Lara V Tendulkar

[zen]

That's amazing! Try excluding minnows from other so called "ATG's". I don't consider any other to be an ATG after the 100th 100. Sachin set the mark too high for others to be taken into consideration now.

Lara only played 4 tests against minnows .... 100th 100 is not a separate measure though. Those runs are included in his avg but as I said you are free to think SRT is the greatest :P

[zen]

Yes because not out in ODIs where an innings ends after 50 overs and one can stay not out after facing 2 balls is the same as not outs in tests where there is no over limit and the inning only gets over when you are out or declare. Rett' date=' you do come up with amazing gems[/quote'] And thus I guess per you not outs don't affect avgs in tests :cantstop: If your side declares with you remaining not out batting at #4, you would speculate usually how difficult the pitch was I remember in the 2004 -6/7 period, how hard he tried to remain not out against BD to up his avg. and I remember you had posted a link somewhere saying since his avg was good/decent, he is never out of form during that period (something to that order) .... Yeah, SRT was never out of form too :hysterical:

[zen]

MTC's honest proof that SRT was never out of form: Link And Ofc not outs don't affect avgs in tests as seen in the above link :icflove: PS link shhhhh

[zen]

Lara is indeed that big occasion, big match player who may well likely individually win games for you. Hence, the pick for the 1 game scenario. Coming to the 3-5 series, well it's difficult but I want to be cautious in my approach. I can bank on Tendulkar putting in a 100 or so in any 3-5 match Test series. But, here's the catch - what if the series reaches a nail biting decider? I will have Lara back again. So probably, I will start with Tendulkar over Lara in a 2-5 Test match series and if need be will play Lara. As far as ODIs, none better than Tendulkar. :agree:

Appears as if you want to go with SRT but can't get Lara out of your mind. Both are great players so you can't go wrong by picking one over the other FYI, excluding BD and Zim both of them score a 100 approx. every 7th inng .... From tests 3 to 5, Lara is likely to be more warmed up to score a big one

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[India-KXIP fan]

Lara is a great batsman everyone. He performs his best when playing the best unlike SRT who bullies minnows... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op2r1cIEx4o]Brian Lara vs Glenn McGrath - BUNNY ALERT! Every international dismissal- 18 of them! - YouTube[/ame] :giggle:

[India-KXIP fan]

Lara played much fewer games than SRT and still maintained a lower average. SRT played many more games but wasn't dismissed by anyone as many times as Lara was by McGrath. The great Lara performs against the best, when their key players are injured :giggle:

[akshayxyz]

Basically XYZ vs Tendulkar , Apply filter where SRT < XYZ and hence proved XYZ > SRT. It's like shoot first and then draw a circle around it and say that's exactly where I wanted to hit.

this.

[akshayxyz]

Lara is a great batsman everyone. He performs his best when playing the best unlike SRT who bullies minnows... [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op2r1cIEx4o]Brian Lara vs Glenn McGrath - BUNNY ALERT! Every international dismissal- 18 of them! - YouTube[/] :giggle:

:hysterical::hysterical: WTF that bold part is supposed to mean? Aur Lara ko kisne roka hai minnows ke against run bananey ko?

[akshayxyz]

Bolti band sabki ? You can slice and dice it anyway and also pretend that SRT's career ended in 2007 with Lara but the fact remains that he owns Lara :nice:

:two_thumbs_up:

[zen]

More interesting stats .... Lara Ten Batting at 1 to 3 in tests SRT has just 1 inning (avg 15), while Lara has 68 (avg 60)

[someone]

When its Lara vs Tendulkar - Do not talk of 100s scored in lost causes - Ignore 4th innings record - Ignore the record in the 90s and focus only on the 2000s when Lara was at his peak - Talk of 375 and 400* as innings played for the team cause - Never talk of home vs away record - Ignore the ODIs completely - Ignore the bad record in a country as totally irrelevant When its Ponting vs Sachin - Talk of 100s in match winning causes - Talk of how the team did with both of them in the side - Highlight the 4th innings record - Ignore the record in India - Highlight the 2003 WC final knock/other ODI knocks - Show Ponting as a better cricketer by talking of his prowess as a fielder/Captain And at the end, never ever compare Lara vs Ponting vs Kallis vs Viv vs XYZ. Always use Sachin as the benchmark and then justify it saying its being done to rile up the Sachin Bhakts.

