What's new

Brian Lara's match winning centuries and half centuries

T

tempus123

T20I Debutant
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Runs
6,795
People often talk about Lara being the match "winner" and having played a lot of match winning knocks. While I agree with it in general, but going by the strict definition of match winning centuries:

He has scored 8 of his overall 34 centuries in winning causes. Add to it, 16 of his overall 48 fifties came in victories.

If you total these up, we can say he performed well in overall 82 times (34 hundreds and 48 fifties) and out of those 82 good innings, 24 have come in winning causes.

Not withstanding the fact that not all of these "good" innings are match wining innings, it is safe to say he has overall contributed in less than 24 wins of WI.

Comments and opinions ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;runsval2=runs;template=results;type=batting
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its bowlers who wins you matches. Batsmen just set a game for you to win it.

Just checked Younus Khans stats. He is averaging 170+ with 3200 runs. :yk

/thread
 
Last edited:
Vulcan said:
Its bowlers who wins you matches. Batsmen just set a game for you to win it.

/thread
Click to expand...

True, but people often in this forum itself talk about match winner as someone who won the match with the bat, and Lara is supposed to have played the most of such innings.
 
Wow 34 centuries look minuscule now, how times change. Out of these only 8 in winning cause.
 
I expected more from Lara, I was thinking about 20, 8 is quite poor...Perth 100 was a great innings however Lara had Ambrose and Walsh winning the game for WI......
 
Batsmen can only really have a big say in winning matches in ODIs. In tests you can have the best batting lineup in the world and still fail to win a single match.
 
ChachaCricket said:
Tendulkar was the real match-winner. Lara was a faker.
Click to expand...

Please don't make it a Tendulkar-Lara thread, I want to discuss only Lara and possibly other players to know more about the concept of match winning batsmen.

Lara in fact had a weak bowling unit with him for latter part of his career.
 
Have I got the stats wrong.. if someone knows, please correct the link of proper stats.
 
tempus123 said:
Yes. In fact out of these 8 centuries, 5 are in WI, and 1 each in Aus/NZ/Zim. surprisingly none in Eng/India/Pakistan/SL ?
Click to expand...

That 100 in Perth turned into a match winning effort because Ambrose and Walsh, they bowled WI to victory..
 
Last edited:
tempus123 said:
Ambrose was a beast.. but Lara played really well in that innings..
Click to expand...

True Words, if Ambrose didnt play that game they wouldnt have won that match.. Lara played a great innings agreed.... Bowlers win matches batsmen set it up.....We saw a steady decline in Ponting led side's match winning after McWarne retired...
 
Romali_rotti said:
True Words, if Ambrose didnt play that game they wouldnt have won that match.. Lara played a great innings agreed.... Bowlers win matches batsmen set it up.....We saw a steady decline in Ponting led side's match winning after McWarne retired...
Click to expand...

That means concept of a match winning batsman is a bit overhyped. All a batsman can do mostly is to setup a game, not win it all the time.
 
tempus123 said:
That means concept of a match winning batsman is a bit overhyped. All a batsman can do mostly is to setup a game, not win it all the time.
Click to expand...

Majority of the time if the bowlers don't show up, the batsmen wont be able to win the game... Ofcourse there will be exceptions...........
 
lara when he got in could force results from positions mere mortals could not. hence the reason he is considered the greatest of the era. but consistency was not his strong suit. imagine if he had the hunger for runs that tendulkar or kallis had, he'd be easily considered the second greatest rather than having to settle for the 'best of this era' tag
 
anuk said:
lara when he got in could force results from positions mere mortals could not.
Click to expand...

I recall one such innings, the 150 vs Aus in WI. What are these other such innings where he forced the result mortals could not which ofcourse is a WI victory (test matches)...
 
anuk said:
lara when he got in could force results from positions mere mortals could not. hence the reason he is considered the greatest of the era. but consistency was not his strong suit. imagine if he had the hunger for runs that tendulkar or kallis had, he'd be easily considered the second greatest rather than having to settle for the 'best of this era' tag
Click to expand...

