Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[Dare]

Technique is not the same as performance. Performance is a function of natural ability (hand-eye, power, etc), technique and shot selection out in the middle. A batsman with loads of natural ability and good shot selection can still perform well despite having poor technique.

Laras technique was 100% perfect for Brian Lara. It helped him get load of runs, don't really give a rats A$$ if its not perfect for ben.


Also ben go search "Tendulkar bowled by wasim akram" same sort of deliver and sachin plays at it the same way, bat high in the air and late coming down.

 

[jordox]

Ben, I tell you who else didn't have a text book technique. Donald Bradman. He was criticized for it repeatably throughout his career. Stop harping on about Lara's technique. One of the reasons Lara was so successful WAS because of his unorthodox technique, which let him flash the ball away and score so freely.

Yes, he was out of position in the ONE example you posted which was against one a quality swinging delivery... but can I ask you, what batsman on Earth has never gotten out because of a brain snap where they are completely out of position? If Lara had such a terrible flaw in his technique like you are suggesting, how did he manage to be the second highest run scorer of all time, with an average of 52.88, with a high score of 400? Cut the guy some slack.

As far as my opinion on the matter goes, in essence I do agree with Ben. Tendulkar is the better player, with Lara and Ponting being about on par behind him.

 

[aussie_ben91]

now you want to point out to me where exactly I said that Lara didn't have flaws in his technique? Every batsman including Tendulkar has something in his batting that is not perfect. If Sachins technique is 100% perfect why isnt his average right up there with Bradmans. From what I understand 100% means no fail.
Once again you go on bashing someone like you are better than him. If I had to learn from you whats good and bad in cricket I would have given up a long time ago on this cricket stuff.

Just because you have a perfect technique doesn't automatically mean average of over 100? No one can play as much International cricket nowdays and average over 100 for their entire career. It's just mentally too draining.

I swear, arguing with you is like arguing with a ten-year, you're cheeky and nothing in your head makes sense. If you don't get what I'm telling you then you'll never learn anything because you obviously know NOTHING about batting techniques if you think that Lara's is fine. You obviously know nothing about batting. You probably bat at number 11 in 8th grade Canadian club cricket or whatever.

I'm not trying to dispute that Lara was a great player. I'm merely trying to say that he had a poor technique.

I don't particularly like Tendulkar but I admire him and unlike you, I don't have wool over my eyes and I rate other players that don't play for the country that I support. I call them as I see them, unlike you who is still living in the 1980s West Indies golden age.

Glad to hear that Hoggard did it once to Smith. Just like Waqar did it once to Lara. The ball that Lara got from Waqar is unplayable, any batsman would have struggled with it not just Lara. Perfect delivery for a left hander.

Why did Lara make so many low scores? Poor technique? Thank-you very much!

His "shocking technique" got him damn far in his career, don't you think so?

Shocking technique for someone rated so highly.

so you did all this work to once again try to convince me that his technique is flawed, because of the way he played one ball and probably the only one you ever saw Lara play at.

Laras technique obviously worked for him, check the rap sheet. runs, and records all over the place.

Also I need to get me that crystal ball you got man, Sachin would have kept that ball out for sure? Just like he kept out that one from Shoaib?

Also whoever reps without leaving their names, grow some kahones.

Technique only worked after he well and truly had his eye in. He made so many low scores in his career, moreso then most batsman averaging over 50.

 

[Dare]

Just because you have a perfect technique doesn't automatically mean average of over 100? No one can play as much International cricket nowdays and average over 100 for their entire career. It's just mentally too draining.

Agreed it is mentally draining.

I swear, arguing with you is like arguing with a ten-year, you're cheeky and nothing in your head makes sense. If you don't get what I'm telling you then you'll never learn anything because you obviously know NOTHING about batting techniques if you think that Lara's is fine. You obviously know nothing about batting. You probably bat at number 11 in 8th grade Canadian club cricket or whatever.

Wow your telling me that I act like a ten year old, am I the one bringing Sehwag in every thread trying to bash the dude. Thanx for trying to tell me something but Id rather drop dead now than learn something from a dude that's as full of himself as you. Like I said Lara was fine with his flawed technique, his record shows for it.
I be the Chris Martin of my team, perfect technique. What makes you think I play cricket at all for serious?
And arent you a skinny white dude that looks like he is 12 and is actually in his late teens. Kids these days, show no respect at all. You show your maturity with that "throwing curry in the rubbish" line, really classy from a guy trying to portray someone mature.

I'm not trying to dispute that Lara was a great player. I'm merely trying to say that he had a poor technique.

Make up your mind already so I know where you stands. Was it horrendous, awful, flawed, poor or whatever other crap you threw in there.

I don't particularly like Tendulkar but I admire him and unlike you, I don't have wool over my eyes and I rate other players that don't play for the country that I support. I call them as I see them, unlike you who is still living in the 1980s West Indies golden age.

I love Tendulkar, the dude is a constant professional. Always working on his craft, when his teammates in NZ were skipping optional practices to go shopping the oldest dude on the team was in the nets working on his batting. Never on this forum or any other have I said a bad thing about Sachin, I rate legends unlike you.
And I rate players as I see them too, not as I hate them. Hence for Haydens inclusion in my All Time XI. Show me what player I didn't rate and everyone else does.
Me stuck in the 1980s, na dude I'm stuck in reality. Im not the one calling Hughes the GOAT.

Why did Lara make so many low scores? Poor technique? Thank-you very much!

Perhaps. Let me ask you why did Lara make so many huge scores. Yup poor technique? Thank you very much!

Shocking technique for someone rated so highly.

So is the high bat lift the only thing you can come up with or is everything else flawed?

