Originally Posted by sum_1
It'd be difficult for me to get into an argument without being somewhat biased, so I won't even try. But both are legends to the game, and legends can't be compared. There is a faction who believes Lara is better, and another faction who believes Sachin is. Everybody has their all time best, and they're all right in their own way, since greatness is subjective and it can't be measured. We can always throw in statistics but there're many things that are not reflected in the score sheet. Its impossible to get a consensus when talking about all time greats, and that's why the word 'great' is used in plural.
Which one is better? The Shawshank Redemption or The Godfather?
and that's why i rate guys like graeme pollock, barry richards and mike procter so highly. they don't win a statistics argument but if you consider ex-player/umpire/cricket expert accounts plus what people did see of them (even if not much in test cricket) you'd be hard pressed to find higher praise for any other players in history.
when it comes to the all time greats they're of such a high and equal quality that it's generally something other than stats which makes someone say so and so was the better.