Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[Dare]

Except Dare who does disagree and is hell bent on proving this theory wrong.

Dude you are really something else or just never read the posts that I make.

You are trying to prove to me something that I already admitted, which is that Laras technique wasn't perfect. Like I said a million times before, Laras technique wasnt perfect (no batsman has a perfect technique) but it was perfect for Brian Lara.

You say that his technique wasn't good for him early on but all of a sudden its good for him when he is making big scores. Laras technique was always the same, early on, middle of the innings and when he is about to score that double.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong because I said before that his technique wasn't perfect, I'm trying to prove that his technique wasn't horrendous, shocking, awful, flawed. If it was all those things he would have never got that far. He had a high back lift which isn't perfect because coaches wont teach it to you but that's what made him Brian Lara. He took something with what he was expected to fail and played some of the best cricket the world has ever seen.
So far all I have seen from you on Laras technique is "he had a high back lift", that doesn't make his technique shocking, it makes one flaw out of the many things you have to do perfect to to hit a ball.

 

[aussie_ben91]

You say that his technique wasn't good for him early on but all of a sudden its good for him when he is making big scores. Laras technique was always the same, early on, middle of the innings and when he is about to score that double.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong because I said before that his technique wasn't perfect, I'm trying to prove that his technique wasn't horrendous, shocking, awful, flawed. If it was all those things he would have never got that far. He had a high back lift which isn't perfect because coaches wont teach it to you but that's what made him Brian Lara. He took something with what he was expected to fail and played some of the best cricket the world has ever seen.
So far all I have seen from you on Laras technique is "he had a high back lift", that doesn't make his technique shocking, it makes one flaw out of the many things you have to do perfect to to hit a ball.

There is a difference when Lara hasn't got his eye in as opposed to when he does. As I said earlier, he relied on great hand-eye coordination and concentration, which made up for his poor technique, but he was quite vuranable early on in his innings, when he didn't have his eye-in.

You can have a poor technique and still be a successful batsman, but only if you are superiorly gifted and talented.

 

[Dare]

There is a difference when Lara hasn't got his eye in as opposed to when he does. As I said earlier, he relied on great hand-eye coordination and concentration, which made up for his poor technique, but he was quite vuranable early on in his innings, when he didn't have his eye-in.

You can have a poor technique and still be a successful batsman, but only if you are superiorly gifted and talented.

well the hand eye coordination is a huge part of cricket and that more than made up for that one "flaw" that he had which was the high back lift.

As I said before he had his eye in a whole lot of times hence the average and the runs.
I get where you are coming from, I agree that his technique wasn't text book perfect but it was far from being horrendous, shocking and awful.

 

[Cricketman]

Doesn't matter what you say about Lara's technique, his batting was the most pleasing to watch in the entire era. It was pure calypso, pure brute, but with grace. It was elegance personified.

 

[shravi]

Doesn't matter what you say about Lara's technique, his batting was the most pleasing to watch in the entire era. It was pure calypso, pure brute, but with grace. It was elegance personified.

Brutal and also graceful & elegant. Contradiction much ?

 

[Cricketman]

That's what was so great.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Haha, the poll tally currently reads.

Lara: 21 votes (41.18%)
Tendulkar: 30 votes (58.82%)

41 & 58 are both their respective batting averages in Australia.

 

[srikarr12]

Haha, the poll tally currently reads.

Lara: 21 votes (41.18%)
Tendulkar: 30 votes (58.82%)

41 & 58 are both their respective batting averages in Australia.

I wonder how long youve waiting for that one final vote to fit perfectly with their average in Australia.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I wonder how long youve waiting for that one final vote to fit perfectly with their average in Australia.

Not long, just realised it.

 

[usy]

your sig:

Justin Langer > Matthew Hayden

Gosh, grow up.

 

[aussie_ben91]

your sig:

Justin Langer > Matthew Hayden

Gosh, grow up.

Langer hails 'best ever opener' Hayden - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Gosh, get your facts right, kid.

 

[usy]

Langer hails 'best ever opener' Hayden - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Gosh, get your facts right, kid.

Thats just showing how nice guy Justin is.

"I think Matthew Hayden has been in my opinion, the best opening batsman Australia has ever produced, statistically, and also the way he went about his business was just unbelievable,"

opinions, and facts, two different things.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Thats just showing how nice guy Justin is.

"I think Matthew Hayden has been in my opinion, the best opening batsman Australia has ever produced, statistically, and also the way he went about his business was just unbelievable,"

opinions, and facts, two different things.

Hayden was a better batsman then Langer. In their peaks, Langer's averaging was hovering around the low 40's whilst Hayden's was almost touching 60.

 

[King Pietersen]

Low 40's? Langer's overall average peaked at 46.65, and as an opener over his whole career he averaged 48. Hayden's peak average was after 51 games, where he averaged 58.97, after the same period of time, Langer's average wasn't far off, averaging 50.28, and his average as opener only dropped below 50 in his last 10 Tests as an opener. Hayden was a better opening batsman, but Langer should not be discredited so easily, he was a very competent opening batsman, who averaged 50 as an opener for a long long time.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Low 40's? Langer's overall average peaked at 46.65, and as an opener over his whole career he averaged 48. Hayden's peak average was after 51 games, where he averaged 58.97, after the same period of time, Langer's average wasn't far off, averaging 50.28, and his average as opener only dropped below 50 in his last 10 Tests as an opener. Hayden was a better opening batsman, but Langer should not be discredited so easily, he was a very competent opening batsman, who averaged 50 as an opener for a long long time.

Justin Langer being a far distance behind Matthew Hayden as an Opening Batsman isn't "discrediting" Langer. Hayden's one of the best openers ever. Just because someone else isn't close to him doesn't mean I'm saying that their crap, Daniel.