Brian Lara's match winning centuries and half centuries

[zabalestmsm]

Laxman, with an even better innings........

Respect to that innings but chasing is something different.

 

[EliteCynical]

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 ?

Still managed to score 688 runs (yes 688) in a 3 match series vs SL. Pity WI ended up losing the series 3-0. Emphasises the point that this is a team game and individual records are secondary. He was essentially a one man army in that series. And 14 years down the line, here we are talking about him not having a single match winning century in SL. Here is where I feel stats could be cruel. One had to watch that series to know what Lara was all about.

 

[Pete Rose]

Respect to that innings but chasing is something different.

Do you think it's better than Azhar Mahmood at Kingsmead, south africa's fastest pitch at the time, coming I at 7 and scoring a century a a strike rate o higher than 80 v Donald, pollock, and ntini. We won that match in 98.

 

[tempus123]

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.

Some of his failures ? He played 8 centuries in match winning causes, and only 24 of his 50+ scores have won WI. The ratio is pretty less, don't you agree ?

 

[tempus123]

Respect to that innings but chasing is something different.

Follow on is more difficult.

 

[tempus123]

Still managed to score 688 runs (yes 688) in a 3 match series vs SL. Pity WI ended up losing the series 3-0. Emphasises the point that this is a team game and individual records are secondary. He was essentially a one man army in that series. And 14 years down the line, here we are talking about him not having a single match winning century in SL. Here is where I feel stats could be cruel. One had to watch that series to know what Lara was all about.

Probably you didn't read all the posts or did not get the gist of the thread. Probably saw this post in isolation and jumped to inform all of us that he scored a 600+ in SL.

 

[Yanna_Rascala]

Lara is 10 times the man and player tendulkar is! In fact, even Kallis, dravid, Inzi, and Ponting are better than tendulkar.

 

[EliteCynical]

Probably you didn't read all the posts or did not get the gist of the thread. Probably saw this post in isolation and jumped to inform all of us that he scored a 600+ in SL.

You are right. I just jumped on to this post coz the cricket romantic inside me felt like it needed justification.

Have now read the entire thread and I agree with every single point you make. I have to commend you for this thread. People are too consumed with those 2 innings (153* and 213), I suppose.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

A match winning batsman?? Extremely RARE, no matter how good the batsman maybe. The closest to a matchwinner is Kallis in tests

 

[Yanna_Rascala]

A match winning batsman?? Extremely RARE, no matter how good the batsman maybe. The closest to a matchwinner is Kallis in tests

Inzi in ODIs. Check to see how many ODIs he has won for Pakistan.

 

[Sachin136]

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.

Great post. I don’t care what the stats say, if someone tells me that guys like Lara, Sachin or Ponting weren’t match winners then I’ll just laugh at them. Whether they have 1 century in a winning cause or 20, all of those statistics depend on the performance of the rest of the team as well and so it is unrelated to an individual’s match winning ability.

 

[tempus123]

Great post. I don’t care what the stats say, if someone tells me that guys like Lara, Sachin or Ponting weren’t match winners then I’ll just laugh at them. Whether they have 1 century in a winning cause or 20, all of those statistics depend on the performance of the rest of the team as well and so it is unrelated to an individual’s match winning ability.

Then who were "not" match winners ? Lara and Tendulkar are match winners. Dravid, Ponting, Waugh, Kallis, ABDV, Sanga are match winners. Who is not ?

 

[tempus123]

You are right. I just jumped on to this post coz the cricket romantic inside me felt like it needed justification.

Have now read the entire thread and I agree with every single point you make. I have to commend you for this thread. People are too consumed with those 2 innings (153* and 213), I suppose.

Thanks mate for appreciating. I like your posts.

 

[Sidilicious]

Brilliant thread! Breaking the good ol PP myth of match winning centuries!

 

[tempus123]

Brilliant thread! Breaking the good ol PP myth of match winning centuries!

Thanks mate.

