Lara V Tendulkar

[Precambrian]

Link Not to make this a comparision thread .... Read some comments like "only if he had this or that compared to x" but, excluding Zim and BD, comparing with other batsmen in his group like Sachin after 226 inngs (the number played by Lara), he is comfortably ahead! Also look at the "not out" column and the relative strength of bowlers/teams faced by this group to get a perspective on average Lara's 226 innings were played over 17 years, while Sachin's were played over 19 years (a huge huge sample size) The above is to illustrate that despite lacking "whatever" or "only" known because he played a few memorable knocks, Lara managed to get more runs, avg higher with fewer not outs and playing relatively stronger teams, and score similar # of 100s and 50s. If he had something more, then .... Lara is a perfect example of the WI school of batting that has given us greats like Sobers (said to have finished a game early as he had to go to the races) and Viv. While the Indian school has given us greats like Gavaskar, Sachin and Dravid. Both schools have their pros and cons so what may appear to be lacking may be a characteristic of that particular school (and its thoughts)

Totally dishonest comparison.... You are stretching tendulkar's career beyond that of Lara with an arbitrary factor, ie. the no. of innings Lara played... If we consider with your parameters, but limit it to the period when Lara retired, the figures are: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmax3=1+dec+2006;spanmin1=1+jan+1989;spanval1=span;spanval3=span;template=results;type=batting Tendulkar has 32 100s vs Lara's 33, but has played 30 innings fewer. Has a better avg as well. BTW your analysis means zilch because you're comparing a full career of Lara against 2/3rds of tendulkar which is totally absurd... fact of the matter is, had Tendulkar retired at exactly at the same point as Lara, then there'd be genuine merit in an argument where one could say Lara was equal to Tendulkar, but now, having played on for 6 more years after that, despite having debuted earlier than lara, tendulkar has played more tests than Lara, than Don Bradman has played more than Andy Gantaneume... 57 test matches seperate them. for most that's a successful test career. And that Tendulkar has maintained the consistency across that, and having an average of about 3-4 points more than lara, virtually shuts it.

[zen]

You can very well keep doing that and keep confirming to the notion that any players should be benchmarked against Sachin to be assessed on greatness. I am not complaining.

As mentioned in my last post: "As people who follow team india, they are bound to draw paralles with Indian players who are seen in the same group to bring a proper perspective"

[Precambrian]

As mentioned in my last post: "As people who follow team india' date= they are bound to draw paralles with Indian players who are seen in the same group to bring a proper perspective"

lara is merely is a subset of Tendulkar era.

[Zelig]

I'll reignite the fire - [ame=

players and Dravid on Lara - 2011 Cowdrey Lecture - YouTube[/ame] :roti:

[Raghav_12]

As mentioned in my last post: "As people who follow team india' date= they are bound to draw paralles with Indian players who are seen in the same group to bring a proper perspective"

Poeple of this forum are knowledgable enough. If you can prove that Lara was 10 times better than Dravid, Ponting or Kallis, they would eqaully appreciative of the fact as they would for you proving him better than Sachin, unless you yourself think Sahcin as benchmark.

[zen]

Totally dishonest comparison.... You are stretching tendulkar's career beyond that of Lara with an arbitrary factor, ie. the no. of innings Lara played... If we consider with your parameters, but limit it to the period when Lara retired, the figures are: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmax3=1+dec+2006;spanmin1=1+jan+1989;spanval1=span;spanval3=span;template=results;type=batting Tendulkar has 32 100s vs Lara's 33, but has played 30 innings fewer. Has a better avg as well. BTW your analysis means zilch because you're comparing a full career of Lara against 2/3rds of tendulkar which is totally absurd... fact of the matter is, had Tendulkar retired at exactly at the same point as Lara, then there'd be genuine merit in an argument where one could say Lara was equal to Tendulkar, but now, having played on for 6 more years after that, despite having debuted earlier than lara, tendulkar has played more tests than Lara, than Don Bradman has played more than Andy Gantaneume... 57 test matches seperate them. for most that's a successful test career. And that Tendulkar has maintained the consistency across that, and having an average of about 3-4 points more than lara, virtually shuts it.

