@Harshthakor, the reason that I present these revealing statistical bombshell to debunk those myths that some people spew when they're trying to compare Sachin with Lara, is because I know there is some degree of superiority - Lara over Tendulkar. Eg, you think that they're on par because 'Sachin adapts better on bad wickets'. Srikanths thinks that 'Sachin plays pace better'. Sanjay Manjreaker thinks that 'Sachin was better on a few pitches in Aust where there were more pace, swing and bounce'. But I know better, so I presented the empirical data just to clarify all that nonsense and show that Sachin wasn't even close. But most of what a lot of Lara critics say is only what they hear from his detractors in the press. In fact, if when Lara played, he had a better relationship with the press, and some of his contemporaries, you would never have heard a single word of any modern batsman being compared with him. They use Sachin only because of his longevity achievements - not core ability.

Greatest of all the time .

In terms of pure impact Viv Richards towered over every batsmen as he mesmerised lethal pace bowling in the manner even Bradman did not do.At his best no batsman turned the complexion of game more than Sir Viv.However if i weigh the strength of the team a batsmen has played for,the relative strength of opposition,the situations when the runs have been scored and the average percentage score out of a team's total then Lara surpasses every batsman in test cricket,bar Don Bradman.Viv Richards or Tendulkar did not equal Lara's ability to amass mammoth scores or bettered Lara's best innings in test cricket,particularly when the chips were down.

I am sorry that the thread is getting down to who is superior between the 2 titans Lara and Tendulkar.We have to recognize that they are both giants in their own right,arguably the best since Bradman.Maybe a whisker would not seperate them or it could have been a dead heat!The ultimate factor is the criteria.If you asses performance in peak period or genius then Lara would win while if you asses longetivity and mastery then Tendulkar would be the winner.In Australia it was Tendulkar who was more consistent than Lara over a long period but in contrast Lara had better peak performances.Lara dominated Mcgrath more .I feel many experts have done injustice to Lara by excluding him from the all-time test xi as to me in pure test cricket.I want readers to study Ananth Narayana's analysis of Lara in cricinfo cordon and his selection of the all-time xi where Lara is a more eligible candidate than Tendulkar or Viv Richards.

@SRIKANTHS et al, the idea that Sachin was better than Lara, "playing pace, and adopted better on bad wickets" is a mythical untruth - the 'nit-picking' that Sanjay spoke so honestly about - spewed when critics are metaphorically scavenging for issues to downgrade Lara - just like the reference to grounds in Aus. where he didn't make much runs. But as far as I know, the only wicket in Aus where 'pace and bounce' is a real batsman worry is at the "WACA" in Perth. Lara's overall international avge in both forms at Perth is 56.2 in 11 inngs (2 tons). Sachin's avge is 26. 71 in 14 inngs (1 ton). In 1997, Lara played on a wicket there which was described as, "a mine field with cracks deep and wide enough to bury Curtly Ambrose in a fully standing position, hands fully raised above his head". Yet, on such wicket, Lara was the only man who still made a ton (132) helping WI to win the match by 10 wickets. Aus' lineup with some great batsmen of All time could only muster scores of 243 and 194.

Lara played as it is a sport, that is what it should be. Sportspersons don't expect anything BACK from sports. They only give it and live it for the audience. Sports are sports, and LARA is the perfect human to illustrate it. Tendulkar played as if it was life; and fittingly, he had that nagging expectations BACK from this life. Some records? Yes, even if his quest for records favored the team most often, this is NOT the purpose of sports. So, a downvote for Tendulkar; he could certainly afford to be more selfless!

Sachin always played a safe innings.... he knew that you score a 100 or a 200 or a 300....its always gonna be counted as a single century...hence rather than wasting your strength on a big score, he used to score a 100 plus inning and then his concentration used to flag down...not the case with Lara who used to compete with himself and played monumental innings repeatedly....between Lara and Sachin... Lara was the better Test batsman and Sachin the better ODI batsman.... Lara's overseas Test records vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia are magnificient....Sachin is essentially a "home ground" player who could play well on flat Indian pitches.....Wisden's top 100 test innings of all time features three Lara epics at 2nd, 10th and 14th positions....not a single Sachin century made the grade....Sachin never dominated in overseas series the way Lara did vs Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka....I personally feel Rahul Dravid himself was a much better Test batsman than Sachin !!

very tepid. Should have boldly said that his personal choice was Lara rather than Tendulkar. Though personally I feel SRT was better against pace and Lara better against Spin.

