sweep_shot
Test Star
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 37,508
I consider Brian Lara as the greatest left-handed batsman of all time. He is a living legend without any doubt.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Why Viv above Sachin or even Sobers?Also was not Lara the greater champion in a crisis i,have a better strike rate and more impactful than Sobers?In test cricket did he not overshadow Sachin and Viv?
test cricket is not all about compiling longer inns in general when all things favour you. You have to be consistant also. Not 500+, 600+ team totals alone win test matches, more often 'very low totals + average totals wins' matches for a fact which in turn proves as to why consistancy is important as well.
I once did an exercise to compare Sachin & Lara w.r.t 'dominance' & 'consistancy'. Firstly I avoided home record because they are the least important.For a fact, if home records has the same weightage, then Sehwag would have been the best test match batsman ever.
I took the abroad 100s of both Sachin & Lara vs non minnows for the exercise.I had to make 2 assumptions 1.since Sachin had lot more not outs when compared to Lara, I adjusted 'number of not outs' as the same by providing 30 more runs to each not out score of Sachin . 2. I assumed that Sachin would have maintained the same str: if he went on to score 30 more runs in each of these not out inns. To assume 30 more runs on the average per each inns by maintaining the same str: is highly practical for a batsman who has already scored a 100,isn't it??
Then i categorsied Sachin's 100s into 2, (a) those same number of 100s as that of Lara having the most str: (b) remaining 100s
A second categorisation was (a) those same number of 100s as that of Lara having the most numerical value (b) remaining 100s
For filtering out the difference in level of dominance, I preferred the first categorisation. In those 100s, Lara had only 2.31 runs/inns more by facing 26 balls lesser per inns.
Then I mixed the remaining 100s of Sachin with other normal scores to measure the difference in consistancy. Here Sachin differed Lara by a huge 9.58 in the vast majority of other inns.
That's the prime reason as to why Sachin for me is the better test batsman to Lara.
I agree with you. I rate Sachin higher than Lara because he was more consistent. The 375 and 400 were world records but did they help West Indies win those test matches?
75 runs in a victory is better than 150 in a draw or loss. The two weaknesses of Tendulkar were he never made a hundred in a World Cup semi-final or final. He also could not make a hundred against Ambrose, Bishop, Patterson, or Marshall. He also only made one hundred against Walsh in the Nagpur test, in the 1997 test series.
Viv Richards won many matches for West Indies, Glamorgan, Somerset, and Leeward Islands by scoring fifties and hundreds.
Also, Lara and Tendulkar faced less quick bowlers than Viv Richards. First-class cricket was much more intense in Viv Richards era.
Gavaskar has a good record against the West Indian quicks but that is mainly on Indian pitches. He averaged 21 in the 21 innings in which Lillee played against him with no hundreds and 3 fifties.
I would always rate Viv Richards the second best batsman of all-time after Bradman.
1. Bradman.
2. Viv Richards.
3. Sobers.
4. Tendulkar.
5. Lara.
Hobbs needs to be also considered.
I do not think Bradman would have averaged 99 in tests if he had to face the bowling attacks of the 1970s and 1980s. He might of averaged in the 50s or 60s.
So why didn’t everyone average 99 in the thirties?
I do not think Bradman would have averaged 99 in the 1970s and 1980s. He averaged 56.57 in the 1932/33 test series v England. That is a big dip from 99.
This is an interesting point and something I’ve mentioned in another discussion about comparing players from different eras - how do we know for sure that the standard of cricket played in 30s/40s/50s is comparable to the standard of cricket played in later decades ?That series he averaged 56 in featured a fielding formation which was later outlawed. Nobody could cope with it.
Why didn’t more players average 99 in the thirties?
This is an interesting point and something I’ve mentioned in another discussion about comparing players from different eras - how do we know for sure that the standard of cricket played in 30s/40s/50s is comparable to the standard of cricket played in later decades ?
