Viv Richards: I'd pick Sachin over Lara

[goose]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

yeah.  
The entire reason we have this debate is because in their primes, Tendu was a garantee for scoring a century every 3-4 tests without fail, regardless of pitch and opposition, plus averaging 40-50 practically every series without fail, while Lara was the guy who'd give you 0,5,5,10,7, 275*, 4 kinda scores against the best of the best on the hardest of pitches.  From a long term, team perspective, Tendulkar was clearly a superior bat. But if we were to watch 1 innings of cricket and thats it, Lara tops every single batsman i've ever seen.

Exactly. Sadly there is no stat that captures his consistency, the jaw drop silence on rare occasion he failed and THAT is what the world was in awe of.

[mancalledsting]

55 minutes ago, velu said:

  



good boy- my personal preference (whilst I acknowledge on ICF people free to do what they like within rules) would be for you to stay this way when it comes to my posts, in fact it's one of your better contributions

[putrevus]

I would take Lara over Tendulkar any day in tests and make sure as a captain Lara is in right frame of mind.Lara had ability to wins matches whereas Tendulkar was steady eddy who would get his numbers, I am not so sure they were all when team needed them most.

[zen]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/551385.html

 

^ Ian Chappell would pick Lara 

[putrevus]

Lara was a beast when he had strong team around him but gradually as his team declined , he got disinterested and lost his way, WI board being useless also did not help. Tendulkar however had reverse when he started Indian team was not strong but he played with one of the strongest batting lineups in history for majority of his career but he never stood out with series changing batting displays.

 

 

[velu]

48 minutes ago, mancalledsting said:

good boy- my personal preference (whilst I acknowledge on ICF people free to do what they like within rules) would be for you to stay this way when it comes to my posts, in fact it's one of your better contributions

ok.. i will go through your posts when i want to get sleep early  

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, putrevus said:

Lara was a beast when he had strong team around him but gradually as his team declined , he got disinterested and lost his way, WI board being useless also did not help. Tendulkar however had reverse when he started Indian team was not strong but he played with one of the strongest batting lineups in history for majority of his career but he never stood out with series changing batting displays.

 

 

Actually no. 

Lara's stats are the best from 2002 onwards, when WI were at their weakest. Lara showed he was a weaker mindset than Tendulkar in terms of dealing with pressure of expectations and stardom, when in one summer he scored 375 and 501*. He started to party more, do the 'steriotypical WI dude thing' leaving a string of pregnant woman everywhere, took practice casually etc etc. His amazing talent and hard work earlier allowed him to coast for a while but in a couple of years, the lack of practice and partying too much caught up with him and his career nosedived. Then he got fat and his lightning quick footwork - the bedrock to his batting- became compromised. 

 

He also struggled because of a technical flaw - his backlift was too high and his bat came down at an angle from gully instead of straighter. This was pointed out to him by Garfield Sobers in an informal hangout (Lara himself said so) and he corrected it - leading to the monster series vs OZ. 

But his party life continued and he stuggled, when finally, in his early 30s, he got the sense of 'now or never' to secure his legacy. As such, the last 5 years of his career were his most productive in terms of runs, centuries, consistency etc. 

Lara himself said that he is inferior to Tendulkar for the reasons that Tendulkar had freakishly unnatural consistency and his ability to deal with pressures and temptations of superstardom that he never quite mastered. 

[putrevus]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Actually no. 

Lara's stats are the best from 2002 onwards, when WI were at their weakest. Lara showed he was a weaker mindset than Tendulkar in terms of dealing with pressure of expectations and stardom, when in one summer he scored 375 and 501*. He started to party more, do the 'steriotypical WI dude thing' leaving a string of pregnant woman everywhere, took practice casually etc etc. His amazing talent and hard work earlier allowed him to coast for a while but in a couple of years, the lack of practice and partying too much caught up with him and his career nosedived. Then he got fat and his lightning quick footwork - the bedrock to his batting- became compromised. 