We all know that, "Tendulkar to bat for life" is a pet thought of Sanjay Manjreaker. However Sanjay, life is the most precious and valuable commodity on earth. Hence, if anyone decides to wager his/her life for anything, or, say someone is demanding a ransom to save a life, it would be, or it has always been, for something of a magnitude that's enormously Big, or, colossally Valuable, or, incredibly Difficult - bordering the realms of impossibility. But, to be honest, even though Sachin has had so many more opportunities than anyone else to show that he's capable of producing at this requisite magnitude, we know of no particular performance when he showed he has such ability. So, I think that it would be grossly unfair to him, to select him among the possible candidates who may be recommended to anyone who may need a life saving performance from a test batsman! Am not in any way underrating the Little Master, but he has had so many opportunities to prove otherwise, but could not!

@SWARZI You have put it very well and I totally endorse what you say.Tendulkar mastered the grammar of the game while Lara used it to compose poetry.Both posessed innovative genius but Lara had marginally more flair and creativity.Tendulkar would not equal Lara's batting after he passed a century who went on to bat like a mountainer climbing a peak.Lara took the game away from the opposition and could singlehandedly carry a game on his shoulders more than Sachin or any batsmen of his day.To me at his best in a crisis Tendulkar would not surpass him but neverthless Tendulkar was the technically sounder and more complete batsmen and thus could adapt better on bad wickets.

@GREG WARRICK You do justice to both the greats showing that they are both giants in their own right.

@CRICFAN 24 I feel Lara had a mystical element to his game like a magician at his best and his best innings had greater impact than Tendulkar or any other player of his time or even any Calypso batsmen ever.

Both were great batsmen. It was a privilege to be able to watch two of the greatest test batsmen in the history of the game within our era. I think the comparison with Fredericks is slightly exaggerated. More like a Sobers (who you mentioned ) and a Gordon Greenidge. Tendulkar was earmarked by Bradman himself as the closest batsman to himself. That probably is about the best accolade a batsman would wish for. Ask a bowler of the era and the batsmen who gave them the most facial ticks was usually Lara. Tendulkar has the statistics, Lara gads the landmark innings. Both a credit to the game and from the same very top drawer.

@SWARZI - That is an essentially romantic view of Lara. Odd though this may sound, Tendulkar was actually more unorthodox. As I've said in another episode Lara was essentially a Roy Fredericks clone and clearly modelled his game on him and a long line of flamboyant attacking batsmen. Re. great innings Lara undoubtedly has them. But then a similar statement may be made about very attacking batsmen such as Sehwag,Pietersen,Richards etc. When the going was good that particular facet of the games undoubtedly resulted in such innings. Which , of course is naive to say Tendulkar does not have numerous great innings. Basically - there is nothing "mystical" etc about Lara( Watch Roy Fredericks), of Sobers,LLoyd etc. The romanticism re. Lara is well understandable because of his flamboyance, unabashedly attacking game and some all-time great innings. But,all said and done - Anywhere, anytime, any bowler, any where any format it is difficult to look beyond Tendulkar.

Yes, while it's true that Tendulkar always gave the impression that he was batting for his life; and Lara batted only to provide enjoyment for himself and fans, it's ironic that it was Lara who consistently produced the mind boggling 'life indemnity' performances: 277, 375, 400, 501 and others are all associated with batting as if one's life was at stake. I don't know of any performance from Sachin that in the aftermath of it, suggested that he was batting for his life! But I think though, that the real difference between Sachin and Lara was that Sachin was more a manually made batsman - he was the epitome of the techniques that were scientifically developed by man - he "mastered" them. Lara on the other hand transcended manual techniques. He was as good as any technically, but it was his "natural genius" that really put him ahead of his contemporaries - there was something "mystical" about him, when he crafted his art - like the God of batting in Greeks and Romans times!