A simple point , we have all seen how from 1988 to 1998 to 2008 - in under two decades the West Indies team declined and standard of their cricket went from extraordinary world beaters to ordinary to embarrassingly poor.
And many followers of the game would agree that the overall standard of international test cricket and calibre of batsmen and fast bowlers was higher in 80s/90s era then today.
There was a time where the West Indies or Australian first class cricket teams played a higher standard of cricket then arguably majority of the test teams of that era and today.
And this is hypothetical as a question, but given the above facts who can rule out that there may have been an earlier era where the standard of test cricket was no better then the standard of first class cricket in Zimbabwe today ? And if a majestic batsman like Mohammed Hafeez was born in that era he too could have averaged 70 or 80 (ala Bradman).
The point is that no doubt Bradman was a great batsman but maybe he was just head and shoulders above in terms of talent then the players of that era? And not necessarily head and shoulders above everyone else in history.
Please come here [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
Bradman himself commented that he might only have averaged 75 in the 1980s game, because fielding standards improved massively since his playing days and a lot of his fours would have been cut off. While I don’t believe seventies quicks would have proved harder for him than Larwood (bowling to a legal field) and Farnes, Bradman would have been running a lot more ones and twos and would have got tired faster and made a mistake.
I agree with you. Bradman could not play extreme pace. He got floored by a delivery by Gilbert and his bat was knocked out of his hands by another in 1931. He is fortunate he did not have to face Gilbert in international cricket.I mean not better than Sir Viv.
1. Viv
2. Bradman
3.Sobers
4. Lara
The rest are all lower.
Let me get a logic straight....
Sobers has a poor record against NZ because he "couldnt be bothered".... So if a good batsman has poor record against an average team, it means he was less dedicated to the occasion.
Now, from this logic, can we conclude that, Sobers wasn't the most professional cricketer around since he goes missing against an average team just because the team "wasn't upto his standards."?
Sobers test batting average of 23.76 v New Zealand from 12 tests is not very good.
Viv Richards was a more impact player than Sobers. He also played against some very good players such as Lillee, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, etc. I have mentioned them before.
Sobey could not be bothered against weak opposition. NZ had no bowlers of note at the time. They were all amateurs until Hadlee emerged and got a job at Notts CCC.
Dunno that Richards was more of an impact player. About the same, I would say.
Imran wrote that he had a recurring nightmare about Richards - they were gunslingers and Sir Viv was like the robot in Westworld and kept outdrawing him.
Yea, what a unique criteria of greatness you have come up with. Warne saw Sachin in his dreams smacking him for 6's. So?
Of all the cricketers I’ve seen and admired over the years , there was something amazing about watching Brian Lara batting in full flow in the middle - it was an experience and Lara scoring a century was the most entertainment I’ve had from cricket alongside watching the two W’s fast bowling at their peak.
Just imagine that scene , Brian Lara walking into bat and getting off the mark with a smooth cover drive, followed by a pull on one leg, the whole game situation would change all of a sudden - the bowlers would look confused, fielders looking clueless and giving up knowing this bloke will still find the gap at will, and commentators would almost forget its a game being played between two teams ; it just becomes the Brian Lara show out there in the middle.
Viv is the only other player I’ve seen who had that kind of presence on the field - amazing to think they batted together at some point in early 90s in the same WI team.
So the great Imran found Richards intimidating to bowl to. He did not feel this about any other batter. He felt in control against everyone except Richards.
It’s a story of how one great player felt about another.
Why do you feel the need to be sarcastic? Does it make you feel better to put people down?
Indeed and there’s a memorable clip here of the two legends batting together, almost like a throne being passed on to the next generation — as Viv was clearly past his best and on the way out and Lara had just arrived on the scene and yet to make his mark.I tell a lie. Lara’s test debut was in 1990.
1994 - 6th June
Brian Lara achieved immortality with the highest score in first-class cricket history: 501 not out. As if his Test-record 375 wasn't enough, Lara took the first-class record within two months when he surpassed Hanif Mohammad's 499 while playing for Warwickshire against Durham at Edgbaston.
He had a few near-misses - Lara was bowled off a no-ball on 12 and then was dropped by wicketkeeper Chris Scott on 18 (Scott apparently said: "Oh dear, he'll probably go on and get a hundred").
In all, Lara faced only 427 deliveries, and hammered 62 fours and ten sixes. On the final day he whacked 174 runs before lunch.
For good measure, he also became the first man to make seven hundreds in eight first-class innings, the first of which was the 375. He lost his Test record briefly to Matthew Hayden in 2003 but took it back in April 2004 with 400 against England in Antigua.
Only second to Sachin in my opinion. Better then Ponting and easily better then Haq too.
Better than Kohli in your opinion?
Ponting has never been known for his exploits in '90s. Its '00s he dominated like no other other bat in that period.People say that Ponting dominated the attacks in 90s and 2000s, but no one did it quite like The King did.
People say that Ponting dominated the attacks in 90s and 2000s, but no one did it quite like The King did.
Ponting has never been known for his exploits in '90s. Its '00s he dominated like no other other bat in that period.
Here are Ponting's averages in '00s,Ponting really only had a couple of years of absolute dominance when he was striking high otherwise i don't quite recall him ever being much of a trailblazer.
Tendulkar and Lara were always in a different tier in terms of striking ability.
Here are Ponting's averages in '00s,
2000: 64,
2001: 39,
2002: 71,
2003: 100,
2004: 41,
2005: 67,
2006: 89,
2007: 38,
2008: 47,
2009: 39,
2010: 37
In 5/10 years, he was averaging in excess of 60. Of course a few ordinary & middling years as well.
That's true. And that after he had cushion of such great batsmen around him!Was commenting on his false image of an ultra aggressive batsman. He was definitely a busy and aggressive batsman but nowhere near what Tendulkar or Lara could do.
Ponting really only had a couple of years of absolute dominance when he was striking high otherwise i don't quite recall him ever being much of a trailblazer.
Tendulkar and Lara were always in a different tier in terms of striking ability.
Ponting has never been known for his exploits in '90s. Its '00s he dominated like no other other bat in that period.
Player | Span | Mat | Runs | Ave | SR | 100 |
GS Sobers (WI) | 1954-1974 | 93 | 8032 | 57.78 | 53.47* | 26 |
KC Sangakkara (SL) | 2000-2015 | 134 | 12400 | 57.4 | 54.19 | 38 |
BC Lara (ICC/WI) | 1990-2006 | 131 | 11953 | 52.88 | 60.51 | 34 |
MEK Hussey (AUS) | 2005-2013 | 79 | 6235 | 51.52 | 50.13 | 19 |
S Chanderpaul (WI) | 1994-2015 | 164 | 11867 | 51.37 | 43.31 | 30 |
ML Hayden (AUS) | 1994-2009 | 103 | 8625 | 50.73 | 60.1 | 30 |
AR Border (AUS) | 1978-1994 | 156 | 11174 | 50.56 | 41.09* | 27 |
RN Harvey (AUS) | 1948-1963 | 79 | 6149 | 48.41 | 43.51* | 21 |
GC Smith (ICC/SA) | 2002-2014 | 117 | 9265 | 48.25 | 59.67 | 27 |
AC Gilchrist (AUS) | 1999-2008 | 96 | 5570 | 47.6 | 81.95 | 17 |
WM Lawry (AUS) | 1961-1971 | 67 | 5234 | 47.15 | 39.18* | 13 |
DA Warner (AUS) | 2011-2022 | 94 | 7753 | 46.98 | 71.26 | 24 |
CH Lloyd (WI) | 1966-1985 | 110 | 7515 | 46.67 | 57.77* | 19 |
AN Cook (ENG) | 2006-2018 | 161 | 12472 | 45.35 | 46.95 | 33 |
JL Langer (AUS) | 1993-2007 | 105 | 7696 | 45.27 | 54.22 | 23 |
G Kirsten (SA) | 1993-2004 | 101 | 7289 | 45.27 | 43.43 | 21 |
Player | Span | Mat | Runs | Ave | SR | 100 |
GS Sobers | 1956-1973 | 49 | 3957 | 50.73 | 55.15* | 12 |
IVA Richards | 1974-1991 | 73 | 5404 | 50.5 | 71.62* | 13 |
ED Weekes | 1948-1957 | 25 | 2035 | 49.63 | 8 | |
BC Lara | 1990-2006 | 65 | 5695 | 48.26 | 60.63 | 17 |
CH Lloyd | 1966-1985 | 66 | 4634 | 46.8 | 58.54* | 11 |
DM Bravo | 2010-2020 | 27 | 2199 | 46.78 | 48.39 | 7 |
RB Kanhai | 1957-1973 | 39 | 3163 | 46.51 | 47.69* | 6 |
BF Butcher | 1958-1969 | 32 | 2367 | 46.41 | 48.19* | 6 |
S Chanderpaul | 1994-2015 | 83 | 5680 | 45.44 | 44.91 | 11 |
Player | Span | Mat | Runs | Ave | SR | 100 |
SR Tendulkar (INDIA) | 1990-1999 | 69 | 5626 | 58 | 54.28* | 22 |
SR Waugh (AUS) | 1990-1999 | 89 | 6213 | 53.1 | 47.13 | 18 |
BC Lara (WI) | 1990-1999 | 65 | 5573 | 51.6 | 62.04 | 13 |
ME Waugh (AUS) | 1991-1999 | 99 | 6371 | 41.64 | 51.93 | 17 |
MA Taylor (AUS) | 1990-1999 | 93 | 6306 | 40.94 | 41.01 | 15 |
AJ Stewart (ENG) | 1990-1999 | 93 | 6407 | 40.8 | 48.54 | 12 |
MA Atherton (ENG) | 1990-1999 | 91 | 6217 | 38.37 | 37.72 | 13 |
lara had a massive slump in the middle of his career, which is strange, he averaged about 60 in his first 35 tests and last 40 tests, and 40 something in the middle.
hes pbly the greatest innings builder of the modern era, despite being a fairly aggressive batsmen, but his mid career slump pushed his stats down. peak lara was still ATG level.
"Peak Lara was still ATG level" . . . not Lara overall??
Viv and Lara are my two favourite batsmen ever. I find it very difficult to separate the two.
Lara really should have had no peers in his era. He was that far ahead of the pack. But like all geniuses, the flaws can come and go. Where Lara proved his greatness is that he always came back and proved his point. His post 1995 slump of a few years (not really a slump more of a levelling off) was followed by probably the greatest series of batsmanship you’ll ever see in the 1999 series Vs Aus. That series vs Murali. When Harrison had him in all sort of bother, came back to hit 400.
I look at Lara’s peak and I’m convinced that he’s the greatest ever. But then I remember Viv’s peak.
Both different players but very hard to separate.
I’ve rated Viv higher in a previous post and I’m still rethinking..
Is it fair to say that Lara at times played in a weaker team than Richards and that could be the difference ? i.e. Lara marginally better
He was the best of his era and far superior to any of the over rated hacks in India
He was the best of his era and far superior to any of the over rated hacks in India
Agreed.
My absolute favourite batsman if that era and easily in my top 3 of all time.
Forget the fact that he was aesthetically amazing to watch, almost every shot found the gap.
A god given talent
Thing is there are many who scores runs, but Lara did it with style!
Peak Brian Lara was best test batsman of his generation. Better than Sachin. Had so many impact innings
Still remember his 213 and 153 vs Australia in the 1999 Frank Worrall series.
Lara is probs the best ever left handed test batsmen along with samgakara, imo he's > Sangakara in test.
In terms of odi no, He's technically solid and a total champ, but Travis head, Gilchrist are just more impactful and better to have on the squad.