 

He also struggled because of a technical flaw - his backlift was too high and his bat came down at an angle from gully instead of straighter. This was pointed out to him by Garfield Sobers in an informal hangout (Lara himself said so) and he corrected it - leading to the monster series vs OZ. 

But his party life continued and he stuggled, when finally, in his early 30s, he got the sense of 'now or never' to secure his legacy. As such, the last 5 years of his career were his most productive in terms of runs, centuries, consistency etc. 

Lara himself said that he is inferior to Tendulkar for the reasons that Tendulkar had freakishly unnatural consistency and his ability to deal with pressures and temptations of superstardom that he never quite mastered. 

No you are wrong. Lara averaged 60 by his 32 second test and had already scored 375.Then it was gradual decline till Srilankan series in 2001.That Lara was better than Tendulkar.

 

Tendulkar is greatest sportsman who never let superstardom change him as person. Tendulkar got along with everyone and that is his one his greatest attribute. But we are not talking about their personal lives, as a selector when both Lara and Tendulkar at their peaks are available , I will take Lara anyday. Lara will win matches which Tendulkar never could.We are talking about only tests,

[mancalledsting]

3 hours ago, velu said:

ok.. i will go through your posts when i want to get sleep early  

you will find the treatment to be more efficacious if you look a bit closer to home

[velu]

2 minutes ago, mancalledsting said:

you will find the treatment to be more efficacious if you look a bit closer to home

 

i think we are running in circles  

but whatever i love you bro  

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, putrevus said:

No you are wrong. Lara averaged 60 by his 32 second test and had already scored 375.Then it was gradual decline till Srilankan series in 2001.That Lara was better than Tendulkar.

Why don't you ask Lara himself what his lifestyle was after he became a super-star by scoring 375 and 501* in one summer. His decline came right after that, because he stopped being a professional and became a party animal. 

 

12 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Tendulkar is greatest sportsman who never let superstardom change him as person. Tendulkar got along with everyone and that is his one his greatest attribute. But we are not talking about their personal lives, as a selector when both Lara and Tendulkar at their peaks are available , I will take Lara anyday. Lara will win matches which Tendulkar never could.We are talking about only tests,

Batsmen don't win matches. Thats a pile of nonsense. If Tendy had Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop to shoot out teams for 250 consistently, he'd have way more match-winning knocks. 
As a selector, i will take Tendulkar any day because Tendulkar showing up with a 100 every 3 matches or so is a far bigger insurance than whether Lara is going to go this entire series with 1 mega hundred and 9 failures or be consistent. Consistency of performance from the entire 11 is what every coach wants first an foremost. 

[putrevus]

22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Why don't you ask Lara himself what his lifestyle was after he became a super-star by scoring 375 and 501* in one summer. His decline came right after that, because he stopped being a professional and became a party animal. 

 

Batsmen don't win matches. Thats a pile of nonsense. If Tendy had Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop to shoot out teams for 250 consistently, he'd have way more match-winning knocks. 
As a selector, i will take Tendulkar any day because Tendulkar showing up with a 100 every 3 matches or so is a far bigger insurance than whether Lara is going to go this entire series with 1 mega hundred and 9 failures or be consistent. Consistency of performance from the entire 11 is what every coach wants first an foremost. 

I dont need to ask anybody .I won't take Tendulkar over Lara. I know Lara will win me matches which Tendulkar will never will,I want match winners in my team not steady eddies.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I dont need to ask anybody .I won't take Tendulkar over Lara. I know Lara will win me matches which Tendulkar will never will,I want match winners in my team not steady eddies.

There is no such thing as a batsman who wins matches in test cricket mate. You don't need to ask anyone about who you chose for what reason, but do ask Lara/people in the know why Lara declined in the late 90s - technical error ( backswing) and party life-style. 

All talents and accomplishments aside, i will take the professional one, who can keep his work ethic and professionalism 100 times out of a 100 over a guy 10 times more talented but prefers chasing tail over practicing.

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There is no such thing as a batsman who wins matches in test cricket mate. You don't need to ask anyone about who you chose for what reason, but do ask Lara/people in the know why Lara declined in the late 90s - technical error ( backswing) and party life-style. 