 

[IndianWillow]

There is indeed a category called match winning test batsman. These batsmen not only have great ability with the bat, but also score runs at the right time and they also finish off matches if it is within their control. (For example, a fourth innings chase or a fighting fourth innings draw is within the control of the batsman (unless the the team gets dismissed and the batsman remains not out), because he does not have to depend on his bowlers to do something at this point. Great batting ability + temperament + pressure absorbing capability = match winning batsman. Not every great batsman is a match winning batsman, some batsmen simply can't finish matches or they can't rise to the big occasion.

 

[Sidilicious]

There is indeed a category called match winning test batsman. These batsmen not only have great ability with the bat, but also score runs at the right time and they also finish off matches if it is within their control. (For example, a fourth innings chase or a fighting fourth innings draw is within the control of the batsman (unless the the team gets dismissed and the batsman remains not out), because he does not have to depend on his bowlers to do something at this point. Great batting ability + temperament + pressure absorbing capability = match winning batsman. Not every great batsman is a match winning batsman, some batsmen simply can't finish matches or they can't rise to the big occasion.

But is this the only criteria of being a great?

If thats the case, then why is Laxman not rated as highly in PP?

 

[tempus123]

But is this the only criteria of being a great?

If thats the case, then why is Laxman not rated as highly in PP?

Obviously not, because Lax also had his bad days in the early part of his career. He improved a lot after 2000, but the initial 3-4 years hurt him.

 

[Stallion__]

Finishing off matches alone, is not the most reliable factor to gauge match-winning ability specially when comparing a top order and a lower order batsman.

Waugh and Laxman are more likely to find themselves in situations where they had an opportunity to finish off the game rather than someone like Hayden and Sehwag.

As said earlier, their are certain situations in the game, where its important to seize the control of the match. For that, a batsman must have a sense of occasion and ability to perform on that occasion.

For instance, if a team has to bat in the fourth innings, and the pitch is deteriorating rapidly, then its imperative to score big in second innings and take decisive lead. Runs scored by any batsman who scored in that innings would create great impact on the match.

Similarly sometimes, you have to bat in first innings when conditions are bowler friendly, but would ease out as the day progress. So surviving on that pitch becomes the most important thing. If a team collapse in those conditions, it will end up handing the decisive advantage to opposition and comeback would become virtually impossible. If surviving isn't possible, then a little counter-attacking knock would be a gem in such situation.

Then there are certain situations where match is going in one team's direction and certain momentum changing innings is required to spark some life in the match. The rest of the team would feed off that energy, and would be able to make a comeback.

And then there are fourth innings knocks. When bowlers had already done what they could have and its all upto batsmen performance, which decides the outcome of the match.

Chandimal's recent knock, Rahane's Lord's innings, YK-Masood partnership, Sarfraz 49 in Sharjah test, Haddin's innings' in second last Ashes are some of the few match-winning knocks from recent past. And ofcourse, there are great or ATG knocks like Headingley 81, Kolkatta 2001, Durban 1997, Karachi 2005 etc.

Its quite possible that a batsman overall stats may not be as good as some of the other players, but he has played more such match-winning innings. Vice versa like batsman have great stats but rare such knocks is also possible.

So, overall, match-winning ability isn't something that can be measured through raw stats. You have to analyze match by match and match-situations, to understand this.

 

[tempus123]

Finishing off matches alone, is not the most reliable factor to gauge match-winning ability specially when comparing a top order and a lower order batsman.

Waugh and Laxman are more likely to find themselves in situations where they had an opportunity to finish off the game rather than someone like Hayden and Sehwag.

As said earlier, their are certain situations in the game, where its important to seize the control of the match. For that, a batsman must have a sense of occasion and ability to perform on that occasion.

For instance, if a team has to bat in the fourth innings, and the pitch is deteriorating rapidly, then its imperative to score big in second innings and take decisive lead. Runs scored by any batsman who scored in that innings would create great impact on the match.