Strictly talking about being a "match winner" how do you rate him ?
 
Romali_rotti said:
I recall one such innings, the 150 vs Aus in WI. What are these other such innings where he forced the result mortals could not which ofcourse is a WI victory (test matches)...
Click to expand...

Mostly it's a perception. If you talk about winning the match through this "mere mortals can't think of" point, a century is needed.. since there are only 8 such centuries.. it looks unlikely to justify he was able to do it many times.

Playing a good innings is different from playing a match winning innings, by the definition.
 
tempus123 said:
People often talk about Lara being the match "winner" and having played a lot of match winning knocks. While I agree with it in general, but going by the strict definition of match winning centuries:

He has scored 8 of his overall 34 centuries in winning causes. Add to it, 16 of his overall 48 fifties came in victories.

If you total these up, we can say he performed well in overall 82 times (34 hundreds and 48 fifties) and out of those 82 good innings, 24 have come in winning causes.

Not withstanding the fact that not all of these "good" innings are match wining innings, it is safe to say he has overall contributed in less than 24 wins of WI.

Comments and opinions ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;runsval2=runs;template=results;type=batting
Click to expand...

The innings in themselves are match winning but it's not batsman fault if the rest of the team is so poor and you can't win.

Poor thread and it was surely coming form you.

Tendulkar has not got innings that can match Lara's.
That's all you have to understand.
 
In fact Lara was superb in that series.. of 4 Tests..

60, 213, 153*, 100 are his performances in those 4 Tests in 1999 Australia's tour of WI.
 
Mobashir said:
The innings in themselves are match winning but it's not batsman fault if the rest of the team is so poor and you can't win.

Poor thread and it was surely coming form you.

Tendulkar has not got innings that can match Lara's.
That's all you have to understand.
Click to expand...

Please talk about "match winning" centuries only.
 
Lara was very talented and was very good. In my eyes, Lara hasn't accomplished what he could have accomplished, but then again, most of the cricketers never fulfill their potential anyway.
 
Thivagar said:
Lara was very talented and was very good. In my eyes, Lara hasn't accomplished what he could have accomplished, but then again, most of the cricketers never fulfill their potential anyway.
Click to expand...

Please talk about "match winning" contributions only. There is no doubt about his talent or class etc.
 
One poster said Lara didn't have appetite for big runs... :)))

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Anuk meant the consistency aspect more than taking off when set.

Hunger for runs is always linked to consistency more than big scores.
Click to expand...

Actually hunger for runs argument is mostly used against those players who throw their wicket away after 100 and not go on to make doubles.
 
Averages in wins are wildly misleading. They donot in isolation signify anything about a player's match winning ability.
 
OS_89 said:
Averages in wins are wildly misleading. They donot in isolation signify anything about a player's match winning ability.
Click to expand...

If you observe PP for old threads, the "match winning" term is used for the batsmen who score 50+ runs in a math which their team won.
 
Tempu bhai,

it all goes down to one thing - ''EYES''

Eyes my friend, single greatest factor in determining greatnmess. You see'em and you know'em. As simple as that and the fact is all those players who played these guys, and all those reliable analysts who actually watched some freaking cricket boil it down to TWO batsmen when it comes to who ruled the roster 90s onwards and they are Tendulkar and Lara.

.. and not a single player and analyst out of all those ever comes up with bull sht espn statsguru stats coz they are for nerds who prefer mathematics to their own perception of the reality.

Pretty sure Warne, McGrath, Murali, Wasim don't go to cricinfo statsguru before they name Tendulkar and Lara as the absolute two batsmen they played against.

Thats been the case and that will always be the case. Ex cricketers and experts judge players based on how they saw them play. Greatness is just Greatness, it is never accumulated.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Tempu bhai,

it all goes down to one thing - ''EYES''

Eyes my friend, single greatest factor in determining greatnmess. You see'em and you know'em. As simple as that and the fact is all those players who played these guys, and all those reliable analysts who actually watched some freaking cricket boil it down to TWO batsmen when it comes to who ruled the roster 90s onwards and they are Tendulkar and Lara.

