In ODIs, was Brian Lara a bigger match winner than Sachin Tendulkar and even Ricky Ponting?

[Slog]

Was quite surprised by this fact:

In terms of centuries in ODIs contributing to wins the stats are these:

For Tendulkar, 67% of his centuries resulted in wins
For Ponting, 83% of his centuries resulted in wins.
However for Laram 84% of his centuries resulted in wins

I know for Ponting people will bring the old, worn out argument of him being part of better teams.But Lara, who was certainly part of inferior teams over the course of his career than either one of these batsmen.

He really was some match winner in ODIs then!

 

[Rahul1]

First of all, what exactly is a 'match winner'?

 

[Princejain191]

This "% of centuries resulting in wins" is always a horrible metric because it depends on so many factors outside of individual's control and can easily be manipulated.

If a player X and a player Y both play 6 matches. Say 3 against ATG australia and 3 against Bangladesh. X scores 3 hundreds - all against Australia and his team loses the three matches, but Y scores 3 against Bangla and his team wins all these 3, then Y ends up with 100% centuries resulting in wins (0% for X) but is probably an inferior batsman to X.

 

[WengerOut]

So a guy scores 10 centuries and his team win 6. Another guy scores 5 and his team wins 4. How does that make the second guy better than first ? The first guy is doing his job in every match. It is a team game FHS.

 

[Slog]

This "% of centuries resulting in wins" is always a horrible metric because it depends on so many factors outside of individual's control and can easily be manipulated.

If a player X and a player Y both play 6 matches. Say 3 against ATG australia and 3 against Bangladesh. X scores 3 hundreds - all against Australia and his team loses the three matches, but Y scores 3 against Bangla and his team wins all these 3, then Y ends up with 100% centuries resulting in wins (0% for X) but is probably an inferior batsman to X.

ofcourse its not a metric with fallacies. No metric is. Even average isnt

The idea is to get an idea and trusting that multiple 100 number of innings gives a good sampling.

 

[Slog]

So a guy scores 10 centuries and his team win 6. Another guy scores 5 and his team wins 4. How does that make the second guy better than first ? The first guy is doing his job in every match. It is a team game FHS.

it also matters if the first guy scored his 10 in 50 matches whereas the other scored his four in lets say 25 matches... Which is why % is better and not absolute numbers in this case

 

[BreadPakoda]

IIRC his test stats are complete opposite. Very poor win ratio when he scored centuries.

 

[Slog]

IIRC his test stats are complete opposite. Very poor win ratio when he scored centuries.

Ponting's are insane.

Tendulkar is better than Lara's but both are poor to mediocre.

I believe in Tests one innings is less likely to determine a whole result of a match whereas in ODIs one great innings can easily ensure winning a match which is why this matter more.

In Tests, Ponting is way ahead of both

 

[Princejain191]

So a guy scores 10 centuries and his team win 6. Another guy scores 5 and his team wins 4. How does that make the second guy better than first ? The first guy is doing his job in every match. It is a team game FHS.

Again, a good point. Sachin scored 33 centuries in wins in 452 innings which gives him a match winning century every 13.7 games. For Lara, 16 centuries in wins in 289 innings, implying a match-winning century every 18 games.

 

[Princejain191]

ofcourse its not a metric with fallacies. No metric is. Even average isnt

The idea is to get an idea and trusting that multiple 100 number of innings gives a good sampling.

And that is why it is always wrong to go ahead with an assertion like yours with aggregates. Always break down the numbers. Same for averages, never look at one whole number, segment segment segment.

 

[Justcrazy]

Pointing in his prime was outstanding.

Tendulkar considering the longevity was probably the better of all three.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Kedhar Jadhav is the biggest match winner. 100% success rate.

 

[Slog]

Kedhar Jadhav is the biggest match winner. 100% success rate.

if he can maintain that after 150+ matches and have atleast 10-15 centuries then surely he will start getting credit

 

[JattMaula]

if he can maintain that after 150+ matches and have atleast 10-15 centuries then surely he will start getting credit

Why are we attaching an arbitrary minimum limit on this match winning century evaluation?

 

[Slog]

Why are we attaching an arbitrary minimum limit on this match winning century evaluation?

same reason why people dont put Adam Voges on a pedestal depsite average 60+

you need a sample

 

[DRsohail]

Lara without a shadow of doubt.

 

[Oligochaetes]

Weird analysis. Why are you measuring match winning 100's in %? It should be measured in Nos.

Tendulkar has scored 33 match winning 100's
Virat Kohli has scored 30...
Ponting has scored 25...

So currently Tendulkar has more match winning 100's than any other player in ODI history. But that title will be wrested by Kohli soon.

 

[Oligochaetes]

Another way to declare who was the greater match winner is to see how many man of the match awards they won

Tendulkar - 62
Ponting - 32
Lara - 30

Therefore conclusively Tendulkar was the better match winner.

Kphli is on 28, it will be a challenge to overtake Sachin

 

[DRsohail]

Another way to declare who was the greater match winner is to see how many man of the match awards they won

Tendulkar - 62
Ponting - 32
Lara - 30

Therefore conclusively Tendulkar was the better match winner.

