Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[metallics2006]

He is a weak starter, not sure I'd go that far though.

Refer to Ishant Sharma, Bond, Steyn, Harbhajan etc. or any world class bowler(I am not saying Sharma is world class!) for that matter.

 

[shravi]

TBH, when there's a difference of 2 or 3 in averages, I don't think there's much of a difference between the two players. Besides, Munaf Patel and Chris Martin are better than both.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Ricky Ponting does'nt have a high back lift and his batting technique is considered to be orthodox by anyone who follows cricket. Yet he is one of the poorest/shakiest starters in the game and when he gets going, he is unstoppable. I dont think the problem lies with the technique. Its the mind set. They are just not confident batsmen when they come out to bat.

Ricky Ponting has a carbon copy technique of Brian Lara, but as a right-hander. Both do the exact the same things at the crease. Both get into a position where their front foot & head fall over to the offside and their hand & bat position is played far away from their body, so much so that they look like baseball players!

The only difference between the two is that Ponting is a right-hander and Lara is a left-hander.

Ignoring the damage that it does to the reliability of the average, is it a bad thing that he scores those large scores? A perfect technique may certainly be something for him to fall back on early on in his innings, but with it, would he be the destructive force when he has his eye in, I doubt it, actually.

No, it's certainly not a bad thing, but I'd consider Lara too inconsistent to have been ranked higher then Tendulkar. Had Lara been more consistant with his batting then I'd without a doubt rank him ahead of Tendulkar.

If a batsman has a perfect technique, than the execution of a shot can never be at fault.

No, that it not true. You can have a perfect technique but if the mental ability isn't there, then you can't be successful. To play execute perfect shots, you need to watch the ball all of the way onto the bat and not every batsman can do this for every single ball that they face (providing they play a long innings) unless of course, they are Donald Bradman.

Note: I'm not questioning Tendulkar's mentality. He averages 54, so the mental ability is obviously there.

 

[TruSachFan]

It's so ironic and yet so fascinating that the highs and lows of both these legends are so similar. One played for a good bowling attack with pathetic batsmen while the other one played for some very good batsmen with a pathetic bowling attack. I'm only going to use the stats in the 90's because well that's the best era to describe them.

Sachin

v Australia 58.50
v England 81.25
v New Zealand 63.64
v Pakistan 30.00
v South Africa 33.83
v Sri Lanka 80.28
v West Indies 62.81
v Zimbabwe 25.75

n Australia 49.75
in England 74.77
in India 59.88
in New Zealand 49.75
in South Africa 36.91
in Sri Lanka 111.66
in West Indies 57.80
in Zimbabwe 13.66


Lara

v Australia 53.86
v England 79.20
v India 42.07
v New Zealand 51.66
v Pakistan 30.30
v South Africa 32.58
v Sri Lanka 27.60

in Australia 44.82
in England 85.00
in India 33.00
in New Zealand 52.66
in Pakistan 22.25
in South Africa 31.00
in Sri Lanka 18.00
in West Indies 59.33

 

[aussie_ben91]

Someone define perfect technique for me.

You'd teach children to bat like Sachin Tendulkar but not like Brian Lara.

 

[manee]

You'd teach children to bat like Sachin Tendulkar but not like Brian Lara.

Indeed, because it is what works best for the majority.

 

[King Pietersen]

But if something extrovert and unique works for someone, then you should let them get on with it. Tendulkar's technique works for him, but it won't work for everyone. If everyone followed the MCC Technique Manual and batted exactly the same as that, then it'd be a very dull game. It's guys like Lara, Chanderpaul, Katich, Pietersen, Malinga, Tait, Muralitharan, Edwards, Ponting, etc etc that give the game abit of variety, by developing a technique that works for them. I think that's the key to coaching and developing as a player, finding a technique that suits you, and although Lara's technique wasn't 'technically' proper and correct, it worked for him, and suited his game, and he scored a heck of alot of runs with it.

 

[manee]

But if something extrovert and unique works for someone, then you should let them get on with it. Tendulkar's technique works for him, but it won't work for everyone. If everyone followed the MCC Technique Manual and batted exactly the same as that, then it'd be a very dull game. It's guys like Lara, Chanderpaul, Katich, Pietersen, Malinga, Tait, Muralitharan, Edwards, Ponting, etc etc that give the game abit of variety, by developing a technique that works for them. I think that's the key to coaching and developing as a player, finding a technique that suits you, and although Lara's technique wasn't 'technically' proper and correct, it worked for him, and suited his game, and he scored a heck of alot of runs with it.

Good to agree with you. (For the first time in a while, IIRC).

 

[aussie_ben91]

Only poor techniques work in International cricket for some of the most talented and gifted players in the entire world.

 

[manee]

Only poor techniques work in International cricket for some of the most talented and gifted players in the entire world.

On what basis do you say that. Sounds like a self correcting argument to me; the fact that it works makes the appearance of talent and gift.

 

[aussie_ben91]

On what basis do you say that. Sounds like a self correcting argument to me; the fact that it works makes the appearance of talent and gift.

Lara, Pietersen and Hayden are 3 of the most talented batsman of this era. None of them had great techniques but all averaged over 50 in Test Cricket.

Take a less talented batsman like Rahul Dravid, who was technically correct but acchieved similar success to Lara & Hayden. I don't think he would've gotten away with so much success had he had the technical defiencies of Lara, Hayden & Pietersen.

 

[metallics2006]

Lara, Pietersen and Hayden are 3 of the most talented batsman of this era. None of them had great techniques but all averaged over 50 in Test Cricket.

Take a less talented batsman like Rahul Dravid, who was technically correct but acchieved similar success to Lara & Hayden. I don't think he would've gotten away with so much success had he had the technical defiencies of Lara, Hayden & Pietersen.

Dravid is less talented? Thats news to me.

 

[manee]

Lara, Pietersen and Hayden are 3 of the most talented batsman of this era. None of them had great techniques but all averaged over 50 in Test Cricket.

Take a less talented batsman like Rahul Dravid, who was technically correct but acchieved similar success to Lara & Hayden. I don't think he would've gotten away with so much success had he had the technical defiencies of Lara, Hayden & Pietersen.

I'm asking on what basis you say that certain batsmen are talented and others aren't. I'm sure few would agree with you that Dravid not extremely talented.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I'm asking on what basis you say that certain batsmen are talented and others aren't. I'm sure few would agree with you that Dravid not extremely talented.

Batting talent is having the ability to play allot of different strokes against high quality pace & bowling.

It's hard to give International examples but I've found out first hand by playing cricket, that if you aren't superiorly talented to everyone else then you can't go anywhere in cricket without a good technique.

Matthew Hayden made stacks of runs in domestic cricket for over a decade, but he was often discarded by the selectors and chosen over lesser performers with better techniques because they feared that his technique wasn't up to International standards. However, everyone knew how talented he was, even the likes of Taylor, Slater & Elliot went onto mention how good they knew Hayden was, years after they retired.

*Awaits bashing for mentioning Matthew Hayden*

 

[metallics2006]

Well, then the selectors were stupid.


As they are now.