Lara V Tendulkar

[daryl1985]

Lara after his magical comeback against SL and in his last 51 tests vs Ten during the same period Lara: LINK .... look at some of the big scores there, a lot of 150+ scored SRT during that period: Link If you remove Zim and BD: Lara: LINK Ten: LINK Lara vs Ten from Nov 2001 (Lara's comeback) to Nov 2006 (Lara retired) Excluding Zim and BD: Tests Lara: 47 Ten: 44 Runs Lara: 5025 Ten: 3021 Avg Lara: 60.54 (61)with only 2 not outs Ten: 47.06 (47) with 7 not outs 100s: Lara: 17 in 85 innings (a hundred every 5th inning) Ten: 8 in 71 innings (a hundred every 11th inning) SR: Lara: 59.77 (60) Ten: 51.69 (52)

The time frame you have selected favours Lara, coinciding with some of the leaner periods of Sachin's career.

[CSK Fan]

Boy o Boy, i hope those questions were not asked seriously .... To me your post appears more like some wanna-be lawyer is trying to find fallacies in other guys argument. It doesn't matter what I write, you will need to find something to feel good about yourself :haha: Anyways, will just respond quickly 1. So now the great Tendulkar has to rely on the great Zim to compete with his peers! Zim and BD have been amongst the weakest test sides. And I usually remove them. You should be complaining if a stronger side was left out. The factors are constant for both .... :

Err, no, I was wondering why you removed Zim and did not remove New Zealand, guess Lara needs New Zealnd's support. Yes factors being same of course when you can pick and chose factors

2. Once Lara got his mojo back' date=' he played at a different level than Tendulkar. As seen in his last 50 tests over 5 years. The stats from the point where both started till Nov 2006 are also posted :[/quote'] And again taking a part of someone's career proves what exactly? Once Moyo got his mojo back he was the highest scorer and the best player for a year way ahead of any other batsman. You have purposely chosen a part of his careern wehn Sachin was going through a lean period, carefully avoiding his comeback period Yep, Lara himself did not think he was good enough to keep contributing to his team and retired. Who are you to question his judgement? In the end it boils down to the same thing, Sachin being good enough to play 21 years and Lara not Anyone with an iota of common sense will realise the folly of your logic. Any batsman who retires first then will always win according to Rett's amazing logic. A batsman plays for 5 years and retires with an average of 55. Another batsman plays for 15 years for an average of 55. According to Rett, they are the same level of batsmen and contributed the same of their countries. What else can one expect from the creater of RPT Err since Wisden,. all past and present players, all critics, most neutral people, ALL unanimously put Sachin above Lara, the fact that Sachin trumps Lara in each and every one of All time XI, created from players ranging from Bradman to Warne, etc, etc, its clear who is living in the actual world and who is masturbating to his fantasy of Lara being a better/effective test bat than Sachin

[daryl1985]

Stats :woot: 1. Head to Head stat when both are playing against each other on the same pitch but SRT is up against the likes of Amby , Walsh, Bishop SRT vs WI when Lara is playing ( avg = 53.78 , runs = 1022 ) http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1982;template=results;type=batting BCL vs Ind when SRT is playing (Avg = 37.66 , Runs = 791 ) :hehe: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52337.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1934;template=results;type=batting 2. versus the best team of their times i.e Aus . Winner = SRT. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=2;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting 3. BCL has Zero hundreds against the likes of Saqlain, Waz , Waqar, Donald and never played against Shoaib in a Test match and obviously never had to deal with the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop. Tendulkar has made a hundred against most of those bowlers. Huge plus point to Tendulkar. 4. The ODI comparison with SRT is just :hysterical: so I wont even go there. 5. A whopping 51% (and counting ) more intl career runs than BCL and by the time SRT retires it will be well above 60%. 6. And twice as many intl 100s as BCL by the time SRT retires Repeat after me ... Tendulkar pwns Lara big time.

I'm pretty sure Lara played in more games when McGrath was in the Australia side so this is potentially an unfair comparison.

[zen]

So Lara quit is his personal decision and Sachin not taking retirement should not be considered as personal decision. Lara playing for 700 minutes and denying his team chance to win a test match is not playing for records but Sachin slowing for 5 overs in an ODI against Bangladesh is playing for records. Tum karo to Disco hum karein to mujra. Tumhara khoon khoon humara pani.

No one asked Ten to quit when he was Lara's age. If he had, it would hv been his personal decision too. It is just that Ten is not at his best anymore (unless you think that his reflexes are still that good), which is why many are asking him that question. He is close to 40 and Ind also needs to build. But yeah, when to retire should be his personal decision and to have him in the squad, selector's. Now mixing tests with ODIs, underdog's situ vs fans, .... You guys hv lost it. Take a break!

