Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[aussie_ben91]

People are reading little into my arguement. My arguement is that Lara had a poor technique, hence why he failed so often. My reason for Lara not being as good as Tendulkar is because he wasn't anywhere near as consistant and he wasn't as consistant as Tendulkar because he was technicially incorrect, which is why he struggled so early on in his innings. I was just defending my arguement that Lara had a poor technique.

Other players get criticised for having poor techniques with success but I've never heard anyone criticise Lara's technique despite the fact that he does exactly what the guys who get criticised do. I just thought I'd put it out there.

Mr. Twisties summed it up perfectly.

 

[manee]

People are reading little into my arguement. My arguement is that Lara had a poor technique, hence why he failed so often. My reason for Lara not being as good as Tendulkar is because he wasn't anywhere near as consistant and he wasn't as consistant as Tendulkar because he was technicially incorrect, which is why he struggled so early on in his innings. I was just defending my arguement that Lara had a poor technique.

Other players get criticised for having poor techniques with success but I've never heard anyone criticise Lara's technique despite the fact that he does exactly what the guys who get criticised do. I just thought I'd put it out there.

Mr. Twisties summed it up perfectly.

Lara did not fail often at all. If you consider that he played in an ever worsening team throughout his career, it is a magnificant record with few failures - he pretty much has no stone unturned, except performances against India.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Lara did not fail often at all. If you consider that he played in an ever worsening team throughout his career, it is a magnificant record with few failures - he pretty much has no stone unturned, except performances against India.

No, he would get allot of low scores and then make a big hundred or two and then get a few more low scores before scoring big again.

For example, in Australia he averaged 40 despite posting 2 double hundreds. He also averaged just over 60 against England despite having 2 scores of 350+ against them.

 

[mrtwisties]

Lara did not fail often at all. If you consider that he played in an ever worsening team throughout his career, it is a magnificant record with few failures - he pretty much has no stone unturned, except performances against India.

I take it you haven't read the earlier post about countries that Lara scored comparatively poorly in? He certainly wasn't as consistent across geographies as Tendulkar has been.

Lara's poor consistency in the early part of an innings also cost him quite a bit. Lara made less than 10 in 26.6% of his innings, whereas Tendulkar made less than 10 in 23.6%. That's the difference between a Test average of 52.8 and an average of 54.5 (which, coincidentally, is more or less the difference between Lara and Tendulkar's test averages).

 

[usy]

Was that sarcastic? Hints at being so... Whatever I told was my side of the fact.

Here we get into philosophical crap.

Whats a fact? :cool:

 

[WestIndian]

I take it you haven't read the earlier post about countries that Lara scored comparatively poorly in? He certainly wasn't as consistent across geographies as Tendulkar has been.

Lara's poor consistency in the early part of an innings also cost him quite a bit. Lara made less than 10 in 26.6% of his innings, whereas Tendulkar made less than 10 in 23.6%. That's the difference between a Test average of 52.8 and an average of 54.5 (which, coincidentally, is more or less the difference between Lara and Tendulkar's test averages).

You are such an expert MrTwisties, why don't you go all the way with your expert analysis, get all of Lara's matches, get all of Tendulkar and then give us a comparative listing of times, they both got out, be it early or late in an inning, by bad calls from umpires, that should be part of your analytic review since it does impact on runs score, average etc..., and if you need help in so doing SIR, check Ben, he just might remember Lara getting screwed 4 times in Australia while on the verge or breaking Allan Border's record for most test runs!!!

 

[mrtwisties]

You are such an expert MrTwisties, why don't you go all the way with your expert analysis, get all of Lara's matches, get all of Tendulkar and then give us a comparative listing of times, they both got out, be it early or late in an inning, by bad calls from umpires, that should be part of your analytic review since it does impact on runs score, average etc..., and if you need help in so doing SIR, check Ben, he just might remember Lara getting screwed 4 times in Australia while on the verge or breaking Allan Border's record for most test runs!!!

Let me get this straight - you're seriously arguing that over the hundreds of innings Lara and Tendulkar have both played, there's a statistically significant difference in the way they've been treated by umpires?

Or did you just want to say something rude about me and that was the first thing that popped into your head?

 

[manee]

No, he would get allot of low scores and then make a big hundred or two and then get a few more low scores before scoring big again.

But why are several mediocre scores worth more than fewer larger scores, especially in a country in which a large single handed batting effort was often needed to prop up the failing batting line up.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Brian Lara was Glenn McGrath's bunny. :laugh

What a little rat Brian Lara was though. Once Glenn McGrath hit Lara in the head with a bouncer and then Lara run down the wicket and then tried to shoulder-barge McGrath when McGrath's back was turned and then he started hurling verbal abuse at McGrath.