All talents and accomplishments aside, i will take the professional one, who can keep his work ethic and professionalism 100 times out of a 100 over a guy 10 times more talented but prefers chasing tail over practicing.

That is your choice, I have mine, Tendulkar to me is not match winner Lara is, he frequently kept disappearing when his team needed him most.There is reason why Tendulkar never scored 500 in a series.

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, putrevus said:

That is your choice, I have mine, Tendulkar to me is not match winner Lara is, he frequently kept disappearing when his team needed him most.There is reason why Tendulkar never scored 500 in a series.

Reason he didn't score 500 in a series is because India hardly ever played 5 test series in his time and the couple of ones they did, they were rain affected bore-fests with not enough innings. Anyways, you keep citing a reason that is BS reason - there is no such thing as a matchwinning batsman in tests. 

Its about as valid as saying 'matchwinning goalkeeper' in football. Such a thing does not exist. 

The closest you can come, is 4th innings performances, but by that metric, SunnyG is a bigger 'matchwinner' than Viv Richards. Go figure !

 

[rtmohanlal]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

yeah.  
The entire reason we have this debate is because in their primes, Tendu was a garantee for scoring a century every 3-4 tests without fail, regardless of pitch and opposition, plus averaging 40-50 practically every series without fail, while Lara was the guy who'd give you 0,5,5,10,7, 275*, 4 kinda scores against the best of the best on the hardest of pitches.  From a long term, team perspective, Tendulkar was clearly a superior bat. But if we were to watch 1 innings of cricket and thats it, Lara tops every single batsman i've ever seen.

 

6 hours ago, goose said:

Exactly. Sadly there is no stat that captures his consistency, the jaw drop silence on rare occasion he failed and THAT is what the world was in awe of.

Statements like Lara the better match winner based on the fact that he played much longer inns on the avg:  at better str: rates when he was on song have been put forward a lot often.So some time back i just did a rough exercise to have an idea about this .
I first avoided the home records w.r.t to long inns because 'away country' records are much more important than home records.To add to that home country is only one and away countries are several which are all different to one another.So despite being almost sure that Lara would be convincingly superior to SRT at home in this regard, I neglected it. After all, I thought in the lines that the one who leads in the most important criteria would be the better one, all others are secondary.

 

So for this exercise i filtered out all the big inns(>100 runs inns) played by Sachin & Lara away from home.I excluded BAN for Sachin Zim for Lara them being minnows.And then as we all know Sachin was a pale shadow of his self after 2011 world cup due to  aging.What not, he couldn't even score a single 100+ score after 2011 world cup.But his record of 14692 runs at 57 avg: in 177 tests till that point was adequate enough to over come even the second best Ponting in the list of batsmen with most longevity.So i took this cut of point.Sachin has 24 100s abroad baring BAN & Lara has 16 100s excluding ZIM.

 

Now taking the avg: of all 100+ scores was unfair to Lara because Sachin has  8 NOTOUTS  in these 24 100s where as Lara has nil.Naturally the avg: of these 100+ scores is convincingly better for Sachin & taking avg: as such was unfair to Lara.At the same time taking runs/inns value was unfair to Sachin because he was denied by circumstances to continue thru the inns & remained not out 8 times.So i just assumed that had Sachin continued in any case with these 8 notouts till he got out,he would have scored 240 more runs  in these 8 notout scores combined.That means 30 runs more per a notout score.I thought,for a batsman who has scored 100+ in 24 inns & remained not out in  8 out of 24( 1 in every 3 inns) of those inns ,at the least  240 more runs could be provided in all probablity, if not more.

 

Another thing i assumed was that in each of these 8 not out scores he would have maintained the same str: rate at the end.This may raise a few eye brows but if we think rationally we can see that there is very high probablity of maintaining str: rate.This is because of the fact that batsmen generally are so tentative at the start but once they settle in and enter into that zone,they get so free flowing and confident.This factor is even more prominent in the case of Sachin, because unlike other great batsmen in general, he on lots of occasions was bogged down a bit by pressure of expectations as well. As an evidence, take Sachin's 241 not out for example.He scored his first 154 runs in only 342 balls.But the remaining  87 runs in just 94 balls.So is the case with several of these  not out inns of his.

