Elephant in the room

[daryl1985]

at the time of laras retirement in tests who had more runs him or sachin?

What's your point pal?

[Jersey #10]

Sure' date=' you can keep trying! .... But this reminds me of the story of Khatra jaan hakim's story :giggle:[/quote'] Keep trying what? It's being kinda hard for me to stoop to your IQ lvl and remain there for long periods of time.

[zen]

i just wanna know the stats . as far as lara vs srt i feel both were equally great , enjoyed watching both of them bat.

You did not get the answer quickly so obviously it is Lara :winky: What's noticable is that Lara played only 4 tests against BD and Zim vs 12 by Tendulkar Also Lara avg close to 50 or more against Aus, Pak and Sa (49) (good bowling sides of that time) Tendulkar only avgs close to 50 or more against Aus (of these 3 teams) Both of them avg 50+ against Eng, and we know what Lara did to Eng Avg comparision against the top 3 bowling sides of that time: Country - Lara/ten Aus - 51/53 (Lara played 10 tests more) Pak - 53/40 SA - 49/37 Lara wins by a margin :icflove:

[CSK Fan]

You did not get the answer quickly so obviously it is Lara :winky: What's noticable is that Lara played only 4 tests against BD and Zim vs 12 by Tendulkar Also Lara avg close to 50 or more against Aus, Pak and Sa (49) (good bowling sides of that time) Tendulkar only avgs close to 50 or more against Aus (of these 3 teams) Both of them avg 50+ against Eng, and we know what Lara did to Eng Avg comparision against the top 3 bowling sides of that time: Country - Lara/ten Aus - 51/53 (Lara played 10 tests more) Pak - 53/40 SA - 49/37 Lara wins by a margin :icflove:

1) You very well know that Sachin at his prime never played Pakistan unlike Lara. Yet you bringing up Pakistan shows what a sneaky person you are 2) The Zimbabwe of the 90s was the equivalent of NZ of today. Why dont you take out NZ stats too? Finally any cricket expert, ex and current players, peole who played the game at the highest level, have always put Sachin ahead of Lara. So who is right, them or someone with a one point agenda against Sachin?

[SachDan]

I cannot agree with you: 1. Lara retired at the right time, I think Tendulkar could have hanged his boots after 2011 WC. He is probably carrying on like how Kapil did. Starting late or retiring early (comparitively) is not related to cricketing skills that's being discussed here. Someone could start his international test career at 30 and retire at 38, play 80 tests and score 8000 runs and could be better than someone like Tendulkar with 180 odd tests for 15k runs :winky: 2. I haven't see any scientific studies that measures a players mental toughness. I have seen Lara play some unbelibavle knocks though like taking WI to win against Aus almost single handledly, on the other hand I have seen Tendulkar fail to take India across (the test vs Pak for example). 3. All things considered, I repeat, for e.g. if Gavaskar (who is India best test batsman) had played as many games as Tendulkar, he would have had as good if not better test record. And he opens in tests When I make a point, usually, it considers many things that you need to. What comes out is an assessment.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Stop assessing too many things, get out with your camera

[zen]

Why don't you divide it with length of names and multiply with age in years. It will take into account the numerology-wise disadvantage Lara had to play with.

It would be negated by the pressure Tendulkar had to edure of a billion fans :P

[CSK Fan]

Lara after 182 tests ----> 92*182 = 16,744 runs > Ten 15k runs Current difference: 3k runs from 51 tests @ 59 runs per test only .... Getting 60 runs per tests shouldn't be that hard for any great batsman :icflove:

But Lara did not have the talent, the temprament or longitivety to play 182 tests unlike Sachin. He reached his peak and declined and retired. End of story

[akshayxyz]

You did not get the answer quickly so obviously it is Lara :winky: What's noticable is that Lara played only 4 tests against BD and Zim vs 12 by Tendulkar Also Lara avg close to 50 or more against Aus, Pak and Sa (49) (good bowling sides of that time) Tendulkar only avgs close to 50 or more against Aus (of these 3 teams) Both of them avg 50+ against Eng, and we know what Lara did to Eng Avg comparision against the top 3 bowling sides of that time: Country - Lara/ten Aus - 51/53 (Lara played 10 tests more) Pak - 53/40 SA - 49/37 Lara wins by a margin :icflove:

I find it rather cute, that you justified the 2 point difference to 10 additional tests by Lara. Whereas, just a while back you were postulating some scientific theory that he (in fact anyone) would have ended up with same ( if not high) average, had he played as many tests as SRT.

[daryl1985]

But Lara did not have the talent' date= the temprament or longitivety to play 182 tests unlike Sachin. He reached his peak and declined and retired. End of story

I would say that Lara was every bit as talented as Sachin (possibly more). Sachin definitely has the advantage in terms of longevity and temperament.