.. and not a single player and analyst out of all those ever comes up with bull sht espn statsguru stats coz they are for nerds who prefer mathematics to their own perception of the reality.

Pretty sure Warne, McGrath, Murali, Wasim don't go to cricinfo statsguru before they name Tendulkar and Lara as the absolute two batsmen they played against.

Thats been the case and that will always be the case. Ex cricketers and experts judge players based on how they saw them play. Greatness is just Greatness, it is never accumulated.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just want to settle this "match winning" argument once. If a great player like Lara had only 8 match winning centuries, was he an inferior player than say a Ponting or Viv ?
 
tempus123 said:
In fact Lara was superb in that series.. of 4 Tests..

60, 213, 153*, 100 are his performances in those 4 Tests in 1999 Australia's tour of WI.
Click to expand...

probably the best batting displays by a single batsmen against a world class bowling attack ive seen in a test series.
 
I think we should embrace the fact that there are biases which creep in to how we judge players. Some of these biases relate to
- era: I.e., pitch condition, quality of opposition, playing conditions
- nationality: it's always there at some level for or against a player
- the style of play: the more attractive the style of play compared to peers.
Facts and numbers are important and if harnesses properly will go a big way in helping teams win more often.
If I look at my own method of judging players, I tend to be strongly biased the third bias: how attractive is the style of play.
Having said the above, I have always rated Lara higher than Tendulkar in tests because I just found him to be a more exhilarating player than Tendulkar.
But I do not allow that bias to claim Wasim is better than McGrath in Tests: there is a big difference between the two, but you will find quite a lot of ex players who think Wasim was the more dangerous the more complete fast bowler.

It's just how it goes.
 
Amjid Javed said:
probably the best batting displays by a single batsmen against a world class bowling attack ive seen in a test series.
Click to expand...

Lara's performance in SL was superb too where he got 600+ runs. Also Hayden's 2001 India tour was superb, he got 500+ runs.
 
Lara has probably 4-5 centuries in wins against non-minnows.

Bowlers argument is flawed for Lara. Many gun bowlers played with him. If anything, having few good batsmen would have ensured more runs for WI and Lara would have ended with more than 4-5 centuries. Some centuries didn't help his team because there was no intention to win from Lara & Co. Centuries many not result in wins but you win or lose based on combined strength of 11 players.

Anyway, centuries/average in wins is meaningless number. I won't hold it against Lara. But at same time, it's hilarious to see fans using an argument that Lara was one of the biggest match winner without backing it up with facts.
 
Pete Rose said:
I think we should embrace the fact that there are biases which creep in to how we judge players. Some of these biases relate to
- era: I.e., pitch condition, quality of opposition, playing conditions
- nationality: it's always there at some level for or against a player
- the style of play: the more attractive the style of play compared to peers.
Facts and numbers are important and if harnesses properly will go a big way in helping teams win more often.
If I look at my own method of judging players, I tend to be strongly biased the third bias: how attractive is the style of play.
Having said the above, I have always rated Lara higher than Tendulkar in tests because I just found him to be a more exhilarating player than Tendulkar.
But I do not allow that bias to claim Wasim is better than McGrath in Tests: there is a big difference between the two, but you will find quite a lot of ex players who think Wasim was the more dangerous the more complete fast bowler.

It's just how it goes.
Click to expand...

How much you rate "match winning" ability of a batsman ?
 
Buffet said:
Lara has probably 4-5 centuries in wins against non-minnows.

Bowlers argument is flawed for Lara. Many gun bowlers played with him. If anything, having few good batsmen would have ensured more runs for WI and Lara would have ended with more than 4-5 centuries. Some centuries didn't help his team because there was no intention to win from Lara & Co. Centuries many not result in wins but you win or lose based on combined strength of 11 players.

