Lara and Tendulkar's stats vs best bowlers of their era

A post by Altacain from carribeancricket.com:
_____________

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...results;type=batting

Lara, against the best bowlers of the era, has scored 10200 runs at an average of 51.56. (Add Warne and it goes up to 52)

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...results;type=batting

Tendulkar, against the best bowlers of the era, has scored 8800 runs with an average of 47.5 (Add Warne goes up to 49). He also seemed to keep dodging the best bowlers. Tendulkar didn't face Amby or Bishop or Walsh in their prime. He did not face Wasim or Waqar at their prime. He consistently ducked McGrath. He was average against Donald or Pollock with a 30-ish average; didn't face Gough; failure against Bond. Tendulkar accumulated 5000 runs at an average of 100 against mediocre bowlers in the likes of NM Hauritz (Aus); RC Irani (Eng); S Randiv (SL); JJ Krejza (Aus); Mashrafe Mortaza (Ban); AD Mullally (Eng) ; BA Murphy (Zim) ; MM Patel (Eng); KR Pushpakumara (SL) ; GR Robertson (Aus) ; IDK Salisbury (Eng) ; Shahadat Hossain (Ban) ;r BT Watambwa (Zim); GP Wickramasinghe (SL) ; PJ Wiseman (NZ)

In Tests, Sachin averages a modest 36 against Australia when McGrath plays. It is very noticeable that most of his Test runs/stellar performances against Australia have invariably come only when McGrath and Warne were absent, basically against second rate (good, but not great) fast bowlers (Kasper, Damien Fleming, Paul Riefel etc). Whenever McGrath is absent from the Australian attack, Sachin's average almost doubles (averages nearly 70 against Australia when McGrath is absent!!!).

Even McGrath's bunny - Lara - does better than Sachin against McGrath. Not to mention many double centuries.

Sachin averages 32 against South Africa whenever Allan Donald has played. Also, India-Pak never played a series for nearly 10 years (between 1989 to 99 for political reasons) during which Akram was at his absolute peak. But Akram bowled very very well in 1999 when they played each other. In any case, Tendulkar averages only 32 against Pakistan whenever Wasim Akram has played.

Once again, he revelled against the respective teams (South Africa and Pakistan) when these bowlers were absent.

Against the 3 greatest fast bowlers of his era, whom he faced in more than one Test series, McGrath, Donald and Akram, Sachin has scored 1719 Test runs at a modest average of 34.3 (compared to his career average of 56). Against Akram, McGrath and Donald, Lara amassed 3116 runs at an average of 41 at a better strike rate than Tendulkar.

Of all the Test series Sachin has played against these great fast bowlers (McGrath,Donald,Akram), more than 7 series including home and away, only once did he average more than 50 in a series, that too just barely, when he averaged 50.66 against McGrath in a 3 test series (2000-2001) at home in India. Only once was he India's best batsman in all the Test series against these bowlers.

The only truly great fast bowler Sachin has had some success against is Curtly Ambrose. But Sachin never faced Ambrose (or the West Indian attack) at their peak. He played only one Test series against Ambrose, that too in 1997 (4 of the 5 Tests ended in draws), when Ambrose was 35 years old.

Tendulkar's poor stats against great fast bowlers continues in ODIs. In spite of all the batsmen-favoured rules and pitches, Sachin's stats against these bowlers in ODIs is weak: a measly average of 31 (2222 runs @ 31.64) in ODIs after playing 70+ ODIs against McGrath/Donald/Akram. Only 2 of Sachin's ODI hundreds came against these bowlers (both against McGrath in the sub-continent). In 26 ODI innings against Donald, Sachin managed to cross fifty just 3 times.

Not just his average, even his strike-rate suffers against these bowlers (especially against Donald).

Once again Lara beats him hands down (2969 runs at an average of 44.81 against McGrath/Donald/Akram).