So what I did in the below exercise was, for each not out score I added 30 more runs so that  total 240 runs were added in all and took out all not outs. And ball count of each of these 8 individual scores was adjusted based on the str: rate associated with each of these scores.For example, take Sachin's 119*  of 189 balls in ENG. I readjusted  the score to 149 in 237 balls(30 runs added & more or less the same str: rate maintained.) Similarly I did the same for remaining 7 not out inns too.   
 
Now that scores were reevaluated, Sachin's 24 100+ scores were categorised into 2. 16 best scores of his which are comparable to  Lara's 16 + 8 other scores . Here again 2 cases were considered. In case 1, mammothness was given preference & in the 2nd case aggressive ness was given preference (str:rate). e,a,s,l,p,n denotes England,Australia,South africa,Lanka,Pakistan &Newzealand respectively.

 

case 1  -  mammoth score given preference

149  237 e  62.96  - readjusted
178  256 a  69.48  - readjusted
177  360 e  49.16
169  254 s  66.53
143  247 l  57.89
154  292 l  52.76  - readjusted
155  184 s  84.23
193  330 e  58.48
271  490 a  55.27  - readjusted
224  402 p  55.74  - readjusted    
184  290 a  63.37  - readjusted    
153  205 a  74.63
160  260 n  61.53     
203  347 l  58.50
141  306 s  46.05  - readjusted    
146  314 s  46.49

16 inn 2800r 4774b  175 runs/inns  298.375balls/inns   58.65str:  -SRT
16 inn 2736r 3893b  171 runs/inns  243.313balls/inns   70.28str:  -Lara

 

In the above case where magnitude of score is given preference, SRT scores 4 more runs on the avg:  by facing 55 more balls.In other words, if all the other batsmen combinedly are able to score a minimum of 150 runs, SRT would take the team total to 175 + 150 = 325 runs by facing 55 more balls. On the other hand Lara would take the team total to 171 + 150 = 321 runs by facing 55 fewer balls when compared to SRT.But we all know that, in the vast majority of occassions,  all the other 9 batsmen combinedly  can put far more runs than a single batsmen.Thus the more runs these other 9 batsmen are able to put, even lesser this difference in contribution  by both these batsmen  towards team total becomes .

 

remaining 8 100s

114  161 a  70.80     
111  270 s  41.11     
122  177 e  68.92     
134  207 l  64.59   - readjusted
113  151 n  74.83     
116  191 a  60.73     
117  260 w  45.00     
139  266 l  52.25    

 

case 2 -  aggressiveness(str: rates)  given preference

149  237 e  62.96   - readjusted
178  256 a  69.48   - readjusted
177  360 e  49.16
169  254 s  66.53
114  161 a  70.80     
122  177 e  68.92     
134  207 l  64.59    - readjusted
113  151 n  74.83     
155  184 s  84.23
193  330 e  58.48
271  490 a  55.27    - readjusted
224  402 p  55.74    - readjusted    
184  290 a  63.37    - readjusted    
153  205 a  74.63
160  260 n  61.53     
203  347 l  58.50

16 inn 2699r 4311b  168.69 runs/inns  269.438   62.61str:  -SRT
16 inn 2736r 3893b  171.00 runs/inns  243.313   70.28str:  -Lara

 

In case 2, Sachin's 16 inns with best str: rates are selected for comparison.Here runs/inns gets slightly tilted towards Lara by a mere 2.31 value.But the difference in ball count taken gets considerably reduced to 26 balls from 55 in the first case.

 

remaining 8 100s

111  270 s  41.11     
116  191 a  60.73     
117  260 w  45.00     
139  266 l  52.25     
141  306 s  46.05  - readjusted    
146  314 s  46.49
143  247 l  57.89
154  292 l  52.76  - readjusted

So, from both above cases, it is clear that there is not at all that much difference between Lara and Sachin  in terms of dominance, if any very negligible in favour of Lara.