Yes it is but sometimes it is good to irritate others,lolz...I think the op means that.

 

[Oligochaetes]

Yes it is but sometimes it is good to irritate others,lolz...I think the op means that.

Oh. I should not take threads seriously then... my Bad!

By the way I hope you are practicing your yorkers and slower balls. We need to win PSL3

 

[JattMaula]

same reason why people dont put Adam Voges on a pedestal depsite average 60+

you need a sample

How about 35 odi centuries and 200 matches?

 

[Hitman]

Another way to declare who was the greater match winner is to see how many man of the match awards they won

Tendulkar - 62
Ponting - 32
Lara - 30

Therefore conclusively Tendulkar was the better match winner.

Kphli is on 28, it will be a challenge to overtake Sachin

That's the best metric. Can yo do the same for MOS awards?

 

[Cozyrensetter]

Ponting in his prime was a beast.I remember when Andre Nel clean bowled him in WC2007.t was after 5 or 6 years that he had been bowled out.He would take his team home more often than not

 

[DRsohail]

Oh. I should not take threads seriously then... my Bad!

By the way I hope you are practicing your yorkers and slower balls. We need to win PSL3

Surely practicing them against the arch rivals in pak pacer battery thread.

 

[DRsohail]

That's the best metric. Can yo do the same for MOS awards?

It will be interesting that how much Kapil Dev had.

 

[DRsohail]

That's the best metric. Can yo do the same for MOS awards?

Sachin 15
Ponting 7.
Lara 4.

 

[Oligochaetes]

That's the best metric. Can yo do the same for MOS awards?

Tendulkar 15
Ponting 7
Lara 4

Kohli @ 6
Jayasuriya @11
Inzamam @6
Shoaib Malik @5

But I am not sure if these are 3+ nation series or bilaterals

 

[Oligochaetes]

It will be interesting that how much Kapil Dev had.

I dont think there were MOM & MOS awards during those times.. I think this ttrend started around 1992

 

[DRsohail]

I dont think there were MOM & MOS awards during those times.. I think this ttrend started around 1992

11 MoM i reckon.

 

[Princejain191]

And OP dodges my points in the thread. Not sure what the point is of starting such threads if you can't have an intelligent discussion on it and are not open to opinions different from yours.

 

[Oligochaetes]

11 MoM i reckon.

You are correct.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

All 3 of them are crème de la crème. So, it all depends on personal taste.

I always liked Lara. For me he is the bat of 90s.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Another way to declare who was the greater match winner is to see how many man of the match awards they won

Tendulkar - 62
Ponting - 32
Lara - 30

Therefore conclusively Tendulkar was the better match winner.

Kphli is on 28, it will be a challenge to overtake Sachin

That's the best metric. Can yo do the same for MOS awards?

Tendulkar 15
Ponting 7
Lara 4

Kohli @ 6
Jayasuriya @11
Inzamam @6
Shoaib Malik @5

But I am not sure if these are 3+ nation series or bilaterals

By going this logic, Shahid Afridi is the 5th biggest match winner in ODIs having 33 MOTM )

But yeah here you people will drag high number of matches and bala bala bala.

Oh waittt... In T20s Afridi has highest number of MOTM )


I am sure it will be damn hard for you people to accept it.
We people always prefer different criteria for our beloved players. So discussion like these always follow dust bin.

 

[Oligochaetes]

By going this logic, Shahid Afridi is the 5th biggest match winner in ODIs having 33 MOTM )

But yeah here you people will drag high number of matches and bala bala bala.

Oh waittt... In T20s Afridi has highest number of MOTM )


I am sure it will be damn hard for you people to accept it.
We people always prefer different criteria for our beloved players. So discussion like these always follow dust bin.

Shahid Afridi was/is dynamite. If he didnt get you with the bat, he got you with the ball. He had many impact bowling and batting performances.

In the 2009 World Cup, he was the MOM in both the semi final and final.

As far as I am concerned, I will always pick him as the No.1 draft pick out of all Pakistani player who have even played T20I cricket.

 

[Ab Fan]

Afridi was a brilliant t20 player.

 

[barah_admi]

Was quite surprised by this fact:

In terms of centuries in ODIs contributing to wins the stats are these:

For Tendulkar, 67% of his centuries resulted in wins
For Ponting, 83% of his centuries resulted in wins.
However for Laram 84% of his centuries resulted in wins

I know for Ponting people will bring the old, worn out argument of him being part of better teams.But Lara, who was certainly part of inferior teams over the course of his career than either one of these batsmen.

He really was some match winner in ODIs then!

That stat itself is not enough. How many of those matches were a situation where only Lara scored a century, thus directly influencing the runs made by his team? How many other centurions were there? How many times did Lara score those centuries in important, tournament winning matches? And ultimately how many centuries did he actually score?

I mean, I don't think Lara scored a century for the last 2 years of his ODI career yet I am sure the windies still won matches, so what does that indicate?

You are on the right track but to do this type of analysis you have to go a lot deeper.

