A tribute to Brian Lara - Where did he rank overall? Most gifted of all players?

[sweep_shot]

I consider Brian Lara as the greatest left-handed batsman of all time. He is a living legend without any doubt.

 

[satheesh]

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.

 

[Robert]

I think Lara’s career suffered a bit because he got the two huge milestones early - passing Sobers with 375 in tests, and getting the 501 for Warwks. Like Alexander there were no new worlds left to conquer.

After that he looked a bit unmotivated at times. In 2000 in England he was a shadow of the player of 1995. Maybe he got a bit worn down by carrying a weak batting line. On the other hand he wasn’t a great skipper and arguably demotivated his players, putting more pressure on himself to score.

 

[Cricket follower]

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.

 

[Cricket follower]

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.

Correction. Tendulkar made a hundred against Walsh in the 1994/95 test, in Nagpur.

 

[Cricket follower]

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.

 

[Robert]

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?

 

[Cricket follower]

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.

 

[Cricket follower]

Bradman made 0 against Gilbert playing for Queensland in a Sheffield Shield match, in 1931.
Ball one from Gilbert Bradman defended.
Ball two a short lifting delivery clipped the peak of Bradmans cap and he fell on the turf.
Ball three another fast short one, flew over Bradmans through to the keeper.
Ball four knocked the bat out of Bradman's hand as he attempted a hook shot.
Ball five that Bradman faced he attempted another hook shot and succeeded in edging it behind to the keeper, and he was out.

Article: On this Day: Gilbert floors Bradman.
https://www.cricket.com.au/news/edd...an-indigenous-cricketer-queensland/2014-11-06

Hence, Bradman was not at ease with pace.

I do not think he would have averaged 99 in tests facing Jeffrey Thomson, Dennis Lillee, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, and Andy Roberts on a fast pitch like Perth in the 1970s and 1980s. Possibly could have averaged 50s or 60s against such bowlers.

Bradmans average dipped from an overall 99 to 56 against just Larwood in the 1932 test series.

 

[Robert]

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.

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?

 

[Majid Khan]

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.

 

[Robert]

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.

Well, I would argue that in Shield Cricket Bradman averaged 100 against Lindwall and Miller and the best England batters averaged 50 against them. Their careers overlapped with May, Trueman, and so on whose careers overlapped with Boycott who did well against the seventies pace aces. So I do think there was a prodigious rise or drop in quality overall between 1930 and 1980.

 

[Robert]

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.

 

[cricket4all]

For me Lara was deffo better than Tendulkar, Ponting etc but better than Sir Viv.

 

[cricket4all]

I mean not better than Sir Viv.
1. Viv
2. Bradman
3.Sobers
4. Lara

The rest are all lower.

 

[MMHS]

Please come here [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

He is my very few AT favourite batsmen and I have watched most of his Test hundreds live. There great batsmen in every generation, but this guy was unique - batsmen like Gavaskar or Boycott could stay in middle for hours, sessions together while batsmen like Viv, Gilchrist, Sehwag could blast any attack; but this guy could bat for 12 hours and could play every exciting shots of the game.

He is undoubtedly the best ever spin player game had seen, and one of the greatest big innings specialist - once set, he could bat for long and he would bat with style.

Lara, lost track for few years in middle of his career hence his stats suffered but at his pick between 1991 to 1995, it's almost impossible to find a match. Being a Viv fan, I actually am not sure whom I'll pick for my AT Test team at prime - may be Viv at 3 (Or 5, if I had to accommodate Bradman at his favorite spot) and Brian at 4. Sobers at 6 makes my 4 middle order.

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

Unfortunately haven't seen much of Brian Lara, but from what I have seen he was one hell of an entertainer alongside R. Ponting. Both didn't just play long innings, but played some breathtaking shots.

Cricket will always miss these legends.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Better than sachin

 

[Cricket follower]

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.

You keep going on about why did not anyone else average 99 like Bradman in his era. I was stating in relation to the 1970s and 1980s. Bradman would never average 99 against Holding, Marshall, Roberts and Garner.

He struggled against Larwood in 1932. He struggled against Gilbert in 1931 where he got out for 0. His bat was knocked out of his hands by one delivery and he was floored by another.

Bradman against Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Botham, Procter, Garth le Roux, Snow, Willis, Daniel, Clarke, etc of the 1970s. He would average maybe between 50s and 60s.

 

[Cricket follower]

I mean not better than Sir Viv.
1. Viv
2. Bradman
3.Sobers
4. Lara

The rest are all lower.

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.

Viv Richards made at least one hundred against all the best bowlers of his era.

V Lillee - 5 hundreds.
V Thomson - 3 hundreds.
V Imran - 4 hundreds.
V Hadlee - 4 hundreds.
V Kapil - 4 hundreds.
V Holding - 3 hundreds.
V Marshall - 2 hundreds.
V Patterson - 2 hundreds.
V Botham - 6 hundreds.
V Willis - 5 hundreds.
V Underwood - 8 hundreds.
V Bedi - 4 hundreds.
V Prasanna - 2 hundreds.
V Chandrasekhar - 3 hundreds.
V Sarfaraz - 2 hundreds.
V Sylvester Clarke - 2 hundreds.
V Procter - 3 hundreds.
V Hogg - 3 hundreds.
V Gilmour - 3 hundreds.
V Lawson - 3 hundreds.
V John Lever - 3 hundreds.
V Chris Old - 5 hundreds.
V Dilley - 5 hundreds.
V Alderman - 2 hundreds.
V Dodemaide - 2 hundreds.
V Andy Roberts - 1 hundred but a daddy double hundred.
V Colin Croft - 1 hundred.
V Wayne Daniel - 1 hundred.
V Garner - 1 hundred.
V Bishop - 1 hundred.
V Ambrose - 1 hundred.
V Walsh - 1 hundred.
V Tony Gray - 1 hundred.
V Ezra Moseley - 1 hundred.
V Winston Davis - 1 hundred.
V Lance Gibbs - 1 hundred.
V Sobers - 1 hundred.
V Wasim Akram - 1 hundred.
V Abdul Qadir - 1 hundred.
V Danny Morrison - 1 hundred.
V Alan Donald - 1 hundred.
V Garth le Roux - 1 hundred.
V VB John - 1 hundred.
V Ashantha de Mel - 1 hundred.
V Somachandra de Silva - 1 hundred.
V Iqbal Qasim - 1 hundred.
V Angus Fraser - 1 hundred.
V Mallett - 1 hundred.
V Merv Hughes - 1 hundred.
V Rackemann - 1 hundred.
V McDermott - 1 hundred.
V Max Walker - 1 hundred.
V Pascoe - 1 hundred.
V Clive Rice - 1 hundred.

 

[Itachi]

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."?

 

[TestMatch]

I always liken Lara to Michael Jackson. He was massively talented, conquered all the records quickly (375, 501, most runs in a test over, fasted to 10,000 runs etc), was massively stylish, was at the top of the world, and then burned out. He even thought about quitting cricket in the mid 90s, not only because he'd lost interest, but because he got lost in partying and booze, came from poverty and had no father figure to help him handle the fame/money, and was constantly feuding with an increasingly authoritarian and inept cricket board. If it weren't for Jimmy Adams, he'd have walked out on the WICB's over team selection several times.

But as Steve Waugh said, you enthralled by Lara because he seems to get bigger and more determined the tougher the challenge and opposition is. All the greats have different types of peaks, but Lara's were these strangely epic and heroic individual knocks that seemed to have a drama you didn't find elsewhere.

Of all the greats, Lara's also the one who seems to have something tragic about him. You associate Lara with loss and heroic failure. There was something romantic about him being the team's lone fighter (Chanderpaul only learned to construct tons in the 2000s, Hooper only flourished when he got the captaincy, Sarwan and Gayle peaked after Lara retired, and Adams lost all his skill suddenly after a hit to the head).

 

[Cricket follower]

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."?

Great batsmen perform against all opposition. Sobers failed against New Zealand. 23.76 batting average in tests against New Zealand does not befit the best batsman of all-time. It is across 12 tests too which is a fair sample.

Lara performed below par against India with 34.55 test batting average from 17 tests.

The great batsmen perform against all teams, especially in tests. Bradman, Viv Richards and Tendulkar were consistent.

My test rankings would be:

1. Bradman.
2. Viv Richards.
3. Tendulkar.

Then come in any order Sobers, Lara, Hobbs.

If we consider test and odi cricket then my rankings would be:

1. Viv Richards.
2. Bradman.
3. Tendulkar.

 

[Robert]

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.

 

[Hitman]

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?

 

[Dulex9]

A very stylish, flamboyant, aesthetic player.

In full flow, just a joy to watch.

He along with Tendulkar the best batsman in the 90s.

 

[Majid Khan]

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.

 

[Robert]

Yea, what a unique criteria of greatness you have come up with. Warne saw Sachin in his dreams smacking him for 6's. So?

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?

 

[Robert]

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.

I don’t think they did, Richards retired from internationals in 1991.

 

[Hitman]

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?

So Imran's opinion counts, but Wisden's doesn't?

 

[Robert]

I tell a lie. Lara’s test debut was in 1990.

 

[Majid Khan]

I tell a lie. Lara’s test debut was in 1990.

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.


https://youtu.be/I3fzCLgnjNA

 

[MenInG]

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.

 

[MesonK]

I consider Lara and Sanga, Kallis to be equivalent and in few aspects better test batsmen than Sachin.

Deep filtered stat comparison required.

 

[MenInG]

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.

The 501 moment!

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/j08op8" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[Dulex9]

Lara was a special player, very talented. He averaged nearly 60 during 95/96, where he had 3-4 very good years, then Tendulkar started piling runs and 100s which he too averaged 59 at the end of 1999 from what I seen.

Lara was an amazing talent, I would pay to watch him batting, those lovely square drives, those crispy, beautiful cover drives, that pull where he lifts his leg.

Lara and Tendulkar along with S Waugh the best of the 90s batsman.

 

[Bhaijaan]

1. Greatest left handed batsman since Graham Pollock.

2. Arguably a Top 10 level All time test batsman

3. Arguably Top 15 level All time overall batsman


Definitely in Top 5 ( or favorite) of most people if asked who their favorite batsman ever was to watch in terms of stroke play. The guy was a show off! And in my years of watching cricket, no one showed it off as much and well as Lara. What an absolute treat to watch.

His ability to get locked in and punch of a double, triple, quadruple hundred on you was unbelievable.

I miss Lara

 

[PakLFC]

Only second to Sachin in my opinion. Better then Ponting and easily better then Haq too.

 

[Hitman]

Only second to Sachin in my opinion. Better then Ponting and easily better then Haq too.

Better than Kohli in your opinion?

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Greatest Test batsman of the last 50 years and amazing in ODIs as well

 

[PakLFC]

Better than Kohli in your opinion?

Yes Lara is better at the time of writing. Let's see where Kohli is by the end of his career.

 

[Savak]

Lara suffered greatly from playing for a poor team, captaincy pressure and boredom. He ended up getting a lot of stick for the fact that the WI were unable to win because of his knocks or he scored soft runs and went missing during the big moments.

The guy however compared to Teenda always passed the eye test and never compromised on his flamboyance. I will always pay to watch him. Maybe if he played for a stronger team he might have been better able to align his individual goals with the team goals

 

[BunnyRabbit]

One of the biggest underachievers in cricket. When he was there, he could singlehandedly change the fate of a match, especially tests(not many can do that). Till he was there, every target was achievable. He was flamboyant and aesthetically the best batter possibly. The swagger he had, the fear and tension was always palpable in the field. He could really dominate and you would want to see him dominate because of the way he did so. He was the king of big scores. Too bad he played for a much weaker team.
He had a questionable behavior as an individual though and some say he did not set a good example for his teammates.
But I saw his team swell from nothingness under Chanderpaul's captaincy to bursting with life when he took over again in 2006. India was on a roll during that time after beating Pak 4-1, WI somehow managed to outplay India with a 4-1 at home. His team went on a roll with great series, the Indonesia cup, the CT. Even in his final series (fortunately against Pak), he had 2 amazing innings, one of them was probably a double (don't remember the fine details). After that he started looking a bit worn out, just as the world cup came along. His tactics were pretty questionable during the tournament. But boy did he rule the Test arena.
People say that Ponting dominated the attacks in 90s and 2000s, but no one did it quite like The King did.

 

[MP2011]

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.

 

[Bhaijaan]

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.

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.

 

[Rajdeep]

Lara was a brilliant batsman but was very inconsistent. He would have great peak periods and then elongated dip in form. This was the main difference between him and someone like Sachin who was uber consistent.

In the late 90s, Lara was not even the best left handed batsman in the world and likes of Ganguly/Anwar was consistently outscoring him. With the turn of millenium, even Chanderpaul was outscoring him and was considered no 1 batsman for West Indies.

He was the most stylish batsman and when on song there are no better batsman to watch. But people only remember those knocks and forget how inconsistent he was. Thats why I rate him below Tendulkar, Ponting, Viv Richards etc.

 

[MP2011]

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.

 

[Bhaijaan]

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.

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.

 

[MP2011]

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.

That's true. And that after he had cushion of such great batsmen around him!

 

[BunnyRabbit]

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 had built a solid reputation for being talked about among the best by 2003.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Ponting has never been known for his exploits in '90s. Its '00s he dominated like no other other bat in that period.

Yes probably. Forgot he mostly batted at 6 in 90s.
Yes

 

[MenInG]

Happy Birthday Legend!

Born: May 2, 1969 (age 53 years), Santa Cruz, Trinidad and Tobago

 

[jeetu]

Statistically still the third best leftie to play the game.

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

The only thing that goes against Lara is below 50 away average. Pretty much all ATG have sailed above that mark.

List of top West Indies players with 2000+ away runs

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

One of the best 90's batsman , scored at higher SR than others.

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 scored big centuries in 90's but less than others in terms of numbers. Its shows he was slightly inconsistent but when on song could single handedly put his team accross.

Overall its tough to rate him among West Indies top 3 greats. Its too close to call.
1. Sobers scored less runs but at highest average also he bowled a lot of overs
2. Richards scored at much faster pace , the most naturally gifted of all.
3. Lara scored most runs, pretty much carried West Indies batting after Richards retired.

At his peak Lara avareged 60+.
By mid 96 he was undoubtly the best batsman playing.
33 test , 3197 runs. 60,32 avg , with 7 centuries.

 

[ElRaja]

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.

 

[James]

Happy birthday to the legendary strokemaker.

 

[Haseebster]

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??

 

[TheSultan]

Lara was probably the most gifted player I ever saw. For his gifts, he should have ended his career averaging about 65. So in this sense he underachieved but he was still the best batsman of that era. But there is an argument. If he fulfilled his potential there would be no argument.

The bradman topic is an interesting one. He struggled with pace, but would he have struggled with modern equipment like a helmet. I don’t think so.

With Viv though it is amplified even further. He faced the quickest bowlers ever without a helmet and we all know how legendary he was.

With Bradman we would never know but with Viv we do know.

So in my mind It is:

1. Viv Richards
2. Lara
3. Bradman

No one else gets on to the podium.

 

[ElRaja]

"Peak Lara was still ATG level" . . . not Lara overall??

peak lara, i.e. the one that averages 60 at a s/r of low 60s gets into an all time xi with bradman and viv for mine, but his mid career slump and his overall record brings him in line with lots of batsmen across history.

considering one spot in any all time xi middle order goes to bradman, you only really have two more spots, and i think theres pbly 9 or 10 batsmen, viv, tendu, smith, chappell, punter, wallcott, sobers and potentially players like root too who hed be fighting with for that position.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Join me in congratulating the young <a href="https://twitter.com/Jaspritbumrah93?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Jaspritbumrah93</a> on breaking the record of Most Runs in a Single Over in Tests. Well done!&#55356;&#57286;<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/icctestchampionship?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#icctestchampionship</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/testcricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#testcricket</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/recordbreaker?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#recordbreaker</a> <a href="https://t.co/bVMrpd6p1V">pic.twitter.com/bVMrpd6p1V</a></p>— Brian Lara (@BrianLara) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrianLara/status/1543287886103068673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Manunited18]

For me the Greatest batsman I've ever seen: Sir Brian Charles Lara.

 

[Sunzi]

To have his world record broken and to go and reclaim it kind of sums him up. I always recount his ton to chase down Australia in a time where such chases (let alone vs Aus, with the team capitulating around him) were unheard of.

The unmistakable elegance with which he batted, the ability to bat big (has a lot of double-tons+ and that 501 for Warwickshire) and with no weaknesses, to have done it everywhere and against everyone healthily against vaunted attacks of the 90s - can't help but romanticise over Lara. It shouldn't matter that he's left-handed but it does. What a player.

His attacking flair was encouragement for bowlers, but it was attacking flair that was so punishing for bowlers. Lara... damn, what a player.

 

[TheSultan]

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..

 

[James]

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

 

[TheSultan]

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

Maybe - all these intangibles are hard to quantify. Viv batted in arguably more testing conditions too. Someone could argue that Viv was also part of the team that became the greatest - he played a massive role in that too. Lara never took his team to those heights, albeit he didn’t have the quality that Viv had at his disposal.

Very hard. I don’t try to overthink it. They are both right at the top for me so if someone says one is better than the other I wont argue.

 

[MenInG]

On the occasion of International Lefthanders day - time to recall the genius of Brian Lara.

 

[shaz619]

He was the best of his era and far superior to any of the over rated hacks in India

 

[IMMY69]

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

 

[MenInG]

He was the best of his era and far superior to any of the over rated hacks in India

Thing is there are many who scores runs, but Lara did it with style!

 

[PakLFC]

Second to Sachin but ahead of Inzi and Ponting. Overall the most graceful batsman to watch off all time. No one today compares to Sachin or Brian Lara.

 

[NishanKonar]

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.

 

[shaz619]

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

And the GOAT had his own iconic video game series, such was his flamboyance

 

[shaz619]

Thing is there are many who scores runs, but Lara did it with style!

Those calypso cover drives were the stuff of dreams and how he would attack spin!

 

[sweep_shot]

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.

I agree.

All the statistics aside, I think peak Brian Lara is the best batsman in cricket history. I think he is better than Donald Bradman because Bradman didn't face many teams in different conditions.

 

[MenInG]

Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara honoured at the Sydney Cricket Ground

International cricketing greats Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar have joined Sir Donald Bradman, Alan Davidson and Arthur Morris by having a set of gates named in their honour at the Sydney Cricket Ground.

The gates, used to access the field of play, were unveiled to mark Tendulkar’s 50th birthday and 30 years since Lara’s innings of 277 at the Sydney Cricket Ground.

All visiting cricket players will take to the field through the Lara-Tendulkar Gates, which are situated between the Members Pavilion’s away dressing room and the Noble Bradman Messenger Stand.

The Australian cricket team enter the field via the Don Bradman Gates between the Members and Ladies Pavilions, while the Arthur Morris and Alan Davidson Gates front Driver Avenue.

“The Sydney Cricket Ground has been my favourite ground away from India,” Tendulkar said.

“I have had some great memories at the SCG right from my first tour of Australia in 1991-92. It is a great honour to have the gates used by all visiting cricketers to access the field of play at the SCG named after me and my good friend Brian.

“I would like to thank the team at the SCG and Cricket Australia for this kind gesture. I look forward to visiting the SCG soon.”

Lara said: "I'm deeply honoured to be recognised at the Sydney Cricket Ground, as I'm sure Sachin is. The ground holds many special memories for me and my family and I always enjoy visiting whenever I'm in Australia."

The gates were unveiled by SCG and Venues NSW Chairman Rod McGeoch AO and CEO Kerrie Mather, as well as Cricket Australia CEO Nick Hockley.

“Sachin Tendulkar’s record at the SCG is simply remarkable, while Brian Lara’s maiden Test century remains one of the most celebrated innings by a visiting player,” Ms Mather said.

“Both players continue to hold a deep affection for the SCG and they remain hugely popular whenever they visit Sydney.”

Cricket Australia CEO Nick Hockley added: “As the cricketing world celebrates Sachin Tendulkar’s 50th birthday, this is a fitting and timely gesture by the SCG to recognise Sachin and Brian Lara as two legends of the international game with exceptional records at the SCG.

“Their feats will no doubt be an inspiration to not only visiting international teams, but all players fortunate enough to walk onto the hallowed turf of the Sydney Cricket Ground, for generations to come.”

The plaque reads:

BRIAN LARA – SACHIN TENDULKAR GATES

These gates are named in honour of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara and are used to access the field by all visiting cricketers at the SCG.

Tendulkar scored three centuries in five Tests at the SCG for India and averaged 157 at what he described as his favourite cricket ground outside of his homeland.

Lara, the Prince of Trinidad, announced himself to the cricketing world in January 1993 by scoring 277 against Australia at the SCG, his first of 34 Test centuries.

 

[MenInG]

Recently, the cricket fraternity celebrated Lara's 19th anniversary of the day he slammed the highest Test score of 400 not out against England in 2004, in Antigua. Now a new twist has popped up in the story, with SRH bowling coach Steyn revealing that South Africa helped keep the West Indies great's record intact.

Speaking on the franchise's YouTube channel, Steyn revealed that Lara, who is also SRH head coach, was nostalgic about his knock in the team bus, to which the South African simply replied, "I literally just looked at him and said, 'You're welcome. You still have your record due to South Africa'"

Recalling how it happened, Steyn took his story back to July 2006 during the first Test of a two-match series between South Africa and Sri Lanka. South Africa won the toss and opted to bat, but were bowled out for 169. In response, the Lankans faltered early at 14/2, but Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene came to their rescue. "This is where the story starts to kick in. Mahela (Jayawardene) and (Kumar) Sangakkara are batting together, Sangakkara is on strike. He cuts one straight to Jacques Rudolph at point, he drops the catch and it lands on the floor. The very next ball I run in, I’m an angered young man…Sanga drags the ball onto the stumps. Umpire puts his hand out and its a no ball", Steyn said.

"We never sniffed a wicket in that entire time. At Tea on day three, we'd been fielding for two and a half days in the sun. Ashwell (Prince, who was captain on the tour) and the South Africans all get together and our team talk was not about how we're gonna draw or win this game. Mahela was on 370 somewhere and we just said, 'We need to do anything possible to make sure he didn't break Brian Lara’s record.

With Jayawardene edging towards Lara's historic 400, the Proteas finally managed to break the partnership. "We come out of the tea. Andre Nel is the bowler. And I’ve been fielding at mid off for most of this game. I’d seen everything happen in this game at mid off. I think he had run every milestone to me. I think he just blocked the ball and ran to me at this point. Nel ran in, he dragged one short, it was halfway down the pitch. I basically looked at the square leg because the bulk of the time that was where the ball was going. And for some crazy weird reason this ball didn’t get higher than ankle height and it castled Mahela’s stumps and we got him out for 374", Steyn said.

In that match, Sangakkara and Jayawardene's partnership of 624 runs remains the highest in Test history. Sri Lanka went on to win the first Test by an innings and 153 runs, followed by a series-clinching win in the second fixture. Meanwhile, Jayawardene's knock of 374 is also the fourth-highest in Test cricket history.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...ed-wi-legends-400-record-101682745546616.html

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Today genius Lara turns 55.

Brian Lara is a strong contender for the spot of the runner up to Don Bradman amongst batsmen in test cricket. In the rating’s evaluation of Ananth Narayana of cricinfo blogs in 2009.Lara was ranked only 2nd to Bradman. The main criteria that placed Lara on this pedestal was the sum of his match performances which assessed average percentage score of team’s total, influence on game, nature of pitches strength of bowling attack ,strength of opponents and team played for etc. Notable that no post-war great had as high an average percentage score of team’s total as Lara.No great batsmen ever after George Headley had as weaks a supporting cast. It diagnosed that Lara had a more profound effect in turning games than Sachin Tendulkar .Often Lara’s slump coincided with golden period of Tendulkar.

In his peak eras, considering the strength of the team he represented, Lara arguably surpassed Sachin Tendulkar in test cricket. It is virtually impossible to seperate Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara’s merits in test cricket, with even margin of a whisker, hard to separate them. Possibly never have two best batsmen of an era, been as close to each other as this pair. Making a comparison, may do grave injustice to both players, who were both outstanding in their own right. Tendulkar had more mastery, Lara more genius. Tendulkar had better grammar being a better player technically, Lara was more poetic, with higher level of artistry. Tendulkar was more clinical, Lara more destructive. endulkar was more consistent and had greater longevity at the top , Lara was better at his best and at his peak more impactful . Tendulkar had a more staggering aggregate and number of centuries, but Lara had better highest test scores and displayed more superiority over peers, at peak. In my personal view, Lara was better in turning the complexion of test match or better match-winner and by a whisker, a better player of spin, pace or in negotiating a crisis. Still on bad wickets, they were inseparable. No era had two batsmen of such stature, as head and shoulders above others. Considering ODI’s I would overall rate Sachin a touch ahead. In an all-time test match XI I may select both Lara and Tendulkar, but if forced to make a choice with a gun on my head, my just give the vote to Lara, for his prowess in turning games single-handedly .

Lara could literally blow absolutely hot or cold, with his form or touch fluctuating 360 degrees. On his day he would rule with the majestic aura of an emperor while on another would like someone in no man’s land. It is hard to evaluate whether to attribute his inconsistency due to the weakness of the team he played for.

Commendable that Lara averaged 51 against Australia, 53.31 against Pakistan and 46.6 against South Africa who had the best bowling attacks of that era.

Lara overall scored 20%of his team’s runs overall, with only Bradman and George Headley higher in that respect.

Amongst left –handed batsmen, subjectively Lara would get my nod as the best ever, even if Gary Sobers ,K umar Sangakkara and Graeme Pollock had higher batting averages or Alan Border surpassed Lara’s average, overseas. Lara turned games in a crisis with spectacular consistency, which Sobers ,Sangakkara and Pollock did not equal and wore down great bowlers more than Border. No doubt Sobers dazzled more and Border was more prolific against top pace, but Lara withstood more testing conditions and circumstances, with a more prolonged tenure at the top and at his best, could be even more mercurial.

If one mathematically scales what Lara would have performed had he played for a team as strong as Viv Richards did or even Gary Sobers, it is possible he may have even overshadowed Viv and Sobers However that is hypothetical and mathematical tabulation can never completely give correct picture..Lara did not equal to Viv as a pure match-winner or ability against express pace but was more proven in a crisis or single handedly holding a team’s mantle as well as had higher longevity.

I have no doubt that no Carribean batsmen or left-hander was Lara’s equal against spin .Although he averaged less Lara was more dynamic than George Headley.

Lara would win my vote as the best ever Carribean test match batsmen.

David Gower ranks Lara in 6th place amongst his 50 greatest cricketers, while in selection of top 100 cricketers Cristopher Martin Jenkins places him 24th and Geoff Armstrong 21st.

Pakistani cricketers like Saed Anwar and Inzamama UL Haq or even Wasim Akram ,have preferred Lara over Tendulkar in an all-time XI, but this is highly debatable. Glen Mcgrath and Jacques Kallis , rate Lara the bets batsmen of their era.

25 cricketers selected Lara in their all-time XI,I ncluding Zaheer Abbas,Bob Willis,Abdul Qadir,Alec Stewart, Jacques Kallis,Alan Donald,Wasim Akram,Waqar Younis,Saed Anwar,InzamamUL Haq ,Rahul Drvaid and Kapil Dev.

In pure test cricket I would rate Lara, behind only Bradman and Jack Hobbs, and just a whisker ahead of Tendulkar. Overall, adding ODI’s, I would rate him, amongst the 5 best batsmen ever, behind Bradman, Hobbs. Tendulkar an d Viv Richards.

Amongst the greatest cricketers I would place Lara, in the top dozen ever.

Amongst left-handed cricketers I would behind Sir Garfield Sobers virtually dead heat Lara with Wasim Akram, rating them both a whisker above Adam Gilchrist.

 

[mominsaigol]

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.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Nice write up, Lara along with sobers is the Goat left handed batter.

Sanga isn't in the same class and pollock had a very small sample size

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Lara was the best Odi batsman in the world for a few years

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.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@Harsh Thakor your line 'On his day he would rule with the majestic aura of an emperor' is very true. When in full flow there was nothing like Lara. A beautiful combination of style,impact,arrogance,timing and grace. The way he could go up and down the gears against quality bowling is unparalleled.