^ what a fresh perspective! Read below, in case, you think ppl don't understand various scenarios

why? It's written in the post itself :winky: .... in his last years, Lara easily over shadawod Tendulkar Also their career till Lara retired are similar (with Lara still having an edge) so not much point in comparing those as you can see from below: Excluding Zim and BD, and taking their career's till the point Lara retired (Nov 2006) Tests: Lara: 127 Ten: 120 Runs: Lara: 11,558 (12k) Ten: 9,249 (9.5k) Adv: Lara (in 32 more innings, Lara has approx. 2.3 k more runs, which is at an avg of 72 w/0 considering not outs ) Avg: Lara: 52.53 (53) with only 6 not outs Ten: 52.85 (53) with a staggering 19 not outs Adv: Lara (6 not outs vs 19 not outs) 100s: Lara: 32 in 226 innings Ten: 31 in 194 innings Adv: Ten If you take their careers till the point Lara retired, Lara has an advantage Lara Ten Test batting after Lara retired: LINK (dec 1, 2006 till today) But you are free to think that SRT is the more effective test batsman :P .... I am just giving my opinion here :icflove:

[Precambrian]

^ what a fresh perspective! Read below' date=' in case, you think ppl don't understand various scenarios[/quote'] Sir you're missing out my point: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;opposition=9;orderby=runs;spanmax3=31+Dec+1999;spanmin3=01+Jan+1990;spanval3=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team that's bowling avgs of various teams during the 90s: But Zimbabwe has a better bowling avg than New Zealand and Sri Lanka and is very much comparable to that of India's nd England's, so why ignore the stats then against Zimbabwe??????? Shock! Horror! Blasphemy!!!

[Precambrian]

including the stats vs Zimbabwe, till the time Lara departed, http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;opposition=9;orderby=runs;spanmax2=1+dec+2006;spanmin1=1+jan+1989;spanval1=span;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting tendulkar has 1 more 100 than Lara, despite having played 22 less innings, and a much better avg as well

[zen]

Poeple of this forum are knowledgable enough. If you can prove that Lara was 10 times better than Dravid' date=' Ponting or Kallis, they would eqaully appreciative of the fact as they would for you proving him better than Sachin, unless you yourself think Sahcin as benchmark.[/quote'] Well, since Sachin is wrongly assumed to be a bench mark in tests on Indian forums, which is why he is being used as an example. If you are willing to accept that Dravid, Kallis or Ponting are better than Tendulkar and Lara, then those comparisions could be done :giggle:

[Precambrian]

Well' date=' since Sachin is wrongly assumed to be a bench mark in tests on Indian forums, which is why he is being used as an example. If you are willing to accept that Dravid, Kallis or Ponting are better than Tendulkar and Lara, then those comparisions could be done :giggle:[/quote'] Are you crazy? What's wrong in using Sachin as a benchmark? Having played 188 bloody test matches and close to 500 ODIs, if he's not a benchmark, then who is?

[Precambrian]

So' date=' you were quoting my post to talk to someone else?[/quote'] I thought you quoted me first...:((

[Raghav_12]

Well' date=' since Sachin is wrongly assumed to be a bench mark in tests on Indian forums, which is why he is being used as an example. If you are willing to accept that Dravid, Kallis or Ponting are better than Tendulkar and Lara, then those comparisions could be done :giggle:[/quote'] I am not willing to accept that Lara is better than Sachin, still you went ahead with comparison. So could have done same with others. - Last time you put smily with a giggle, this time put ROFL one. This strengthens your argument so much.

[zen]

Sir you're missing out my point: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;opposition=9;orderby=runs;spanmax3=31+Dec+1999;spanmin3=01+Jan+1990;spanval3=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=team that's bowling avgs of various teams during the 90s: But Zimbabwe has a better bowling avg than New Zealand and Sri Lanka and is very much comparable to that of India's nd England's, so why ignore the stats then against Zimbabwe??????? Shock! Horror! Blasphemy!!!

:wall: first, Lara has just 4 tests against BD and Zim in a career spanning 17 years. so if Lara also had played as many tests against Zim then i could see your point 2nd, ZIm was a minnow. It's avg (I haven't looked at your link but taking your word) could be good but I don't think it played against stronger teams of its time much 3rd if you feel the need to take help of the great Zim to feel that Ten is competitive, it closes the doors on him. I would have liked if you had objected to me not including a stronger team. But this is just a pathetic attempt 4th dont waste too much time on my posts, as like on other forums, you could get banned here soon. i am not really interested in even reading your posts :winky: :icflove:

[zen]

I am not willing to accept that Lara is better than Sachin, still you went ahead with comparison. So could have done same with others. - Last time you put smily with a giggle, this time put ROFL one. This strengthens your argument so much.

great logic on display .... obviously, you also are ignoring the lara vs Ten history and yes, I can see how smileys can be a problem for you :cantstop:

[The Outsider]

I thought you quoted me first...:((

Yeah, because I was responding to your post. Don't know how you function in life, but I generally address the person I am responding to - maybe you look at the person to your left while attempting a conversation with someone to your right. Different people, different strokes.