Similarly sometimes, you have to bat in first innings when conditions are bowler friendly, but would ease out as the day progress. So surviving on that pitch becomes the most important thing. If a team collapse in those conditions, it will end up handing the decisive advantage to opposition and comeback would become virtually impossible. If surviving isn't possible, then a little counter-attacking knock would be a gem in such situation.

Then there are certain situations where match is going in one team's direction and certain momentum changing innings is required to spark some life in the match. The rest of the team would feed off that energy, and would be able to make a comeback.

And then there are fourth innings knocks. When bowlers had already done what they could have and its all upto batsmen performance, which decides the outcome of the match.

Chandimal's recent knock, Rahane's Lord's innings, YK-Masood partnership, Sarfraz 49 in Sharjah test, Haddin's innings' in second last Ashes are some of the few match-winning knocks from recent past. And ofcourse, there are great or ATG knocks like Headingley 81, Kolkatta 2001, Durban 1997, Karachi 2005 etc.

Its quite possible that a batsman overall stats may not be as good as some of the other players, but he has played more such match-winning innings. Vice versa like batsman have great stats but rare such knocks is also possible.

So, overall, match-winning ability isn't something that can be measured through raw stats. You have to analyze match by match and match-situations, to understand this.

Laxman came at no.3 also to play some of his great match winning knock(s). 281 is one example.. not sure if there are others.

 

[tempus123]

I must admire the real stats fanboys of PP have suddenly changed their tunes and either refused to comment on the thread or started giving new definitions of "match winning" abilities of a batsman. You could find some of them very loudly claiming certain batsman to be rubbish because he didn't play "match winning" knocks in the past.

I welcome their new criteria for match winners now.

 

[miandadrules]

Oh look Lara's Pakistani reinforcements have arrived, expecting the rest to follow soon

I recall you saying you like to bait Pakistanis.

Even though it is purely a guise for your pro-Indian sentiments, you've done it so often, I would say you've become a master at it.

 

[Rickz]

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.

Huh?

Lara has some amazing knocks, on the other hand, Tendulkar has scored hundreds and hundreds under pressure against Warne(155), McGrath (In Aus 99, last test 2001), Donald (169), Murali and Wasim, Waqur (136).

 

[Rickz]

Also drawed test in England 1990, Perth 1992 vs Aus, Steyn 145 in South Africa.

 

[tempus123]

Huh?

Lara has some amazing knocks, on the other hand, Tendulkar has scored hundreds and hundreds under pressure against Warne(155), McGrath (In Aus 99, last test 2001), Donald (169), Murali and Wasim, Waqur (136).

There was no need to bring Tendulkar in it, but some insecure posters here jumped to downplay the thread.

 

[tempus123]

I recall you saying you like to bait Pakistanis.

Even though it is purely a guise for your pro-Indian sentiments, you've done it so often, I would say you've become a master at it.

While, what he said is not true for everyone, but a lot of Pakistani posters have a reason to call Lara a match winner because it gives them the right to ridicule some other certain batsman.

You'd agree that the match winning definition is rubbish, at least from the stats point.

 

[tempus123]

There is indeed a category called match winning test batsman. These batsmen not only have great ability with the bat, but also score runs at the right time and they also finish off matches if it is within their control. (For example, a fourth innings chase or a fighting fourth innings draw is within the control of the batsman (unless the the team gets dismissed and the batsman remains not out), because he does not have to depend on his bowlers to do something at this point. Great batting ability + temperament + pressure absorbing capability = match winning batsman. Not every great batsman is a match winning batsman, some batsmen simply can't finish matches or they can't rise to the big occasion.

There certainly is, but one can't look at stats and prove anything, which was the norm here on PP to define a match winner.

 

[Rickz]

I'm not trying to downplay lara at all, that is not my intention. The poster stated Tendulkar hasn't played any amazing knocks.

However as already stated, lara has played some amazing knocks and unfortunately after the 2000s his team was not strong enough to win even if lara scored 200, in full flow he could tear down any attack.

 

[IndianWillow]

But is this the only criteria of being a great?

If thats the case, then why is Laxman not rated as highly in PP?