Anyway, centuries/average in wins is meaningless number. I won't hold it against Lara. But at same time, it's hilarious to see fans using an argument that Lara was one of the biggest match winner without backing it up with facts.
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is the purpose I opened this thread for, do you think it's a poor thread as some other posters are claiming ?
 
Last edited:
tempus123 said:
How much you rate "match winning" ability of a batsman ?
Click to expand...

Well, first I tend to agree with a lot of of the folks above who point out that you need a stronger batting line up to ensure that the star batsman is a match winner. I think bowlers are more likely to match winners than batsmen. As an example, I am pretty sure that Ponting probably is a 'bigger match winner' than Tendulkar or Lara because whenever he scored the big runs, he had the bowlers and the batsmen to ensure that he ended up on the winning side.
bear in mind I discuss tests only.
I believe batsmen can be truly match winning in odi and t20. A test match is too long for a batsman to be singularly responsible as a match winner.
 
tempus123 said:
Your last paragraph is the purpose I opened this thread for, do you think it's a poor thread as some other posters are claiming ?
Click to expand...

Thread is fine but it shouldn't be used to attack Lara. Lara has low number of centuries in wins compared to his ATG peers but we shouldn't mix individual results with team results.
 
Buffet said:
Thread is fine but it shouldn't be used to attack Lara. Lara has low number of centuries in wins compared to his ATG peers but we shouldn't mix individual results with team results.
Click to expand...

I never consider the strict definition of "match winning batsmen" in my analysis of a player, so I can't use it to attack anyone.

The purpose is to throw open the logic and see how many people use it without knowing the meaning.

In my opinion, Lara was a superb match winner, he many times did all he could to put his team in winning position or bail his team out of trouble.

If anything, I rate players who perform in losing causes better, only factor is that the match should be alive.

In fact I am using Lara's greatness to attack the concept of match winning ability rather than the other way round.
 
Last edited:
tempus123 said:
I never consider the strict definition of "match winning batsmen" in my analysis of a player, so I can't use it to attack anyone.

The purpose is to throw open the logic and see how many people use it without knowing the meaning.

In my opinion, Lara was a superb match winner, he many times did all he could to put his team in winning position or bail his team out of trouble.

If anything, I rate players who perform in losing causes better, only factor is that the match should be alive.

In fact I am using Lara's greatness to attack the concept of match winning ability rather than the other way round.
Click to expand...
In test yes, but in odi's no.
 
Pete Rose said:
In test yes, but in odi's no.
Click to expand...

Yes, talking strictly about Tests here, but in ODis also, batsmen who score in losing causes are more attractive to me, if they played a lone warrior innings.

The thumb rule is that, usually the better bowling side wins the Test, and if you made a good century against them in a losing cause, it will prove your ability to handle tough attacks.
 
tempus123 said:
Actually hunger for runs argument is mostly used against those players who throw their wicket away after 100 and not go on to make doubles.
Click to expand...

When talking about hunger for big runs....people say hunger for BIG runs and specify it.

When talking in general where nothing is specified, it almost always means being consistent.
 
Match-winning ability is not directly proportional to something like centuries in wins or averages in wins. Its a very twisted metric, which depends on whole lot of factors, not only on a player's match-winning ability alone. Its particularly misleading when comparing players of two different teams or eras.

To determine someone's match-winning ability of a player, you have to follow all his career, match by match to see, in which situations he has scored his runs and where he has failed to deliver.

Match-winning ability, in simple words means the ability to score runs when your team needed them. Lara, since played in a weaker team, would find himself in situations where his team would be in a hopeless position, more often as compared to other great players who played in stronger teams. And on occasions, where run scoring could have created impact and he scored some runs, his team would unable to capitalize on match situation. So its very unlikely that his match-winning ability is going to be reflected in his overall stats.
 
If u meant winning a game single handedly then for me Lara's match winning 150 not out or so against Australia in a Test match in late 90s neutralizes many failures of his.