@Harshthakor, the reason that I present these revealing statistical bombshell to debunk those myths that some people spew when they're trying to compare Sachin with Lara, is because I know there is some degree of superiority - Lara over Tendulkar. Eg, you think that they're on par because 'Sachin adapts better on bad wickets'. Srikanths thinks that 'Sachin plays pace better'. Sanjay Manjreaker thinks that 'Sachin was better on a few pitches in Aust where there were more pace, swing and bounce'. But I know better, so I presented the empirical data just to clarify all that nonsense and show that Sachin wasn't even close. But most of what a lot of Lara critics say is only what they hear from his detractors in the press. In fact, if when Lara played, he had a better relationship with the press, and some of his contemporaries, you would never have heard a single word of any modern batsman being compared with him. They use Sachin only because of his longevity achievements - not core ability.

Greatest of all the time .

In terms of pure impact Viv Richards towered over every batsmen as he mesmerised lethal pace bowling in the manner even Bradman did not do.At his best no batsman turned the complexion of game more than Sir Viv.However if i weigh the strength of the team a batsmen has played for,the relative strength of opposition,the situations when the runs have been scored and the average percentage score out of a team's total then Lara surpasses every batsman in test cricket,bar Don Bradman.Viv Richards or Tendulkar did not equal Lara's ability to amass mammoth scores or bettered Lara's best innings in test cricket,particularly when the chips were down.

I am sorry that the thread is getting down to who is superior between the 2 titans Lara and Tendulkar.We have to recognize that they are both giants in their own right,arguably the best since Bradman.Maybe a whisker would not seperate them or it could have been a dead heat!The ultimate factor is the criteria.If you asses performance in peak period or genius then Lara would win while if you asses longetivity and mastery then Tendulkar would be the winner.In Australia it was Tendulkar who was more consistent than Lara over a long period but in contrast Lara had better peak performances.Lara dominated Mcgrath more .I feel many experts have done injustice to Lara by excluding him from the all-time test xi as to me in pure test cricket.I want readers to study Ananth Narayana's analysis of Lara in cricinfo cordon and his selection of the all-time xi where Lara is a more eligible candidate than Tendulkar or Viv Richards.

@SRIKANTHS et al, the idea that Sachin was better than Lara, "playing pace, and adopted better on bad wickets" is a mythical untruth - the 'nit-picking' that Sanjay spoke so honestly about - spewed when critics are metaphorically scavenging for issues to downgrade Lara - just like the reference to grounds in Aus. where he didn't make much runs. But as far as I know, the only wicket in Aus where 'pace and bounce' is a real batsman worry is at the "WACA" in Perth. Lara's overall international avge in both forms at Perth is 56.2 in 11 inngs (2 tons). Sachin's avge is 26. 71 in 14 inngs (1 ton). In 1997, Lara played on a wicket there which was described as, "a mine field with cracks deep and wide enough to bury Curtly Ambrose in a fully standing position, hands fully raised above his head". Yet, on such wicket, Lara was the only man who still made a ton (132) helping WI to win the match by 10 wickets. Aus' lineup with some great batsmen of All time could only muster scores of 243 and 194.

Lara played as it is a sport, that is what it should be. Sportspersons don't expect anything BACK from sports. They only give it and live it for the audience. Sports are sports, and LARA is the perfect human to illustrate it. Tendulkar played as if it was life; and fittingly, he had that nagging expectations BACK from this life. Some records? Yes, even if his quest for records favored the team most often, this is NOT the purpose of sports. So, a downvote for Tendulkar; he could certainly afford to be more selfless!

Sachin always played a safe innings.... he knew that you score a 100 or a 200 or a 300....its always gonna be counted as a single century...hence rather than wasting your strength on a big score, he used to score a 100 plus inning and then his concentration used to flag down...not the case with Lara who used to compete with himself and played monumental innings repeatedly....between Lara and Sachin... Lara was the better Test batsman and Sachin the better ODI batsman.... Lara's overseas Test records vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia are magnificient....Sachin is essentially a "home ground" player who could play well on flat Indian pitches.....Wisden's top 100 test innings of all time features three Lara epics at 2nd, 10th and 14th positions....not a single Sachin century made the grade....Sachin never dominated in overseas series the way Lara did vs Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka....I personally feel Rahul Dravid himself was a much better Test batsman than Sachin !!

very tepid. Should have boldly said that his personal choice was Lara rather than Tendulkar. Though personally I feel SRT was better against pace and Lara better against Spin.