Laxman did not have the consistency characteristic of ATG batsmen. He was constantly in and out of the team and his failure rate was much higher than the likes of Sachin and Dravid. Laxman's career batting average never rose above 47 (even at his peak) during any part of his career, while it straddled 60 for both Sachin and Dravid.

 

[Thivagar]

Please talk about "match winning" contributions only. There is no doubt about his talent or class etc.

I can talk about whatever I want, let me derail a thread for once.

 

[tempus123]

i can talk about whatever i want, let me derail a thread for once.

ok..

 

[tempus123]

Laxman did not have the consistency characteristic of ATG batsmen. He was constantly in and out of the team and his failure rate was much higher than the likes of Sachin and Dravid. Laxman's career batting average never rose above 47 (even at his peak) during any part of his career, while it straddled 60 for both Sachin and Dravid.

That's true, but he played more match winning innings than anyone in Indian team, bar Sehwag.

 

[tempus123]

I'm not trying to downplay lara at all, that is not my intention. The poster stated Tendulkar hasn't played any amazing knocks.

However as already stated, lara has played some amazing knocks and unfortunately after the 2000s his team was not strong enough to win even if lara scored 200, in full flow he could tear down any attack.

My post was in agreement with you. Other poster tried to derail the thread.

 

[tempus123]

Then who were "not" match winners ? Lara and Tendulkar are match winners. Dravid, Ponting, Waugh, Kallis, ABDV, Sanga are match winners. Who is not ?

[MENTION=139108]Sachin136[/MENTION], can you respond please?

 

[Ab Fan]

<B>What is it that seperates Lara from other legends of the game?</B>

What makes Lara bigger and better than Ponting, Kallis, Tendulkar, Dravid and Sangakkara?

Discuss!

 

[jeetu]

Matches won by WI when Lara scored century.
[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Runs [/td][td]Inn [/td][td]SR [/td][td]Opposition [/td][td]Ground [/td][td]Start Date [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]167 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]79.52 [/td][td]v England [/td][td]Georgetown [/td][td]17-Mar-94 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]147 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]81.21 [/td][td]v New Zealand [/td][td]Wellington [/td][td]10-Feb-95 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]132 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]72.13 [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Perth [/td][td]1-Feb-97 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]213 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]61.91 [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Kingston [/td][td]13-Mar-99 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]153* [/td][td]2 [/td][td]59.76 [/td][td]v Australia [/td][td]Bridgetown [/td][td]26-Mar-99 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]191 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]94.08 [/td][td]v Zimbabwe [/td][td]Bulawayo [/td][td]12-Nov-03 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]120 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]81.63 [/td][td]v Bangladesh [/td][td]Kingston [/td][td]4-Jun-04 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]130 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]108.33 [/td][td]v Pakistan [/td][td]Bridgetown [/td][td]26-May-05 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[Hitman]

What is it that seperates Lara from other legends of the game?

<B>What makes Lara bigger and better than Ponting, Kallis, Tendulkar, Dravid and Sangakkara? </B>

Discuss!

Who says? Every single list of greatest cricketers prepared by former cricketers and pundits of the game has had Tendulkar ahead of Lara. Cricinfo and WISDEN chose Tendulkar in their team, not Lara.

 

[Ted123]

Who says? Every single list of greatest cricketers prepared by former cricketers and pundits of the game has had Tendulkar ahead of Lara. Cricinfo and WISDEN chose Tendulkar in their team, not Lara.

I think the question is for all in general. What is that seperates Lara from the rest of his contemporaries and not just SRT.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I think the question is for all in general. What is that seperates Lara from the rest of his contemporaries and not just SRT.

Nothing. He was as good as Dravid, Kallis, Sanga and Ponting, not better. Lara was entertaining but not a better match winner. He didn't even have a great peak, his test average never touched 54 after 50th match. All modern ATGs averaged between 58-60 in their prime. Lara had a lot of big innings but also a huge amount of failures. He averaged less than 50 after 90 tests.