Tell me which else big name has played such innings?
And that too against McGrath and Warne.
 
Last edited:
Stallion__ said:
And on occasions, where run scoring could have created impact and he scored some runs, his team would unable to capitalize on match situation. So its very unlikely that his match-winning ability is going to be reflected in his overall stats.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh another one of these posts,,, Indian fans who does this remind you of ??? :)
 
zabalestmsm said:
If u meant winning a game single handedly then for me Lara's match winning 150 not out or so against Australia in a Test match in late 90s neutralizes many failures of his.

Tell me which else big name has played such innings?
And that too against McGrath and Warne.
Click to expand...

Laxman, with an even better innings........
 
This is one of my reasons for not rating Lara a clear cut above his peers. Lara had immense ability to play these sort of match winning knocks and was the finest of his generation, but still he produced them only occasionally. Some of Lara's biggest knocks were played on flat pitches with dull draws. Transforming all their ability to the field consistently has been a hard job even for the best players.
 
Bradman and Lara both scored about 23 percent of their team's runs. To give you an idea of the lack of support he's had to deal with, the corresponding figure for Viv Richards is 15%.

If you're making Bradman level contributions to your team, and you're still losing, you're obviously on a team of incompetents.
 
tempus123 said:
Yes, talking strictly about Tests here, but in ODis also, batsmen who score in losing causes are more attractive to me, if they played a lone warrior innings.

The thumb rule is that, usually the better bowling side wins the Test, and if you made a good century against them in a losing cause, it will prove your ability to handle tough attacks.
Click to expand...
Scoring in losing cause in odi and tests depends on context as you mentioned in one of your earlier posts in this thread. i judge batsmen scoring in losing causes much harsher than tests. Odi batsmen should be able to win it.
 
TestMatch said:
Bradman and Lara both scored about 23 percent of their team's runs. To give you an idea of the lack of support he's had to deal with, the corresponding figure for Viv Richards is 15%.

If you're making Bradman level contributions to your team, and you're still losing, you're obviously on a team of incompetents.
Click to expand...

Throughout the 90s Lara was part of a superb bowling unit headed by Ambrose. So Lara had some form of compensation for his team mates average batting depth.
 
zabalestmsm said:
If u meant winning a game single handedly then for me Lara's match winning 150 not out or so against Australia in a Test match in late 90s neutralizes many failures of his.

Tell me which else big name has played such innings?
And that too against McGrath and Warne.
Click to expand...

How can it neutralize really ? Does Afridi's 37-ball 100 neutralize all of his ODI failures ?
 
Guys, we are talking about probably the biggest match winner of the previous generation, and are coming up with new definitions of match winning now to hang on to our logic while trying to keep Lara at the top.. interesting.
 
Pete Rose said:
Scoring in losing cause in odi and tests depends on context as you mentioned in one of your earlier posts in this thread. i judge batsmen scoring in losing causes much harsher than tests. Odi batsmen should be able to win it.
Click to expand...

If a team is chasing 300+ and it has only one batsman scoring 150 and still loses the match by 10 runs.. vs another team chasing 280 and has 2 batsmen scoring 70s and another batsman scoring 50 while winning the match, who should be rated higher ?
 
Pete Rose said:
Scoring in losing cause in odi and tests depends on context as you mentioned in one of your earlier posts in this thread. i judge batsmen scoring in losing causes much harsher than tests. Odi batsmen should be able to win it.
Click to expand...

Scoring big in a losing cause is often easier - because if the match is easily lost, there will be no pressure on the batsman - he can play freely without being subjected to judgement. For example, Laxman 167 was a classy knock but playing a similar innings is much harder if India were chasing an achievable target. Now if Laxman had got out at 80 to a brash shot in that match, nobody would judge him because India was going to lose anyway. But if India were chasing 220 and the Laxman failed to a bad shot after getting a good start, every one would be ready to pounce on him. Scoring big in a win, especially when the batsman has not received much help from the bowlers is much harder than scoring big in a lost cause. Of course context is important, there are situations when big scores in a lost match are great knocks.
 