Technique only worked after he well and truly had his eye in. He made so many low scores in his career, moreso then most batsman averaging over 50.

So when Lara was just starting on his 400 his technique was so horrible that it improved just as he got to 150 or something like that.

Like I said Lara had flaws in his batting but to have the horrendous, awful, shocking, poor, flawed and still manage to be as good as he is. No way dude if his technique was as bad as you say he shouldn't have even lasted that long.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Wow your telling me that I act like a ten year old, am I the one bringing Sehwag in every thread trying to bash the dude. Thanx for trying to tell me something but Id rather drop dead now than learn something from a dude that's as full of himself as you. Like I said Lara was fine with his flawed technique, his record shows for it.
I be the Chris Martin of my team, perfect technique. What makes you think I play cricket at all for serious?
And arent you a skinny white dude that looks like he is 12 and is actually in his late teens. Kids these days, show no respect at all. You show your maturity with that "throwing curry in the rubbish" line, really classy from a guy trying to portray someone mature.

Skinny white dude that looks like I'm 12? Lmaoooo! Tell me mate, what's it like to be absolutely toiled up in an cricket arguement by a preteen? :laugh

Just the other day I got called a 30 year old uncle. We've got some very colourful members on this forum, haven't we?

Make up your mind already so I know where you stands. Was it horrendous, awful, flawed, poor or whatever other crap you threw in there.

Poor overall, awful when in comparison with other great batsman.

Perhaps. Let me ask you why did Lara make so many huge scores. Yup poor technique? Thank you very much!

How many times to do I have to repeat myself? When Lara was in he was unstoppable but he was easily exposed early on in his innings by class bowlers far too often.

Ben, I tell you who else didn't have a text book technique. Donald Bradman.

Then how come Bradman's wife said that Tendulkar looked similar to the way that Bradman used to bat?

 

[King Cricket]

^It was not his wife. It was Sir Don himself.

 

[srikarr12]

Then how come Bradman's wife said that Tendulkar looked similar to the way that Bradman used to bat?

By that I dont think Bradman means the techniques are similar but the flair and style of shots they bring when they came to the crease.

 

[jordox]

Judging from old footage, and the few articles I've read (that are nicely sumed up in this wiki article: Donald Bradman's batting technique - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Bradman and Tendulkar don't seem that alike at all. Except the pull shot, which may have been similar.

 

[mrtwisties]

Laras technique was 100% perfect for Brian Lara. It helped him get load of runs, don't really give a rats A$$ if its not perfect for ben.

There's nothing wrong with unorthodox techniques - they have their advantages and disadvantages, just like orthodox techniques. The disadvantage of Lara's unorthodox technique was that it required perfect hand-eye coordination, which left him vulnerable to getting out when his eye wasn't in.

If he had a more robust technique, he would probably have made a lot more starts and converted a lot more of those starts into hundreds. His career would also probably have lasted longer, since he wouldn't have started to fade as soon as his hand-eye coordination did.

Let me put it in a way that's probably more palatable for you. I think Lara was a more naturally talented batsman than Tendulkar with his incredible eye and unflappable concentration. But his unorthodox technique, which may have made him a lot more runs than an orthodox technique would've during his purple patches, definitely ended up costing him a lot more runs than that over the course of his career.

 

[manee]

Hmmm, would just like to have my two pence and say that I disagree with critiquing of an all time great batsman's technique and feel you should only judge a finished career on the performances made. I'm not sure any batsmen past or present could play that delivery that you have pictured, Ben.

 

[jeffturner]

NOthing comapres Sachin Tendulkar. He is always brilliant in every respect. look at his shot selection, techniques, everything awesome. Moreover sachin always plays for his team whereas Lara plays for his own records, whn lara made 400 he might ve declared before and should tried to wim match for WI. Whatever Sachin is best

 

[aussie_ben91]

Hmmm, would just like to have my two pence and say that I disagree with critiquing of an all time great batsman's technique and feel you should only judge a finished career on the performances made. I'm not sure any batsmen past or present could play that delivery that you have pictured, Ben.

The idea of those pictures is generally to look at the first picture and see how bad of a position Lara gets himself into. He looks like a baseball player.

 

[King Pietersen]

Ben, your argument would hold some level of use if Lara had failed in his career, but he didn't. He averaged 52 in Test cricket with 34 Hundreds and held the world record for the highest ever Test innings twice. You don't score 34 Test hundreds and average over 50 if you've got a shocking technique. I rate Tendulkar higher, but Lara's technique can't have been that bad considering what he achieved. Sure it didn't look pretty, but it worked for him. Chanderpaul's technique isn't textbook, but he's still scoring heaps of runs, Kevin Pietersen's technique has quite a few flaws but he's still scoring runs. You don't need a textbook technique to be a class player, and it's not Tendulkar's technique which made him a better player than Lara.

 

[manee]

The idea of those pictures is generally to look at the first picture and see how bad of a position Lara gets himself into. He looks like a baseball player.

You oversimplify the situation. Lara utilised this unorthodox technique to great success, with some of the most aesthetically pleasing and effective shots witnessed by many cricket fans.

 

[surendar]

I just love when Tendulkar and Lara plays. I can't say who is better because I equally like them though I am a deep fan of Sachin Tendulkar. And com'on Tendulkar and Lara are good friends, I don't see why we have to fight to see who is better.

Both are very dangerous players as long as they are in crease. Some great bowlers like Akram, Waqar, Akthar, Lee, McGrath, Caddick etc etch have never ruled out their options of getting these two wickets whenever they played against them.. That inturn implies how precious those two are for their respective teams.

What i can see, it's just the personal likeness over the other that comes finally in this discussion.