This

[India-KXIP fan]

More interesting stats .... Lara Ten Batting at 1 to 3 in tests SRT has just 1 inning (avg 15), while Lara has 68 (avg 60)

Stopped reading when I saw your pic. Lold at a child having an opinion and posting it on an Adult site :giggle:

[vvvslaxman]

Dravid vs Tendulkar You fell for it.. didn't you.. :cantstop: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2117213/Why-Sachin-Tendulkar-outshines-Rahul-Dravid--Top-Spin.html Two Indian greats... but only one Little Master: Why Tendulkar outshines Dravid By LAWRENCE BOOTH PUBLISHED: 08:45 EST, 20 March 2012 | UPDATED: 08:47 EST, 20 March 2012 It took only eight days. One of the oft-made points following Rahul Dravid's retirement on March 8 was that he spent his career playing second fiddle to Sachin Tendulkar. Then, on March 16, with the violin still being packed away in the loft, Tendulkar scored his 100th hundred to the ear-splitting sound of an entire orchestra. The proximity of two such emotional moments for Indian cricket and, by extension, for the world game was almost too neat to be true: Dravid as dignified gent, going quietly into the night, an apparently selfless catalyst for the beginning of the end of an era; Tendulkar as tireless crowd-pleaser, a statistical glutton hell-bent on finding room for one more wafer-thin mint, almost an era in himself. ^ Sachin's reaction :cantstop: Yet while the reactions to Dravid's decision have been as sober as the man himself (even after stepping down, the man can't help lull us into warm nostalgia), the responses to Tendulkar's landmark have taken in all the colours of the rainbow. In the red corner are those who rightly proclaim Tendulkar's longevity and appetite, never neglecting the sheer talent which when he works the ball from outside off stump through midwicket seems to rubbish Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-hours rule. Such gifts, it seems, cannot stem from practice alone. And in the violet corner are the naysayers who argue that the inherent selfishness of Tendulkar's quest for his 100th hundred was epitomised by that very innings against Bangladesh: it took him 36 balls to move from 80 to 100, at which point he hit two of his next three deliveries for four a man playing the scoreboard, if ever there was one. Of course, India lost. Yet wouldn't it be more of a surprise if a player who is now into his fourth decade as an international cricketer (just think about that for a moment) had not polarised opinion every now and then? If the hero-worship that attends his every utterance (fewer and further between these days) says more about the worshippers than the hero, then the impulse to bring a quite astonishing career down a peg or two may sum up Tendulkar's life: quite simply, he is judged by different criteria. So let's judge him by the same criteria the criteria, after all, by which he had been judged ever since ticking off his 99th hundred during the World Cup on March 12, 2011. We are talking, alas, about the sheer weight of numbers. Perhaps the fairest way to compare Dravid and Tendulkar is to limit Tendulkars numbers to the period of Dravid's career, which in Tests runs from June 20, 1996 to January 28, 2012. People's hero: Sachin's milestone has been lauded by India cricket fans all over the world In that period, Dravid scored 13,288 runs in 286 innings at an average of 52, with 36 hundreds and 63 fifties; Tendulkar scored 12,841 in 254 at 56, with 42 hundreds and 52 fifties. It's the stuff of cigarette papers, with Dravid at least able to claim some moral high ground because he spent most of his career breathing in the rarefied air of the No 3 (Tendulkar never once batted higher than No 4). But what of the familiar claim that Dravid scored runs which mattered more, runs which are unmeasurable by cricket's all-too-basic statistical configuration? Well, 14 of Dravid's 36 Test hundreds (38 per cent) came in Indian wins, compared in the same period with 17 of Tendulkar's 42 (40 per cent). But Dravid made centuries in only four defeats, three of them last summer; Tendulkar did so in nine. Between October 1998, when Dravid hit 118 in the loss to Zimbabwe at Harare, and last summer, when he embodied heroic futility against England, India never lost when Dravid scored a hundred. It's fair to argue, in other words, that for 13 years India's Test wellbeing was more accurately associated with Dravid than it was with Tendulkar at least in statistical terms. So why the evident bias towards Tendulkar among the critical mass of Indian supporters? His longevity, already touched upon, is one factor. The nature of his strokeplay more breathtaking than Dravid's, if not quite as stylish is another. Sombre: Dravid's exit was cool and composed - unlike the drama which surrounds Tendulkar But it may be one-day cricket that has sealed the deal the emotional bond which all others have been helpless to break. For there, the comparison leaves no doubt. Again using Dravid's career span as the yardstick (in ODIs, this means April 3, 1996 to September 16, 2011), Dravid made 10,889 runs at an average of 39, with a strike-rate of 71, including 12 hundreds; Tendulkar made 14,016 runs at 47 and 87, with 40 hundreds. Throw in the runs Tendulkar made in the years before Dravid first played for his country, and itÃÔ quite possible not even an Indian Don Bradman would have replaced him in the affections of the average acolyte. My gut feeling has always been that it was Dravid who was more likely to thrive in a crisis. But, where Tendulkar is concerned, an English gut feeling is kind of irrelevant. Yes, Tendulkar may have hung on a fraction too long. But try telling that to the millions who, since the late 1980s, have had eyes for no other. Sometimes, reason just doesnÃÕ come into it. Ever-ready: Sachin has been at the top of the game since the late 1980s ^ :cantstop: some nice reactions of sachin.