McGrath dismissed Lara 15 times in Test Cricket.

aussie_ben91 added 2 Minutes and 0 Seconds later...

But why are several mediocre scores worth more than fewer larger scores, especially in a country in which a large single handed batting effort was often needed to prop up the failing batting line up.

In that case then why wouldn't you want a more reliable batsman?

 

[manee]

In that case then why wouldn't you want a more reliable batsman?

It is moot, but I believe that someone who can single handedly win a match is more use to a failing batting line up than someone who often chips in with a fifty. However, the true indication comes in terms of a statistical analysis more in depth than that and to me, that comes with Tendulkar as the slightly superior batsman. However, I still feel you are doing a disservice to Lara by attacking his every statistical weakness.

 

[WestIndian]

Let me get this straight - you're seriously arguing that over the hundreds of innings Lara and Tendulkar have both played, there's a statistically significant difference in the way they've been treated by umpires?

Or did you just want to say something rude about me and that was the first thing that popped into your head?

Suddenly, my english is not good enough for you to understand!! Yes am asking you, since you are the statistic expert, to indulge me, make part of your review all aspects of the two men as it relates to the game.
You see, since you can use low scores as part of your analysis, would it not be fair and of interest to know how both of the players inning per test ended, based on dismissals as well??

 

[mrtwisties]

It would be a waste of time, that's what it would be. Everyone gets bad decisions and good decisions, it all evens out in the end. Especially when you have a long career, like Lara and Tendulkar both have.

Why can't you put forward credible arguments, like "Tendulkar often choked when a match-saving knock was needed"?

 

[WestIndian]

What a little rat Brian Lara was though. Once Glenn McGrath hit Lara in the head with a bouncer and then Lara run down the wicket and then tried to shoulder-barge McGrath when McGrath's back was turned and then he started hurling verbal abuse at McGrath.

As expected from you, the best you can do with your childish antics, typical of Australians that cannot come to terms that they are not the best in the game, as they profess to be.

The little rat, as you refer to him, stands alongside Tendulkar in cricketing history, you Ben, don't have to like it, nor accept it, but it is what it is, and your Ricky Ponting will take some doing to be alongside these two.
As for the "shoulder-barge", is that the same match, where McGrath wanted to fight with Sarwan?
In fact there is a story as to why Glenn could not stand Lara, not just for his batting, but for something else, I guess Lara was tired of doing him favors elsewhere and he could not take it, just ask Sars, he knows the whole story, then you will tell me who is the LITTLE RAT.

WestIndian added 6 Minutes and 26 Seconds later...

It would be a waste of time, that's what it would be. Everyone gets bad decisions and good decisions, it all evens out in the end. Especially when you have a long career, like Lara and Tendulkar both have.

Why can't you put forward credible arguments, like "Tendulkar often choked when a match-saving knock was needed"?

Kid, this goes on to show your little knowledge of West Indies cricket, Lara's knocks were always match saving, and in some cases winning!!!
Maybe you should also compare the time each batsman came in to bat, scores on the board, etc...

 

[Dare]

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

I told you in the other thread you have absolutely no chance of doing any of that. You think you won a argument because you have a clip of one ball that Lara played badly. Once you can come up with more come back and see me.

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?

Not as colorful as "throwing curry in the trash"....

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

LOL Im sorry his "awful" technique got him so many runs and records that you cant find any proof for that "awful" technique other than one clip on youtube.

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.

So how come he wasn't exposed early on when he was on the way to many of his double centuries.

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

Nothing similar about the way they batted, but Im happy for Tendulkar that he gets compared to the GOAT.

But why are several mediocre scores worth more than fewer larger scores, especially in a country in which a large single handed batting effort was often needed to prop up the failing batting line up.

Because its works for his argument...He is just willing to not even take into consideration Laras 34 centuries.

For example, in Australia he averaged 40 despite posting 2 double hundreds. He also averaged just over 60 against England despite having 2 scores of 350+ against them.

Ay because averaging 60 against England is "awful" and 40 + against Australia when they were the best side in cricket and when he had to carry the team.

Kid, this goes on to show your little knowledge of West Indies cricket, Lara's knocks were always match saving, and in some cases winning!!!
Maybe you should also compare the time each batsman came in to bat, scores on the board, etc...

Dont bother with trying to get them to do that Rabs because it doesn't work in their favor. Same goes when you are arguing the case for Shiv.

 

[Tanmay]

This thread itself is like disrespecting the two legends

I rate Lara and Sachin as equal.Both were ver very imp for their country.

While i am a fan of Sachin, still i will like to see Lara's innings over Sachin because of Lara's unorthodox style of playing shots.It's very pleasing to watch Lara(Still no disrespect to Sachins ability to hit the ball).