IndianWillow said:
Scoring big in a losing cause is often easier - because if the match is easily lost, there will be no pressure on the batsman - he can play freely without being subjected to judgement. For example, Laxman 167 was a classy knock but playing a similar innings is much harder if India were chasing an achievable target. Now if Laxman had got out at 80 to a brash shot in that match, nobody would judge him because India was going to lose anyway. But if India were chasing 220 and the Laxman failed to a bad shot after getting a good start, every one would be ready to pounce on him. Scoring big in a win, especially when the batsman has not received much help from the bowlers is much harder than scoring big in a lost cause. Of course context is important, there are situations when big scores in a lost match are great knocks.
Click to expand...

I already mentioned the match should be alive for the innings to make sense.
 
tempus123 said:
If a team is chasing 300+ and it has only one batsman scoring 150 and still loses the match by 10 runs.. vs another team chasing 280 and has 2 batsmen scoring 70s and another batsman scoring 50 while winning the match, who should be rated higher ?
Click to expand...

If you want to go for outliers, let's take an actual example: Inzi in Karachi 2004 v India was probably one of those rare odi rare innings which deserve applause. But honestly, if you score 150 and you can't score the final 10.. credit goes to the bowlers.
 
Pete Rose said:
If you want to go for outliers, let's take an actual example: Inzi in Karachi 2004 v India was probably one of those rare odi rare innings which deserve applause. But honestly, if you score 150 and you can't score the final 10.. credit goes to the bowlers.
Click to expand...

Yes, Inzy's innings was probably one of the very best ODI innings under pressure. I would rate it higher than some of the other match winning innings' played in the same series.
 
tempus123 said:
How can it neutralize really ? Does Afridi's 37-ball 100 neutralize all of his ODI failures ?
Click to expand...
Dude also note the difference of attacks. And also chasing in the 4th innings of a Test match is really tough and that too much against the likes of McGrath and Warne.

I didnt say it neutralizes all his failures. But some or many.

And Afridi's knock was special but no way near in terms of quality. And it was in the first innings.
 
IndianWillow said:
Scoring big in a losing cause is often easier - because if the match is easily lost, there will be no pressure on the batsman - he can play freely without being subjected to judgement. For example, Laxman 167 was a classy knock but playing a similar innings is much harder if India were chasing an achievable target. Now if Laxman had got out at 80 to a brash shot in that match, nobody would judge him because India was going to lose anyway. But if India were chasing 220 and the Laxman failed to a bad shot after getting a good start, every one would be ready to pounce on him. Scoring big in a win, especially when the batsman has not received much help from the bowlers is much harder than scoring big in a lost cause. Of course context is important, there are situations when big scores in a lost match are great knocks.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of the above. My point was maybe a little unclear: a failure to force a win in odi is greater than a failure to force a win in a test, when chasing a higher score. It doesn't necessarily mean that scoring in a losing cause in tests is better that scoring in a losing cause in odi's. I hope my point is not too convoluted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Pakistan players with the most number of wins in ICC knockout matches - Abdul Razzaq, Shahid Afridi and Shoaib Malik!
Replies
16
Views
725
RizwanT20Champ
R
BouncerGuy
[PICTURE] ICC Test Team of the Year (2024) announced
Replies
48
Views
901
charlie007
C
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Inzamam-ul-Haq, Misbah-ul-Haq, Mushtaq Mohammad and Saeed Anwar named in the PCB Hall of Fame for 2024
2
Replies
106
Views
4K
RizwanT20Champ
R
Devadwal
[PICTURE] ICC ODI Team of the Year (2024) announced
Replies
0
Views
363
Devadwal
Devadwal
BouncerGuy
Nominations for the World Test Championship (2023-25) Team of the Tournament
Replies
18
Views
535
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Back
Top