More from Altacain:

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...=allround;view=match


stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...esults;type=allround

Lara and Tendulkar both average 45 when opening (or batting 1,2,3) in ODI's versus all teams minus minnows (Bangladesh, Kenya and Zimbabwe).


Versus the same teams, batting in position 3, Lara averages 45, Tendulkar averages only 10.

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...esults;type=allround

Batting in position 4, Tendulkar averages 35.

Batting in position 5, Tendulkar averages 29. Same as Lara.

Batting number 6 to 11, Lara averages 61.

Batting number 6 to 11, Tendulkar averages 29.

Lara adapts to ODI conditions and batting orders/roles much better than Tendulkar.

Batting outside Asia in positions 1,2,3...

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...=allround;view=match

Lara averages 44. (remove games played at home and his average doesn't change)

Batting outside Asia, in positions 1,2 and 3...

stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/...esults;type=allround

Tendulkar averages 39.

________

Batting 1, 2 or 3 in victories minus minnows...

Tendulkar won 29 percent of ODI games, at an average of 56.
Lara won 22 percent of ODI games, at an average of 66.

Batting 1,2 or 3 minus minnows and outside of Asia...

Tendulkar won 8 percent of ODI games at an average of 67
Lara won 16 percent of ODI games at an average of 69.57.

I always think tendulkar is highly overrated. He was a great player, no doubt, but he was not the 'God of cricket' as often referred to by media. On the other hand I think Brian lara was much better player than tendulkar. I liked his style.

Both are Retired and their Stats will be there for Eternity.


I am more concerned WHY Lara is NOT a batting Coach for WICB...

Max, saldy both of our opinions don't count.  The world looks at 10D and sees a genius with a bat.  Same goes for Lara.  Greater men than me and you, like Sobers and The Don see geniuses in both of them.

As for me, i think Viv Richards is highly overrated too.  The last 9 years of his career he averaged low 40s.  His runs against the poor English bowling is what boosted his record to 50.  He really knock Tony Greigg, an aging John Snow and Bob Willis around.  But then again, thats just my opinion.  The world sees him as one of the most dangerous batsman.  go figure!

It is quite a known fact that Sachin and Lara were two great batsmen in their own rights. However, when Lara used to play we got a sense that he was there to play the opposition out, while Tendulkar at least at the fag end of his career looked more concerned with the records. That could be his down fall too. Also, these stats are considering Tendulkar's elongated career. If he had retired about the same time as Lara, I suspect that his stats as far as averages are concerned may have been a lot better.

These stupid arguments will go on forever.  Even after both those guys are 6 foot under (or a pile of ash).


I enjoyed watching Lara bat more than Tendulkar.  Does it mean Lara was better?  Of course not.  It's like having your coffee with 2 creams and 2 sugars - it's a personal choice.


With respect to Tendulkar.  He really started to decline after that tennis elbow injury.  That happen around 2002.  It almost ended his career and it caused him to change both his batting technique and his attitude at the crease.  He was never the same dominant player after that injury.  Sure he was still great, but he didn't dominate bowlers the same way he did before the injury.


Lara also started to decline but much closer to his retirement.  That was due to his eyes.  He always had eye problems.  I remembered back in 1994 just before he broke all the records when he had to get eye surgery and started wearing sunglasses by Oakley to protect his eyes.

It's just personal choice.10D was personified as the GOD of cricket,but he never called himself so.Both players are a class apart.The reason why Lara didn't get the required publicity was that
he was from the WI which didn't have enough money to proclaim him as one big star,whereas the BCCI had raked up so much money that it decided to spend it on 10D.
Nonetheless,both of them were a genius with the bat and can't be compared with one another.

One thing I do remember is that whenever Lara and Tendulkar were batting, you were always glued to the screen (or the pitch if you were at the ground). 

Everything around you didn't matter anymore because when these guys were at the crease you really felt that something great was always possible.

Is there a player out there today that commands this sort of rapt attention from the viewer? 

For poster DownUnda :

Michael Clarke is his Hero