[Precambrian]

:wall: first, Lara has just 4 tests against BD and Zim in a career spanning 17 years. so if Lara also had played as many tests against Zim then i could see your point 2nd, ZIm was a minnow. It's avg (I haven't looked at your link but taking your word) could be good but I don't think it played against stronger teams of its time much 3rd if you feel the need to take help of the great Zim to feel that Ten is competitive, it closes the doors on him. I would have liked if you had objected to me not including a stronger team. But this is just a pathetic attempt 4th dont waste too much time on my posts, as like on other forums, you could get banned here soon. i am not really interested in even reading your posts :winky: :icflove:

What rubbish? Is it Tendulkar's fault that Lara got to play only 2-3 tests against Zimbabwe? In any case look at the below bowling averages : (90s only so automatically excludes Bangaldesh) SA - 27 Aus - 28 Pak - 29 WI - 29 Ind - 34 Eng - 35 Zim - 35.4 Sl - 36 NZ - 36 So if you're going to make exclusions for Zim, might as well exclude India, Eng, SL and NZ as well :cantstop: BTW I am at a loss to understand this pearl of wisdom of yours:

2nd, ZIm was a minnow. It's avg (I haven't looked at your link but taking your word) could be good but I don't think it played against stronger teams of its time much

By what standards sir? And what are the weaker teams against it has played in the 90s? There is no Bangaldesh, and if you're saying there were weaker teams than Zim back then, then that defeats your original analysis of excluding just Zim from the group

3rd if you feel the need to take help of the great Zim to feel that Ten is competitive, it closes the doors on him. I would have liked if you had objected to me not including a stronger team. But this is just a pathetic attempt

No dear sir, it is not. It is commonsense to include a team which had a bowling average better than two other test nations of it's time and very much comparable to two another, ie, in a league of 5 with hardly a point or two segregating them. how's that pathetic? Or somehow it put a hole in your theory which you cooked up with such difficulty huh? :hysterical:

4th dont waste too much time on my posts, as like on other forums, you could get banned here soon. i am not really interested in even reading your posts

You don't need to dictate my posting habits mate ;) But now that you've been ultra pwned I can understand your dislike towards mine... Take care. Good nite.

[zen]

What rubbish? Is it Tendulkar's fault that Lara got to play only 2-3 tests against Zimbabwe? In any case look at the below bowling averages : (90s only so automatically excludes Bangaldesh) SA - 27 Aus - 28 Pak - 29 WI - 29 Ind - 34 Eng - 35 Zim - 35.4 Sl - 36 NZ - 36 So if you're going to make exclusions for Zim, might as well exclude India, Eng, SL and NZ as well :cantstop: BTW I am at a loss to understand this pearl of wisdom of yours: By what standards sir? And what are the weaker teams against it has played in the 90s? There is no Bangaldesh, and if you're saying there were weaker teams than Zim back then, then that defeats your original analysis of excluding just Zim from the group No dear sir, it is not. It is commonsense to include a team which had a bowling average better than two other test nations of it's time and very much comparable to two another, ie, in a league of 5 with hardly a point or two segregating them. how's that pathetic? Or somehow it put a hole in your theory which you cooked up with such difficulty huh? :hysterical: You don't need to dictate my posting habits mate ;) But now that you've been ultra pwned I can understand your dislike towards mine... Take care. Good nite.

:wall: another pointless post dislike? has anyone ever liked on forums? :hysterical:

[Precambrian]

Yeah' date=' because I was responding to your post. Don't know how you function in life, but I generally address the person I am responding to - maybe you look at the person to your left while attempting a conversation with someone to your right. Different people, different strokes.[/quote'] later...

[akshayxyz]

including the stats vs Zimbabwe, till the time Lara departed, http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;opposition=9;orderby=runs;spanmax2=1+dec+2006;spanmin1=1+jan+1989;spanval1=span;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting tendulkar has 1 more 100 than Lara, despite having played 22 less innings, and a much better avg as well

What about head to head? Lara vs India, and Sachin vs WI.. given that WI had better attack most of the times...and vs Aussies - the best common opposition throughout their career.

[Precambrian]

:wall: another pointless post dislike? has anyone ever liked on forums? :hysterical:

Okay.. so I gather that there is no real counterargument from you :haha: