Lara V Tendulkar

[zen]

Also because critics taught Dravid his cricket, he couldn't survive

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Zero_Unit]

How can our team prepare for WC 2015 if Tendu is saying he will play till 2015 WC. "MY WORD" its time that LARA has a talk with Tendu

[Old guy]

honestly over all tendulkar is better that 2006 comparison is strange cos clearly tendulkar wasnt at his best cos of injuries what really makes tendulkar gr8 imo is he cam back form that slumpo in form and became best batsman in world again at his age! and having such consistent record against all team home and away is imo bigger record then that 100th 100 but lara is alaos has a gr8 record.. his ability to play those long innings so consistently was his specialty ... thing with lara was.. he will play just 1-2 gr8 innings in a series but that innings used to be a big one and gr8 one he just looked atleast to me more dominating when in full flow..and most people remember these innings.. thats where his gr8ness lies.. anyway according to lara tendulkar was better so thread/ but i liked watching lara more >

[zen]

No professional cricketer thinks about who he is keeping out while he is playing ... its not a charity .. they play if they can ...so had he been playing like he was in Eng he would have continued. Go check his record he avgs just above 50 at home ... plus there is no guarantee which series BCCI will signup for at the last moment.

:boring:

[Crookbond]

So this is the scientific way to prove that a person doesn't worship any cricketer? And then you wonder why you get ridiculed.

First, you should be the last person to talk about science ... at least to me. Second, who am I to prove? You said I worship "any other cricketer but Tendulkar". I shouldn't have as I don't need to prove anyone, but still "in a bland manner" stated the fact.

You are pretty new here and don't know anything about the history of this nonsense.

I don't want to know the history of ICF. I don't care. I'm here to discuss on cricket ( and sometimes its history) not history between the ICF posters. I don't bring in legacy into my discussions. It's based on the post not the poster. I've explained this myriad times. There are posts I have "agreed" with you and you know it. So, please don't bunch me into some category of posters.

None of the Tendulkar fans went and claimed that he was better than Bradman. It was started by none other than Bradman himself and then taken up by the media with vengence. Going by your definition Bradman is one of the very first SRT worshippers. As far as Iam concerned I know how to conduct a debate in a bland manner. I also know how to give it back in a more stinging manner when the situation calls for it. Stating well known facts about Bradmans era does not amount to dissing him. Or do you really expect me to pretend that bowlers like Bill Bowes were extraordinary bowlers as his avg suggests ? So the only response the Bradman fans can come up when faced with that bit of really cold fact is to gather a mob and start hurling abuses. Because you are well aware that your situation is pretty hopeless for you to wiggle out using proper cricketing logic and sense.

Back up there spikey. Probably I haven't made myself clear. IMHO (and according to many posters) comparing eras doesn't make sense. If you still want to make it, go ahead and take it up with the ones who do. But while you do so please remember - it's your opinion about those bowlers, mine differ. You have a problem with it? Even if you do, you need to learn to live with it.

This is what you did in that debate on Jack Hobbs. Its an old broken record. Nothing new and is borne out of the need to save your face even on a friggin anonymous internet forum.

FFS, It was a Victor Trumper tribute thread. Some posters derailed it by posting arbitrary videos. Sorry but it was to discuss Victor Trumper not the bowling at his time and then we talk about respect?

As far as my take on Bradman is concerned ... I have the utmost respect for the man as he was good man and served cricket very well and did his part to bring cricket to where it is today.

Good to know you can post some kind words.

This doesn't mean that we simply bend down and pretend that he was the best batsman for all times to come. Sorry that ain't happening. Certainly not based on propaganda. Bring up facts and argue like a grown up I will give you a good debate. Don't just simply expect me to accept your word because there are a million experts who feel Bradman is the greatest. Fair ?

I don't speak for others but can you tell me one post from me which says Bradman is "objectively" better than Sachin as a claim from my side. If not, please take this up with the people who are using that as a 'propaganda', not me.

ehhh ? What names did I call you that were un-parliamentary in that post ? You made a churlish post I responded likewise.

Did you read that "churlish" post I made? If yes, please let me know your inference. I would want to know how that amounts to "churlishness".

But shall I show you your old posts in the other threads were you were telling me that I have chemical locha that Iam petulant and what not. ?

Boss, I know what I write and when I write. You didn't stop calling me on names either. So as I've said earlier, lets not teach moral science lessons to each other.