We all know that, "Tendulkar to bat for life" is a pet thought of Sanjay Manjreaker. However Sanjay, life is the most precious and valuable commodity on earth. Hence, if anyone decides to wager his/her life for anything, or, say someone is demanding a ransom to save a life, it would be, or it has always been, for something of a magnitude that's enormously Big, or, colossally Valuable, or, incredibly Difficult - bordering the realms of impossibility. But, to be honest, even though Sachin has had so many more opportunities than anyone else to show that he's capable of producing at this requisite magnitude, we know of no particular performance when he showed he has such ability. So, I think that it would be grossly unfair to him, to select him among the possible candidates who may be recommended to anyone who may need a life saving performance from a test batsman! Am not in any way underrating the Little Master, but he has had so many opportunities to prove otherwise, but could not!

Brian Lara to bat for life !!!

Yes, while it's true that Tendulkar always gave the impression that he was batting for his life; and Lara batted only to provide enjoyment for himself and fans, it's ironic that it was Lara who consistently produced the mind boggling 'life indemnity' performances: 277, 375, 400, 501 and others are all associated with batting as if one's life was at stake. I don't know of any performance from Sachin that in the aftermath of it, suggested that he was batting for his life! But I think though, that the real difference between Sachin and Lara was that Sachin was more a manually made batsman - he was the epitome of the techniques that were scientifically developed by man - he "mastered" them. Lara on the other hand transcended manual techniques. He was as good as any technically, but it was his "natural genius" that really put him ahead of his contemporaries - there was something "mystical" about him, when he crafted his art - like the God of batting in Greeks and Romans times!

@SWARZI - That is an essentially romantic view of Lara. Odd though this may sound, Tendulkar was actually more unorthodox. As I've said in another episode Lara was essentially a Roy Fredericks clone and clearly modelled his game on him and a long line of flamboyant attacking batsmen. Re. great innings Lara undoubtedly has them. But then a similar statement may be made about very attacking batsmen such as Sehwag,Pietersen,Richards etc. When the going was good that particular facet of the games undoubtedly resulted in such innings. Which , of course is naive to say Tendulkar does not have numerous great innings. Basically - there is nothing "mystical" etc about Lara( Watch Roy Fredericks), of Sobers,LLoyd etc. The romanticism re. Lara is well understandable because of his flamboyance, unabashedly attacking game and some all-time great innings. But,all said and done - Anywhere, anytime, any bowler, any where any format it is difficult to look beyond Tendulkar.

Both were great batsmen. It was a privilege to be able to watch two of the greatest test batsmen in the history of the game within our era. I think the comparison with Fredericks is slightly exaggerated. More like a Sobers (who you mentioned ) and a Gordon Greenidge. Tendulkar was earmarked by Bradman himself as the closest batsman to himself. That probably is about the best accolade a batsman would wish for. Ask a bowler of the era and the batsmen who gave them the most facial ticks was usually Lara. Tendulkar has the statistics, Lara gads the landmark innings. Both a credit to the game and from the same very top drawer.

@SWARZI You have put it very well and I totally endorse what you say.Tendulkar mastered the grammar of the game while Lara used it to compose poetry.Both posessed innovative genius but Lara had marginally more flair and creativity.Tendulkar would not equal Lara's batting after he passed a century who went on to bat like a mountainer climbing a peak.Lara took the game away from the opposition and could singlehandedly carry a game on his shoulders more than Sachin or any batsmen of his day.To me at his best in a crisis Tendulkar would not surpass him but neverthless Tendulkar was the technically sounder and more complete batsmen and thus could adapt better on bad wickets.

@GREG WARRICK You do justice to both the greats showing that they are both giants in their own right.

@CRICFAN 24 I feel Lara had a mystical element to his game like a magician at his best and his best innings had greater impact than Tendulkar or any other player of his time or even any Calypso batsmen ever.