[zen]

1) You very well know that Sachin at his prime never played Pakistan unlike Lara. Yet you bringing up Pakistan shows what a sneaky person you are 2) The Zimbabwe of the 90s was the equivalent of NZ of today. Why dont you take out NZ stats too? Finally any cricket expert, ex and current players, peole who played the game at the highest level, have always put Sachin ahead of Lara. So who is right, them or someone with a one point agenda against Sachin?

you are missing the context

[daryl1985]

I find it rather cute' date=' that you justified the 2 point difference to 10 additional tests by Lara. Whereas, just a while back you were postulating some scientific theory that he (in fact anyone) would have ended up with same ( if not high) average, had he played as many tests as SRT.[/quote'] To be fair to Lara, he played more tests when McGrath was in the Australia team whereas Sachin played a couple of series where McGrath did not play. McGrath had good success against both men.

[zen]

I find it rather cute' date=' that you justified the 2 point difference to 10 additional tests by Lara. Whereas, just a while back you were postulating some scientific theory that he (in fact anyone) would have ended up with same ( if not high) average, had he played as many tests as SRT.[/quote'] If you put your thinking cap on, you would know that one would not play continous tests against a side .... which is why saying that playing 10 tests more against OZ is not the same as the parallels that you are trying to draw 2ndly, I did not justify anything but merely made a comment that Lara played more tests against Australia. It would also imply that his overall aggregiate of runs has more value by virtue of playing more games against better teams. To me a 2 points difference is not a big deal even if it Ten had 2 points less and played 10 tests less Appears as if the stage has come where the stage comes where the fanatics are trying to hang on to trival stuff and to the straws :P

[Andrew Peter]

i could be wrong but i feel statistically lara was probably better in the 90s and sachin in 2000s

In 90s , Sachin averaged 59 with 22 Hundreds ( Tendulkar wasnt only better than Lara but the best batsman of the 90s ) Whereas Lara averaged 52 with 13 Hundreds . Also in the matches against each other , Lara faced ordinary Indian bowlers while Tendulkar faced Ambrose & Walsh . So overall Tendulkar faced better bowlers .

[akshayxyz]

To be fair to Lara' date=' he played more tests when McGrath was in the Australia team whereas Sachin played a couple of series where McGrath did not play. McGrath had good success against both men.[/quote'] I have nothing against Lara. I am just trying to understand the science part of his argument ;)

[Raghav_12]

Why don't you divide it with length of names and multiply with age in years. It will take into account the numerology-wise disadvantage Lara had to play with.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: And going by other logic of thread, I am sure I would have scored as many runs as Sachin did, if I was allowed to play that many matches.

[Yoda-esque]

Guys,Please stick to the point instead of digressing. The implicit question here was whether this landmark is affecting SRT's natural game.

[ganeshran]

Guys,Please stick to the point instead of digressing. The implicit question here was whether this landmark is affecting SRT's natural game.

+1.

[zen]

But Lara did not have the talent' date=' the temprament or longitivety to play 182 tests unlike Sachin. He reached his peak and declined and retired. End of story[/quote'] It's what you do in the games you play that counts .... Like I said before, if you missed it, someone could start his international career at the age of 30, retire at 38, play 80 tests, score 8k runs and still be considered better than Tendulkar I don't think anyone would make the points that some of the fanatics are making outside of an Indian dominated area .... If they do, they would be laughed out of the room :winky:

[akshayxyz]

If you put your thinking cap on' date= you would know that one would not play continous tests against a side .... which is why saying that playing 10 tests more against OZ is not the same as the parallels that you are trying to draw 2ndly, I did not justify anything but merely made a comment that Lara played more tests against Australia. It would also imply that his overall aggregiate of runs has more value by virtue of playing more games against better teams. To me a 2 points difference is not a big deal even if it Ten had 2 points less and played 10 tests less Appears as if the stage has come where the stage comes where the fanatics are trying to hang on to trival stuff and to the straws :P

I do not want to waste my thinking cap on useless stats. So allow me to just work with your postulates. Going by various arguments I have picked from this forum -- playing more tests against same side should rather boost the average? So, according to what theory - Lara's average went a bit down - by 10 additional tests. Also why just 2 runs, why not a bit more? Also, don't kid yourself - it was very clear why you 'commented' - "but but but Lara played 10 extra tests". Let me break the news to you - the kind of ridiculous arguments people like you keep repeating every now and then - is the sign of fanaticism - and not otherwise (those who are trying to show what is wrong with your arguments). At the end of the day, yes you have right to have your opinion - but, I feel sorry for you, if that is based on some ridiculous reasoning and selective numbers.

[akshayxyz]

@rett btw - I forgot to say - welcome back to ICF. :two_thumbs_up: The cricket talk section was getting very boring.