IMO, Tendulkar is the best of batsman of his era. Hard to argue with such solid stats.

Test cricket: most runs, most centuries, avg 55 and 11 centuries against the no.1 team

ODIs: most runs, most centuries

For sheer longevity and maintaining such high standard for so long, Tendulkar has to be best of his era.

Bradman, however, stands out as superhuman with an average of 99.9. One could argue that Don didn't didn't travel to the subcontinent, he didn't play ODIs, etc., but 99.9, my God, it's hard to argue.

Of course it was Robbi, Tendulkar wasn't even the bes of his generation.!
-

Fans have their personal favourites. Lara was flamboyant. Ponting played those brutal pull shots. Viv Richards was the most aggressive and imposing.

One could argue that Tendulkar wasn't quite as entertaining as some other greats, and he was (is) a run machine and accumulator. But then, from what I read, Bradman was the same.

The Don was the best.

Lara/Tendulka/Ponting/Kallis are next.

...But none of the above can hold a candle to David Gower in the timing and grace department

Tendulkar is like the Ryan Giggs of cricket, not a bad player really but only rated that high because he played so long. in his prime was he ever any better than Cook, probably not.

It's easier to be brilliant for a brief period. Much harder to maintain high standards over 24 years.

Robbie, he hasn't, he has been shoddy for 5 years. The Indian fans know that but will NEVER admit it. Should have done what the real top batsman of his generation ( Lara ) did..... get out whilst still at the peak of his powers.

I suppose even ardent Tendulkar fans will agree that he should have retired 2 or 3 years ago. This doesn't change the fact that he accumulated massive amounts of runs in both test and ODI formats with pretty high averages.

In 2009 and 2010, Tendulkar averaged 68 and 78, respectively. He would have left on a high note, had he retired after winning the last WC.

Agreed. But the god like status annoys me. If i played for 24 years I could probably score 10,000 runs myself!

From what i`v seen of Lara and Tendulkar i`d rate Lara better. I`m old enough to have watched them both from debut to retirement (unlike others on here).

This is just my point of view ofc, but i`m very seldom wrong

In the last 4 years prior to retirement, Ponting's batting averages by year were: 38.7, 36.9, 31.9, and 42.9. I don't think Tendulkar was the only case of a top player hanging around a bit too long.

Lara batted with flair, but often failed when his team needed him the most. Viv Richards was aggressive and imposing, but awful during his last couple of years. Players like Gower, Viswanath, and Mark Waugh had that delicate finesse, but ended careers with averages in the forties.

We all have our favourites. However, Tendulkar's has those solid stats.

I've seen both careers from the start too and rate Lara betterr. Robbie, Ponting should have gone 2 years before he did. As for Lara not doing the business when needed, ask the wonderful aussie team of the 90's early 00's if they agree withh tha.

Roddie84...

If you liken David Gower in any way to Mark fookin Waugh ever again I will hunt you down and beat you to death with a strawberry Cornetto

Terrier, I enjoyed Lara and agree that he made outstanding contributions while playing in a weak team. But, there were big scores that came in situations when outcome didn't matter to the series. An example was the unbeaten 400 in the 4th and final test after WI lost the series 0-3 and Lara averaged about 20 runs in 6 innings.

Batting averages in Australia:
Lara 42
Tendulkar 53

In defense of Lara, he didn't have the support at the other end of batsmen like Dravid and Laxman.

In the end, it comes down to the qualities we admire the most. Lara was more impressive to the eye, no doubt.

Terrier, Here are the scorecards of the 4-test series at home when Lara scored unbeaten 400 in Antigua.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/statistics/Series/SeriesStats.asp?SeriesCode=0507

In the first tests, Lara scored a total of 100 runs in 6 innings (23, 0, 0, 8, 36, 33). The series was lost 0-3. Then, in the meaningless 4th and final test, Lara scored 400.

Not that Tendulkar did not have such meaningless centuries to his name.

Batting averages in 3rd and 4th inning:

Kallis 57.2
Laxman 48.8
Tendulkar 42.8
Ponting 42.2
Lara 38.2

So, If I wanted a batsman to play for my life, it would be Kallis.

kallis may be better but he doesnt have to carry the burden of a billion people,does he?

Wethers on the WUM

comment by Kharse (U18276)
posted 31 minutes ago
kallis may be better but he doesnt have to carry the burden of a billion people,does he?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden is nothing more than a myth. In many places in India he was replaced by Shewag and Dhoni a long time ago. That comment is disrespectful to players like Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly

Morning champers. The player i would have batting for my life would be either Steve Waugh, Border or Boycott. ....but that's another debate.

Morning mate been busy ruffling a few feathers I see

Indians can get very touchy you know. Next thing you know they'll be claiming Rahul Dravid was better than Darren Maddy

No footy this weekend champers, so having a go at my second love. Still rated Lara more.

I'd still rate him the best of his generation, purely because he was the most technically gifted batsman in that time, with an appetite to score big runs and an ability to win games, especially before the elbow issues when he really dominated attacks. That he has since changed his game to become more of an accumulator and be successful is a credit to himself. He had to.

Although he's going a few years too late and in a less than marquee setting, for such a career.

You can't take that away from him, he is/was a special player. He's not the best ever but he's certainly for me the best of the last two decades.