We all know that, "Tendulkar to bat for life" is a pet thought of Sanjay Manjreaker. However Sanjay, life is the most precious and valuable commodity on earth. Hence, if anyone decides to wager his/her life for anything, or, say someone is demanding a ransom to save a life, it would be, or it has always been, for something of a magnitude that's enormously Big, or, colossally Valuable, or, incredibly Difficult - bordering the realms of impossibility. But, to be honest, even though Sachin has had so many more opportunities than anyone else to show that he's capable of producing at this requisite magnitude, we know of no particular performance when he showed he has such ability. So, I think that it would be grossly unfair to him, to select him among the possible candidates who may be recommended to anyone who may need a life saving performance from a test batsman! Am not in any way underrating the Little Master, but he has had so many opportunities to prove otherwise, but could not!

very tepid. Should have boldly said that his personal choice was Lara rather than Tendulkar. Though personally I feel SRT was better against pace and Lara better against Spin.

Sachin always played a safe innings.... he knew that you score a 100 or a 200 or a 300....its always gonna be counted as a single century...hence rather than wasting your strength on a big score, he used to score a 100 plus inning and then his concentration used to flag down...not the case with Lara who used to compete with himself and played monumental innings repeatedly....between Lara and Sachin... Lara was the better Test batsman and Sachin the better ODI batsman.... Lara's overseas Test records vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia are magnificient....Sachin is essentially a "home ground" player who could play well on flat Indian pitches.....Wisden's top 100 test innings of all time features three Lara epics at 2nd, 10th and 14th positions....not a single Sachin century made the grade....Sachin never dominated in overseas series the way Lara did vs Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka....I personally feel Rahul Dravid himself was a much better Test batsman than Sachin !!

Lara played as it is a sport, that is what it should be. Sportspersons don't expect anything BACK from sports. They only give it and live it for the audience. Sports are sports, and LARA is the perfect human to illustrate it. Tendulkar played as if it was life; and fittingly, he had that nagging expectations BACK from this life. Some records? Yes, even if his quest for records favored the team most often, this is NOT the purpose of sports. So, a downvote for Tendulkar; he could certainly afford to be more selfless!

@SRIKANTHS et al, the idea that Sachin was better than Lara, "playing pace, and adopted better on bad wickets" is a mythical untruth - the 'nit-picking' that Sanjay spoke so honestly about - spewed when critics are metaphorically scavenging for issues to downgrade Lara - just like the reference to grounds in Aus. where he didn't make much runs. But as far as I know, the only wicket in Aus where 'pace and bounce' is a real batsman worry is at the "WACA" in Perth. Lara's overall international avge in both forms at Perth is 56.2 in 11 inngs (2 tons). Sachin's avge is 26. 71 in 14 inngs (1 ton). In 1997, Lara played on a wicket there which was described as, "a mine field with cracks deep and wide enough to bury Curtly Ambrose in a fully standing position, hands fully raised above his head". Yet, on such wicket, Lara was the only man who still made a ton (132) helping WI to win the match by 10 wickets. Aus' lineup with some great batsmen of All time could only muster scores of 243 and 194.

I am sorry that the thread is getting down to who is superior between the 2 titans Lara and Tendulkar.We have to recognize that they are both giants in their own right,arguably the best since Bradman.Maybe a whisker would not seperate them or it could have been a dead heat!The ultimate factor is the criteria.If you asses performance in peak period or genius then Lara would win while if you asses longetivity and mastery then Tendulkar would be the winner.In Australia it was Tendulkar who was more consistent than Lara over a long period but in contrast Lara had better peak performances.Lara dominated Mcgrath more .I feel many experts have done injustice to Lara by excluding him from the all-time test xi as to me in pure test cricket.I want readers to study Ananth Narayana's analysis of Lara in cricinfo cordon and his selection of the all-time xi where Lara is a more eligible candidate than Tendulkar or Viv Richards.

In terms of pure impact Viv Richards towered over every batsmen as he mesmerised lethal pace bowling in the manner even Bradman did not do.At his best no batsman turned the complexion of game more than Sir Viv.However if i weigh the strength of the team a batsmen has played for,the relative strength of opposition,the situations when the runs have been scored and the average percentage score out of a team's total then Lara surpasses every batsman in test cricket,bar Don Bradman.Viv Richards or Tendulkar did not equal Lara's ability to amass mammoth scores or bettered Lara's best innings in test cricket,particularly when the chips were down.

Greatest of all the time .