[CSK Fan]

So Lara quit is his personal decision and Sachin not taking retirement should not be considered as personal decision. Lara playing for 700 minutes and denying his team chance to win a test match is not playing for records but Sachin slowing for 5 overs in an ODI against Bangladesh is playing for records. Tum karo to Disco hum karein to mujra. Tumhara khoon khoon humara pani.

Perfect example of the kind of duplicity and double standards used by so called Sachin's critics. and of course they are never fans of Lara or Dravid or Ponting anyone else. They are just using it to further their agenda.

[Tendulkar_Bhai]

Lara on SRT: Sachin is a genius, i am a mere mortal Enough said! Tendulkar has more talent, longevity (which in itself is unique) and more runs.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachinism]

No one asked Ten to quit when he was Lara's age. If he had, it would hv been his personal decision too. It is just that Ten is not at his best anymore (unless you think that his reflexes are still that good), which is why many are asking him that question. He is close to 40 and Ind also needs to build. But yeah, when to retire should be his personal decision and to have him in the squad, selector's. Now mixing tests with ODIs, underdog's situ vs fans, .... You guys hv lost it. Take a break!

LOL just coz he showed you an occasion of 'seflishness' you dismiss it as mixing Test and ODI cricket Tendulkar isn't at his best anymore? - That's another debate

[Tendulkar_Bhai]

Err, no, I was wondering why you removed Zim and did not remove New Zealand, guess Lara needs New Zealnd's support. Yes factors being same of course when you can pick and chose factors And again taking a part of someone's career proves what exactly? Once Moyo got his mojo back he was the highest scorer and the best player for a year way ahead of any other batsman. You have purposely chosen a part of his careern wehn Sachin was going through a lean period, carefully avoiding his comeback period Yep, Lara himself did not think he was good enough to keep contributing to his team and retired. Who are you to question his judgement? In the end it boils down to the same thing, Sachin being good enough to play 21 years and Lara not Anyone with an iota of common sense will realise the folly of your logic. Any batsman who retires first then will always win according to Rett's amazing logic. A batsman plays for 5 years and retires with an average of 55. Another batsman plays for 15 years for an average of 55. According to Rett, they are the same level of batsmen and contributed the same of their countries. What else can one expect from the creater of RPT Err since Wisden,. all past and present players, all critics, most neutral people, ALL unanimously put Sachin above Lara, the fact that Sachin trumps Lara in each and every one of All time XI, created from players ranging from Bradman to Warne, etc, etc, its clear who is living in the actual world and who is masturbating to his fantasy of Lara being a better/effective test bat than Sachin

Exactly! Remember this OP is the one who believes the total flop SreeSanth is India's best all time bowler, when in fact he isnt even county standard!

[zen]

Err, no, I was wondering why you removed Zim and did not remove New Zealand, guess Lara needs New Zealnd's support. Yes factors being same of course when you can pick and chose factors And again taking a part of someone's career proves what exactly? Once Moyo got his mojo back he was the highest scorer and the best player for a year way ahead of any other batsman. You have purposely chosen a part of his careern wehn Sachin was going through a lean period, carefully avoiding his comeback period Yep, Lara himself did not think he was good enough to keep contributing to his team and retired. Who are you to question his judgement? In the end it boils down to the same thing, Sachin being good enough to play 21 years and Lara not Anyone with an iota of common sense will realise the folly of your logic. Any batsman who retires first then will always win according to Rett's amazing logic. A batsman plays for 5 years and retires with an average of 55. Another batsman plays for 15 years for an average of 55. According to Rett, they are the same level of batsmen and contributed the same of their countries. What else can one expect from the creater of RPT Err since Wisden,. all past and present players, all critics, most neutral people, ALL unanimously put Sachin above Lara, the fact that Sachin trumps Lara in each and every one of All time XI, created from players ranging from Bradman to Warne, etc, etc, its clear who is living in the actual world and who is masturbating to his fantasy of Lara being a better/effective test bat than Sachin

^ :hysterical: Again meaningless arguments and weird implications drawn without understanding the essence If you realize it's Lara vs SRT being discussed and take some time to reflect on their careers, you might get the essence of what's being said Just in case, you did not know, Pollock is considered as one of the ATGs even though he has played some 20 odd tests. And even if sammervera retires, he probably wouldn't be considered as one. As I said, before trying to expose someone's logic, learn to get the perspective, what's been said and see the context wrt the players being compared

[zen]

LOL just coz he showed you an occasion of 'seflishness' you dismiss it as mixing Test and ODI cricket Tendulkar isn't at his best anymore? - That's another debate

See what's being said ....

