy is full of rubbish as most of his statements are just put out to cause outrage among people.

Ricky Ponting started his career when Sachin was playing and ended his career when Sachin is still playing. The ones that criticize will fade away but the icon will keep shining

 

[AkshayC]

Consider Tendulkar till 131 test matches & 299 ODIs. His average is high due to his long career as previously discussed

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

Consider Tendulkar till 131 test

Tendulkar till 131 Test matches :
Runs - 10434 @ 55.79 in 209 innings

Lara's career -
Runs - 11953 @ 52.88 in 232 innings

Sooo??

 

[aditya123]

Consider Tendulkar till 131 test matches & 299 ODIs. His average is high due to his long career as previously discussed

Average high over a longer period of time means greater consistency. Do you understand that? Long career does not guarantee higher average, rather it increases the probability of failure thus increases the chances of a lower average.

----------

If we go by stats only, then Kallis should be revered as the batsman of the era, not Lara/Sachin/Punting, at present he boasts an average of 56, significantly higher than the trio, do you agree with this?

----------



The numbers to back it up is 375, 400, 277, etc for Lara, and a measly 248 for Tenders.

Dude, you posted that Lara is an obvious better player at spin, so I used the fact that Warne and Murali the most succesful spinners ever in the game played against Lara, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those innings resulted in drawn tests. When you compare careers, you compare how good they were on a consistent basis and not how good their good days were! Chris Gayle has two triple hundreds in test cricket. So, if you go comparing players on the basis of their highest scores, you end up drawing false conclusions.

Check the number of 150+ scores by Tendulkar and there are a fair few, and a predominant share of his runs are overseas. His career has been far more consistent than Brian`s (I`m a great Lara fan!).

If I were captain of a side and given a choice between two equally brilliant batsmen with one difference; the first guy on his day can notch up triple hundreds but also more likely to get out cheaply while the second is more consistently brilliant with the lower likelihood of scoring a doube/triple. I would still go for the second one simply because as a captain he would be more valuable to the team.You, my friend are speaking as a fan but from a team perspective there is only one way this debate is heading.

To simplify things; With Tendulkar the standard deviation would be far lower than Lara`s because when he averaged 55 in a series it would mean he contributed in more innings than not. Lara, on the other hand in the series in 2004 against England had a string of poor scores either side of that 400* but yet managed to average 50. There is absolutely nobody arguing that Lara wasn`t the more pleasing batsmen to watch. Tendulkar, during his peak years (1993 to 2011) as opposed to Lara (1993-2005) would have lower standard deviation for a similar career average. If anyone that you would want to debate here, it wouid be Kallis. Kallis would have a lower SD for a similar average as the other two. That is what you would like as a captain, consistency. You would anyday take a player who gives you 100 every two innings than one who is more likely to get you a 400 every now and then and fails more frequently.

However that need not necessarily reflect in contribution to victories. We are`nt debating who the better entertainer is here!

 

[used2bcool]

Great input, Aditya.

Also, it's a fantastic idea to compare consistency using standard deviation. I hadn't seen that kind of analysis before, and it immediately appeals to my nerd brain. Excellent.

 

[aditya123]

Great input, Aditya.

Also, it's a fantastic idea to compare consistency using standard deviation. I hadn't seen that kind of analysis before, and it immediately appeals to my nerd brain. Excellent.

In fact, averages in any measurement is only half the picture if you use it as a measure of consistency.

 

[zeustrojanstark]

Stats,Stats everywhere!!


Each player is good in their own way.Each have their strengths,their weakness etc...Move on people,hight time this discussion is stopped.Too many stats just provide a very unhealthy discussion.

 

[Satan666]

Average high over a longer period of time means greater consistency. Do you understand that? Long career does not guarantee higher average, rather it increases the probability of failure thus increases the chances of a lower average.

----------



Those innings resulted in drawn tests. When you compare careers, you compare how good they were on a consistent basis and not how good their good days were! Chris Gayle has two triple hundreds in test cricket. So, if you go comparing players on the basis of their highest scores, you end up drawing false conclusions.

Check the number of 150+ scores by Tendulkar and there are a fair few, and a predominant share of his runs are overseas. His career has been far more consistent than Brian`s (I`m a great Lara fan!).

If I were captain of a side and given a choice between two equally brilliant batsmen with one difference; the first guy on his day can notch up triple hundreds but also more likely to get out cheaply while the second is more consistently brilliant with the lower likelihood of scoring a doube/triple. I would still go for the second one simply because as a captain he would be more valuable to the team.You, my friend are speaking as a fan but from a team perspective there is only one way this debate is heading.

To simplify things; With Tendulkar the standard deviation would be far lower than Lara`s because when he averaged 55 in a series it would mean he contributed in more innings than not. Lara, on the other hand in the series in 2004 against England had a string of poor scores either side of that 400* but yet managed to average 50. There is absolutely nobody arguing that Lara wasn`t the more pleasing batsmen to watch. Tendulkar, during his peak years (1993 to 2011) as opposed to Lara (1993-2005) would have lower standard deviation for a similar career average. If anyone that you would want to debate here, it wouid be Kallis. Kallis would have a lower SD for a similar average as the other two. That is what you would like as a captain, consistency. You would anyday take a player who gives you 100 every two innings than one who is more likely to get you a 400 every now and then and fails more frequently.

However that need not necessarily reflect in contribution to victories. We are`nt debating who the better entertainer is here!

Point the post in which I claimed that Lara has been more consistent, in terms of scoring than Tenders! I have always said that Tenders is more consistent than Lara . Also I would chose Tenders in my 11 in front of Lara based on cosistency, I have posted this also.

However consistency and longevity is all Tendulkar has, Lara is more talented and a class above him. You chosing Tenders in your 11 simply does not mean he is the best, lets look at Bevan he has an average of 53 in ODI but you dont hear him coming close to the greatness of a Haynes or Richards or Tendulkar in ODI, ask yourself why!!

Check this table below, the highest rated test inns of all time, Lara is at number 2 behind Don with his 153* in '99, Lara rounds of the top 10 with 375 and figures 3 times in the top 100, Tenders is not even in the top 10, lolz not sure if he even made the top 100!

http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat10.htm

Now look at this table, Tenders doesnt even figure in the top 10 Indian inns of all time:
http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bati10.htm

Tenders aint there!

----------

Stats,Stats everywhere!!


Each player is good in their own way.Each have their strengths,their weakness etc...Move on people,hight time this discussion is stopped.Too many stats just provide a very unhealthy discussion.

Those guys, Aditya and used2becool did some hard work in obtaining those stats, they went the extra mile to give facts to their arguments and they should be credited for that, not discouraged.

 

[zeustrojanstark]

Those guys, Aditya and used2becool did some hard work in obtaining those stats, they went the extra mile to give facts to their arguments and they should be credited for that, not discouraged.

You are telling about that!Disgusting!

 

[ATMega169P]

Consider Tendulkar till 131 test matches & 299 ODIs. His average is high due to his long career as previously discussed

Only the best ones last for long. Not all the batsmen are capable of lasting 20+ years in international cricket