[someone]

More interesting stats .... Lara Ten Batting at 1 to 3 in tests SRT has just 1 inning (avg 15), while Lara has 68 (avg 60)

More interesting stats Batting at 5: SRT >Lara Batting at 6: SRT>Lara Batting at 4:SRT>Lara Batting from 3: SRT>Lara Batting at 4-7:SRT>Lara Batting at 1-11:SRT>Lara

[CSK Fan]

If Lara was better than Sachin it would have been Lara vs Bradman, Lara vs Dravid, Lara vs Ponting, Lara vs Kallis. Since thats not the case, case close

[zen]

More interesting stats Batting at 5: SRT >Lara Batting at 6: SRT>Lara Batting at 4:SRT>Lara Batting from 3: SRT>Lara Batting at 4-7:SRT>Lara Batting at 1-11:SRT>Lara

Obviously you don't see what batting at 1 to 3 implies and the reason why SRT has avoided batting there in tests :P But anyways .....

[ravishingravi]

If Lara was better than Sachin it would have been Lara vs Bradman' date=' Lara vs Dravid, Lara vs Ponting, Lara vs Kallis. Since thats not the case, case close[/quote'] Or maybe there is no contest . I mean if we are taking it to logical extreme. Case closed.

[Raghav_12]

If Lara was better than Sachin it would have been Lara vs Bradman' date=' Lara vs Dravid, Lara vs Ponting, Lara vs Kallis. Since thats not the case, case close[/quote'] This. I mentioned the same thing in my earlier post. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1884174&postcount=401 For good part of 2000's people had stopped talking about Lara vs Sachin and started comparing Sachin with everybody else, whenever they played few good innings :winky:, including Mark and Steve Waugh, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis etc. Some good innings towards later part of career revived these comparisons a bit. Lara too have some holes in his CV. You take out his two useless innings of 375 and 400, his average would not even reach 50, a most acceptable qualification mark for being an ATG batsman. Lara's away batting average is 20% less than his home batting average. You can find many more if you are good in quant/math.

[vvvslaxman]

Lara has done two things that Tendulkar has never done :) 1) dismissed by Tendulkar thrice lol 2) dismissed by a woman [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQS8BwNxz0]Brian Lara dismissed by a Woman - YouTube[/ame]