[Old guy]

First, you should be the last person to talk about science ... at least to me. Second, who am I to prove? You said I worship "any other cricketer but Tendulkar". I shouldn't have as I don't need to prove anyone, but still "in a bland manner" stated the fact. I don't want to know the history of ICF. I don't care. I'm here to discuss on cricket ( and sometimes its history) not history between the ICF posters. I don't bring in legacy into my discussions. It's based on the post not the poster. I've explained this myriad times. There are posts I have "agreed" with you and you know it. So, please don't bunch me into some category of posters. Back up there spikey. Probably I haven't made myself clear. IMHO (and according to many posters) comparing eras doesn't make sense. If you still want to make it, go ahead and take it up with the ones who do. But while you do so please remember - it's your opinion about those bowlers, mine differ. You have a problem with it? Even if you do, you need to learn to live with it. FFS, It was a Victor Trumper tribute thread. Some posters derailed it by posting arbitrary videos. Sorry but it was to discuss Victor Trumper not the bowling at his time and then we talk about respect? Good to know you can post some kind words. I don't speak for others but can you tell me one post from me which says Bradman is "objectively" better than Sachin as a claim from my side. If not, please take this up with the people who are using that as a 'propaganda', not me. Did you read that "churlish" post I made? If yes, please let me know your inference. I would want to know how that amounts to "churlishness". Boss, I know what I write and when I write. You didn't stop calling me on names either. So as I've said earlier, lets not teach moral science lessons to each other.

:hatsoff:

[Number]

How come Lara is a bigger match winner when only 5 of his 34 centuries were in a winning cause(IIRC) ?

[Old guy]

How come Lara is a bigger match winner when only 5 of his 34 centuries were in a winning cause(IIRC) ?

ponting is :D

[Number]

ponting is :D

:--D

[Crookbond]

How come Lara is a bigger match winner when only 5 of his 34 centuries were in a winning cause(IIRC) ?

I am not on either 'Lara' or 'Tendulkar' side but an immediate argument Lara fans may bring is that - WI was a team in rut during his glory days. In fact I would believe WI hardly would've one much in Lara-time.

[zen]

TBH, I don't agree with you that Lara > SRT but since you feel he's to be more effective in Tests so be it. A lot of cricketers feel Lara was a better Test match player. So? Big deal.

To clarify, so far my line is Lara is more effective in tests and Sachin in ODIs. Lara > Sachin is from tests perspective and I give more weight age to test. But haven't made up my mind on whose is better overall (tests+odi) as i m more in to tests and less overall but would imagine Sachin would hv a slight edge.

[Crookbond]

To clarify' date=' so far my line is Lara is more effective in tests and Sachin in ODIs. Lara > Sachin is from tests perspective and I give more weight age to test. But haven't made up my mind on whose is better overall (tests+odi) [b']but would imagine Sachin would hv a slight edge.

I wouldn't like to be in a position to choose among the two. I would like to both of them have in my side. Said that, if I were pushed in a corner and asked to pick a team in two conditions -- [1] Test Match WC Final (if something like this existed) - I would go for Lara [2] 3 or 5 Test Match series - I would go for Tendulkar. Again, I am clarifying this to the whole world by swearing on the 'Bhagwad Gita' - it's my personal opinion. Rett, Is this scientific?

[riya]

Durability is a great attiribute in any field and it that case Sachin > Lara in tests and no contest in ODIs too.But sometimes u will look for bigger impact in tests than strictly going by longevity.See for eg..Courtney walsh played more and lasted more than Ambrose.But for me Amby was always leathal and made more impact.Not exactly similar to Lara,Sachin.But i believe Lara had more impact innings in his prime in tests.

[Old guy]

u need both playersl ike lara and tendulkar tendlkar and lara have similar averages but diff ways of getting that average tendulkar is much more consistent in scoring 100's 50's lara scores one very big score..but not so consistent in my atg side i would include them both :agree: i would pick tendulkar most of time ahead of lara.. but like many commentators said (ya ya) i would pay to watch lara and would pick sachin when i have to save or win a test :P

[Trichromatic]

How come Lara is a bigger match winner when only 5 of his 34 centuries were in a winning cause(IIRC) ?

Because Sachin isn't a match winner. :winky:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

I wouldn't like to be in a position to choose among the two. I would like to both of them have in my side. Said that, if I were pushed in a corner and asked to pick a team in two conditions -- [1] Test Match WC Final (if something like this existed) - I would go for Lara [2] 3 or 5 Test Match series - I would go for Tendulkar. Again, I am clarifying this to the whole world by swearing on the 'Bhagwad Gita' - it's my personal opinion. Rett, Is this scientific?

I am sure, you must hv a reason to go for that and that's what counts .... But surprised that you would pick SRT over Lara in a 5 match series as Lara tends to warm up well to deliver big 100s in 4 to 5 test series I would pick Lara in tests and Ten in Odis. Overall (tests+odis) Ten probably has an edge but since I give more weight-age to tests, I would pick Lara if forced to pick b/w the two