The next two names down on the 90’s XI team sheet and I’ve taken a big risk and gone for the Little Master, Sachin Tendulkar, and The Honourable Brian Charles Lara, widely regarded as two of the five greatest bats of all time. I’ll go this far: when Lara retired, I thought he was the (very) marginally better bat. However, longevity has to play a part and now, I would say that Tendulkar has had the better career. In the 90’s, though, well, you decide: which of these sets of numbers would you rather have? (As a disclaimer, I am well aware that numbers never tell the whole story, but they are an essential part of the narrative.)
All statistics based on test matches only.
Batsmen One
- Decade Average: 54.616
- Scored 1000 runs in a calendar year twice in the decade
- Had two years shortened by injury
- Most 100’s scored in a year = 5
- Highest one year average = 91.42
- Lowest one year average = 19.50
- Average against
Australia - 22 centuries in the decade (21 half centuries)
- Played 59 matches in the decade at an average of 95
Batsmen Two
- Decade Average: 52.725
- Scored 1000 runs in a calendar year once in the decade (and got 996 once)
- Most 100’s scored in a year = 4
- 13 Centuries in the decade (29 half centuries)
- Had one year shortened by injury
- Average against
Australia - Played 65 matches in the decade at an average of 85
- Highest one year average = 73.61
- Lowest one year average = 46.22 (this batsmen’s first year)
The last thing to say is that batsmen one was much more feast or famine, capable of astounding highs and depressing lows, whereas batsmen two was much more consistent and always chugged along at an otherworldly high rate. Batsmen ones peaks and troughs are both higher and lower. Be honest, you think batsmen one is Lara don't you? It’s ok, I thought the same thing as well, because when entering into a discourse into the two batsmen, that has always been the prevailing wisdom: that Lara was flashier but inconsistent and Tendulkar was the steady guy, the guy you’d choose in the long run because he was balanced. I only bring this up to try and redress an imbalance that I have noticed when Tendulkar versus Lara comes up. I am fine with you going for Tendulkar over Lara but go for the believable reason – at his peak he was simply better, rather than the irrational line – he was more consistent. If you still believe that, well I want you to go and look up the meaning of cognitive dissonance; it should help explain why this article has you riled up.
Anyways, onto the highlights
For Tendulkar I think this is his best innings, 111 against a rampant South Africa that decimated the Indian batting order. Proof? Second top scorer: Kapil Devs 25. As an aside, this is also the test where he became the youngest ever to 1000 test runs. I could've gone for other innings and you could argue that this test isn't so special as they didn't win, but I'm pretty sure they lose without Tendulkar.
For Lara there's only one clip worth showing 153
A little backstory: Bridgetown, Barbados 1-1 in the series and Australia set an imposing 490 in their first innings, with batsmen number 5 in the all decade team scoring 199. The Windies responded with a respectable 321, with Sherwin Campbell (!) top scoring with 105. In the second innings Australia are skittled for 146, Shane Warne making a battling 32, ably supported by extras who contributed 25. This leaves the Windies needing 311 to win. Doable? Definitely. Doable after being reduced to 248-8 with Ambrose and Walsh at the other end? Not so much. But in Brian we trusted, and even if the 14 balls Ambrose faced were like watching an Englishman taking a penalty in a pressure situation, i.e, doomed to failure, this time, fate was on the Windies side as Lara lead them to a famous win
Any disagreement with my number three and four? Leave a comment on my facebook or here. The eagle eyed will know who the number five batsmen is and he shall be next.
