Sachin Tendulkar vs Brian Lara

[Gunner786]

How do people say Tendulkar is better than Lara in test matches?
Maybe ODI's but how on earth in test matches?
just look at their records

Player  	          Span  	Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	100  	50  	0
SR Tendulkar (India) 	1989-2009 	159* 	260 	27 	12764 	248* 	54.78 	42 	53 	14
BC Lara (ICC/WI) 	1990-2006 	131 	232 	6 	11953 	400* 	52.88 	34 	48 	17

Compare their not outs and it seems even more one sided.If lara hadnt retired 2 years ago by now both 100's and runs record would have been out of reach for Tendulkar.

 

[SaiSrini]

How do people say Tendulkar is better than Lara in test matches?
Maybe ODI's but how on earth in test matches?
just look at their records

Player  	          Span  	Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	100  	50  	0
SR Tendulkar (India) 	1989-2009 	159* 	260 	27 	12764 	248* 	54.78 	42 	53 	14
BC Lara (ICC/WI) 	1990-2006 	131 	232 	6 	11953 	400* 	52.88 	34 	48 	17

Compare their not outs and it seems even more one sided.If lara hadnt retired 2 years ago by now both 100's and runs record would have been out of reach for Tendulkar.

How are you so sure that if Lara continued till now, he would be out of reach? He was quite old when he retired and there is no evidence to prove that he would be tough to beat for Tendulkar had he continued.

Tendulkar has been more consistent yet has displayed the flashes of brilliance quite often. Lara gave more chances to the bowlers than Tendulkar. Bowlers feared Tendulkar more than Lara (Sachin got more respect and was a prized wicket for long).

The thread title doesnt mention about "batsmen", so let me say that Tendulkar was more respected as a person than Lara (Lara comes very close but Sachin since he started in 89 has been considered close to perfect by opposition and other players in his own team, and also by the cricket watching public)

SACHIN TENDULKAR wins!

 

[aussie_ben91]

Lara made too many low scores, too often to be called the best. For example, he averaged 40 in Australia but made 2 double-hundreds and he scored two 350+ scores against England but only averaged 60.

Lara had some serious flaws in his technique and allot of bowlers had the wood over him throughout his career. It was only when he was well established at the crease that he was any good. Hence why Muralitharan & Warne struggled against him.

Tendulkar was the perfect batsman. Lara doesn't even get close, TBH.

 

[aditya123]

Lara has been my personal favorite,mainly because to his flair. Tendulkar has been more successful but Lara always played with flair and never compromised on his attacking style.
Maybe that is why he was`nt as consistent.

Lara still remains my favorite batsman of alltime closely followed by Sachin.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Flair? I'd rather watch Tendulkar and Ponting bat. Both hit the ball like no other batsman I've seen and you can tell that they are both a class above everyone else. Lara doesn't have that same touch about him.

 

[Sman-21]

Lara Easily

Once lara got past 30 there was nothing more scarier than him.
Attacking batsmen and once set had the ability to go on an make HUGE scores

Ponting next
then Tendulkar

1 thing i would like changed in cricket stats is they should have double century stats in there etc.
Or if u get out for say 223 it should be added as 2 centuries into your stats if u get out for say 165 it should be added as a century and another 50

If we added stuff like that you would see how much further Lara is ahead of Ponting and Tendulkar

 

[King Cricket]

Tendulkar. But Lara is awesomely close. And Sman-21, really funny logic mate.

Once lara got past 30 there was nothing more scarier than him.

Tendulkar is 36, mate. Still he's scoring 1000+ runs in one calendar year, 160's, 50's and 100's. You cannot deny that Lara's form experienced a sharp drop as he neared the end of his career. His form in 2006 and 2007 was quite horrible. And I don't know how you rate Ricky Ponting above Tendulkar. He is no-where close. If we look at centuries, fifties, - Tendulkar is ahead of Lara and Ponting in all these things. But still I think Lara was awesomely close. And had his form in his last few years been what it was when he started his career, he had a good chance of overtaking Tendulkar. But sadly, that wasn't the case. And anyway, taking double centuries as two hundreds or 150's as a hundred and a fifty is quite funny.

 

[naresh091]

I guess hes saying scoring 30 runs.Not 30 years of age.

 

[King Cricket]

^Oh, sorry. But the same applies for Tendulkar. Once he gets past 30 or 40, he becomes in 90% of the cases unstoppable. We have seen it in the series against Aussies, and we are seeing this in the ongoing Kiwi series.

 

[Dare]

Not much to separate the 2 legends, it comes down to personal favorites. Saching longevity is absolutely amazing, but Lara had a aura about him when he played his inning and his shots. His pull shot was 2nd to none, so I guess I prefer Lara but Im not arguing who is better. It has been a argued to death.

 

[metallics2006]

Lara Easily

Once lara got past 30 there was nothing more scarier than him.
Attacking batsmen and once set had the ability to go on an make HUGE scores

Ponting next
then Tendulkar

1 thing i would like changed in cricket stats is they should have double century stats in there etc.
Or if u get out for say 223 it should be added as 2 centuries into your stats if u get out for say 165 it should be added as a century and another 50

If we added stuff like that you would see how much further Lara is ahead of Ponting and Tendulkar

Sachin has converted 52 of his fifties into hundreds 42 times. He is also pretty much unstoppable in tests when he gets going. Like Dare said, they are equals imo. Comes down to a personal choice.

 

[Chetan0304]

Not much to separate the 2 legends, it comes down to personal favorites. Saching longevity is absolutely amazing, but Lara had a aura about him when he played his inning and his shots. His pull shot was 2nd to none, so I guess I prefer Lara but Im not arguing who is better. It has been a argued to death.

Same here both are Legends but the only thing flashes in my mind when comparing this player, comes the 401* innings of Lara


Still i ll go 50-50 or 51-49, 51% to Lara :cool:

 

[KBC]

You've caught it wrong Chez, it's 400*.

 

[metallics2006]

Lara has a FC 500.

/thread.

 

[ouwwwolfpac]

i always felt that tendulkar was technically more correct that lara when both were in their prime form but technique hardly has much to do with success if you look at how guys like pietersen,dhoni and mccullum have redifined the relationship between text book technique and success.
lara however has the special gift or may be developed skill by hard practice of concentrating for ridiculously long periods of time. but those are the one or twice in this case in a lifetime things and consistancy is the key in anyformat of the game and that is exactly what sachin ramesh tendulkar always highlights in his game.
lara may be one of the best ever but certainly not better than the master blaster.