[zen]

Perfect example of the kind of duplicity and double standards used by so called Sachin's critics. and of course they are never fans of Lara or Dravid or Ponting anyone else. They are just using it to further their agenda.

Yes, It's all conspiracy that Lara is shown to be a more effe test player .... This is PP

[CSK Fan]

For anyone who is not able to see whats worng with Rett's selective stats and why it is dishonest, I will try to make it simple 1- Its comparing the entrie career of one player, with a part of another player's career. Different players peak at different periods of time. If Dravid had decided to call it a day before the last 2 year, he would retire with an average of 57+. He continued to play for few more years and his average decreased. Rett's method penalises players for continuing to play for their country 2- The period of 2006 does not hold any significance for Sachin. It is the end of Lara's career, but nothing of significance for Sachin's career. Why should this period of time be taken as a cut off point for Sachin when his career spans 21 years? Plus Sachin has just began a very lean period here. Rett's stats cleverly includes the lean period but disculdes the resurgance period when he comeback so strongly that the world was taken aback. According to Rett, since the comeback period happened after the magic date of 2006, it should not be counted in Sachin's career This is why stats broken down are always dishonest. Either you compare the entire career of someone or dont compare them. Test cricket is not a 100 meter race, its a marathon. A person scoring at an average of 55 for 5 years is 1/3rd as effectove as that who did the same for 15 years Rett's amazing logic - So Sachin with Lara - sachin's career till 2006 Sachin with Hayden - carrer till 2008 Sachin with Mike Waugh - take Sachin's career till 2000 Sachin vs Arvinda Desilva - take sachins carreer till 1998 sachin vs bradman-take sachin's careeer before he was born remember to compare the effectiveness of both person's career it is necessary to compare the period they have played together only

[zen]

For anyone who is not able to see whats worng with Rett's selective stats and why it is dishonest, I will try to make it simple 1- Its comparing the entrie career of one player, with a part of another player's career. Different players peak at different periods of time. If Dravid had decided to call it a day before the last 2 year, he would retire with an average of 57+. He continued to play for few more years and his average decreased. Rett's method penalises players for continuing to play for their country 2- The period of 2006 does not hold any significance for Sachin. It is the end of Lara's career, but nothing of significance for Sachin's career. Why should this period of time be taken as a cut off point for Sachin when his career spans 21 years? Plus Sachin has just began a very lean period here. Rett's stats cleverly includes the lean period but disculdes the resurgance period when he comeback so strongly that the world was taken aback. According to Rett, since the comeback period happened after the magic date of 2006, it should be counted in Sachin's career This is why stats broken down are always dishonest. Either you compare the entire career of someone or dont compare them. Test cricket is not a 100 meter race, its a marathon. A person scoring at an average of 55 for 5 years is 1/3rd as effectove as that who did the same for 15 years

:facepalm:

[daryl1985]

Its not SRT's fault that McGra wasn't upto it to play in 98 and 03 test series.

True but that does not take away from the fact that Lara came up against a more formidable Australian bowling line-up more often than Sachin.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

From the period of 1989 to 2012 Sachin - average 55 Bradman 0 Sachin is much more effective agressive and better than Bradman

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

For anyone who is not able to see whats worng with Rett's selective stats and why it is dishonest, I will try to make it simple 1- Its comparing the entrie career of one player, with a part of another player's career. Different players peak at different periods of time. If Dravid had decided to call it a day before the last 2 year, he would retire with an average of 57+. He continued to play for few more years and his average decreased. Rett's method penalises players for continuing to play for their country 2- The period of 2006 does not hold any significance for Sachin. It is the end of Lara's career, but nothing of significance for Sachin's career. Why should this period of time be taken as a cut off point for Sachin when his career spans 21 years? Plus Sachin has just began a very lean period here. Rett's stats cleverly includes the lean period but disculdes the resurgance period when he comeback so strongly that the world was taken aback. According to Rett, since the comeback period happened after the magic date of 2006, it should be counted in Sachin's career This is why stats broken down are always dishonest. Either you compare the entire career of someone or dont compare them. Test cricket is not a 100 meter race, its a marathon. A person scoring at an average of 55 for 5 years is 1/3rd as effectove as that who did the same for 15 years

^ I know you wrote this seriously Nov 1989 to Nov 2006 is just a part of someone's career (17 yrs) A player needs more than 226 innings to be compared with another one with similar innings. Sachin's 226th inng happened in 2008