Now consistancy is to be analysed.For that,  8 remaining 100s of Sachin  can be  mixed with other  ordinary scores of his to  evaluate that.For that I am taking those  8 discarded 100s  in case '2'. Here str: rate is not a problem when it comes to consistancy.So that element is discarded.

 

Calculation for consistancy is as follows:

Lara:
His data other than that in  ZIM : 117 1 5514  47.53
details of 100+ inns : 16 inns    2736 runs
remaining inns:  101 1  2778  27.78
                         101 0  2808  27.8(30 runs added to  not out inns)
         
So Lara in his vast majority of <100 scores 'against non minnows abroad' puts 27.8 runs/inns  in 101 inns.

 

Sachin:
Data other than that in BAN & ZIM  : 144inns  13 not outs 7085 runs
details of 100+ inns : 24 inns  8 NOT OUTS   3526 runs
remaining inns : 120 inns   5 not outs  3559 runs
                         120 inns   0 not outs  3709 runs(30 runs added to each  not out inns)
total of 8 discarded '100+' inns in case '2' : 1067 runs ( 2 not out scores provided with total  60 runs as well)
So  details of total inns taken for consistancy : 128 inns  3709+1067= 4776 runs   4776/128=37.31 runs/inns

So SRT in his vast majority of "<100 scores + 8 least influential 100s"  'against non minnows abroad' puts 37.31 runs/inns  in 128 inns.

So while there is very little to choose between them in terms of 'dominance' , there is a very wide gap in favour of SRT w.r.t consistancy.

A difference of 37.31-27.8= 9.51 runs/inns  in favour of SRT , that too despite playing 128 inns to Lara's 101

 

And hence for me, even in tests it is not a doubt as to who the better batsman was. 

 

 

 

[CSK Fan]

34 minutes ago, putrevus said:

That is your choice, I have mine, Tendulkar to me is not match winner Lara is, he frequently kept disappearing when his team needed him most.There is reason why Tendulkar never scored 500 in a series.

In Tendulkar's prime we never played more than 2-3 match series. He scored 403 in a 2 match series and 493 in a 4 match series. you think he couldn't score extra 7 runs? He has crossed 400 5 times in 2 and 3 match series,  you think extra matches wouldnt have made him cross 500?

[zen]

Relatively speaking, Tendulkar played for stats. His 194* in Pak is a prime example where the team had to finally declare. In Aus too his 200 was not among his best in terms of fluency .... the pursuit of 100 100s is among the worst examples  of a sportsman mindlessly pursuing a record. Many in Ind, which lacks a sporting pedigree, supported such pursuits as well as such invented meaningless stats are better than nothing. And it is such guys who mainly spam for Tendulkar (and as the country lacks world class sporting heros, Tendulkar being a rare world class sportsman attracts such fans from Ind, fueling the desire to constantly prove he is the best at any cost) .... therefore such stats and discussions appear pointless after a while .... while Lara played and the stats took care of themselves. He has many memorable 100s and series performances. Yes, on occasions, he would consider stats too but we are talking relatively 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by zen

[goose]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

Relatively speaking, Tendulkar played for stats. His 194* in Pak is a prime example where the team had to declare. In Aus too his 200 was not among his best in terms of fluency .... the pursuit of 100 100s is among the worst examples  of a sportsman mindlessly pursuing a record. Many in Ind, which lacks a sporting pedigree, supported such pursuits as well as such invented meaningless stats are better than nothing. And it is such guys who mainly spam for Tendulkar (and the country lacks world class sporting heros. Tendulkar being a rare world class sportsman attracts such fans from Ind and therefore the desire to constantly prove he is the best at any cost) .... therefore such stats and discussions appear pointless after a while .... while Lara played and stats took care of themselves. Yes, on occasions, he would consider stats too but we are talking relatively 

 

 

 

375 and 501...yep no stats there

[zen]

3 minutes ago, goose said:

375 and 501...yep no stats there

Read the last line and what is being implied