I mean Ponting has 25 centuries in matches Aus have won, thats more than the total number of centuries Lara has ever scored.

 

[JattMaula]

By going this logic, Shahid Afridi is the 5th biggest match winner in ODIs having 33 MOTM )

But yeah here you people will drag high number of matches and bala bala bala.

Oh waittt... In T20s Afridi has highest number of MOTM )


I am sure it will be damn hard for you people to accept it.
We people always prefer different criteria for our beloved players. So discussion like these always follow dust bin.

I'm sensing lot of disrespect towards lala in this post. I am really sorry that you have forgotten all he did. Nobody deserves to forget him.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Yes it is but sometimes it is good to irritate others,lolz...I think the op means that.

The number of awards is a bit misleading as some nations play more cricket than others. Awards to match ratio would be better, no?

 

[Dead Ball]

Greatest match-winner?

I would rate him just below Inzamam and Amla when it comes to bottling in ODIs. And an average of 28 in finals is proof of that.

Tendulkar, i think averaged twice as much in twice as many finals. No comparison.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I think a lot his match winning knocks were in the 90's when the Windies had Amby,Walsh and Bishop bowling.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Bowlers by and large win you matches. Period. There are some special instances where batsmen pull off a miracle. But they themselves cannot win matches. For instance Lara made over 600 runs in 3 tests in SL. WI lost all of them. He has some sort of record for being part of a team that has the highest number of losses.

 

[jnaveen1980]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...y=runs;result=2;template=results;type=batting

Players involving in highest number of losing tests. Chanders/Lara close to 50% of the test loss.

 

[Hermoine Green]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...y=runs;result=2;template=results;type=batting

Players involving in highest number of losing tests. Chanders/Lara close to 50% of the test loss.

Read first two words of the title )

 

[Savage]

Amla's 24 out of 26 centuries resulted in win(92.3%).

 

[R3verse Swing]

It depends how one defines Match-Winner.

Is it a player who can chase down a score/bowl out a team - ala snatching victory from the the jaws of defeat? Or is a match winner simply a player who contributes to a win? I believe in the former. It's subjective tough.

The objective stats in the OP are pretty clear though, batsmen and how man times they have scored a century in a winning game. Lara trumps this.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes it is but sometimes it is good to irritate others,lolz...I think the op means that.

Aapse ye ummeed na thi Doc Sahab.

 

[Savage]

I think MOM in Winning cause(keeping in mind how many matches player's team has won) is a better way of judging a player being Match-winner than Match-winning 100s or MOM.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I think MOM in Winning cause(keeping in mind how many matches player's team has won) is a better way of judging a player being Match-winner than Match-winning 100s or MOM.

I do not think so.

MOM has been awarded to players on the losing side too.

Miandad - 5 times
Gayle - 6 times
Sachin Tendulkar - 9 times

 

[Savage]

I do not think so.

MOM has been awarded to players on the losing side too.

Miandad - 5 times
Gayle - 6 times
Sachin Tendulkar - 9 times

That was exactly my Point.Read my post again carefully.

 

[DRsohail]

Aapse ye ummeed na thi Doc Sahab.

Sorry..i was referring to OP intentions though.For me ST is the best we have ever seen.

 

[DRsohail]

Aapse ye ummeed na thi Doc Sahab.

You will never see me posting something against indian greats like MS,ST,Ganguly,RD,Laxman,Virat Kohli.
Thats why i said op is trying to irritate indian posters otherwise whi is that blind to say that Lara is better than ST.
Emotional blackmailing kar rahy ho to explanation deena parehgaa.lolz

 

[DRsohail]

The number of awards is a bit misleading as some nations play more cricket than others. Awards to match ratio would be better, no?

May be but longitivity is another factor and Sachin has no match in that regard.Jaysuriya comes next after Sachin which shows that it can be misleading.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You will never see me posting something against indian greats like MS,ST,Ganguly,RD,Laxman,Virat Kohli.
Thats why i said op is trying to irritate indian posters otherwise whi is that blind to say that Lara is better than ST.
Emotional blackmailing kar rahy ho to explanation deena parehgaa.lolz

Sir i grew up and still remain a fanatic Wasim Akram fan. A big fan of Saqlain as well. But not a fan of Afridi generation and later. They are not half as good as Pakistani greats of past and talk twice as much.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Lara was a top ODI bat in the 90s, better than Tendulkar in the first half. His ODI game regressed afterwards.

 

[Fire Bird]

Their style of playing needs further analysis to answer this question IMO on top of the stats. Lara was a slow starter because of his technical problems against fast bowlers and that only increased further as he aged. In the 90s, he had better hand eye coordination. After the slow start, he more than made up for it by explosive shots after he reached 50+. Once set, he could not be dismissed easily as he toyed with the fielding placements. He didn't get too complicated and played freely. The opposition panics under such circumstances and the game is his for the taking. But it only worked in the first half of his career and also due to the WI bowling still had Walsh/Ambrose

Sachin, on the other hand, started quickly to capitalize on the first 15 overs restriction and after scoring 50, he slowed down due to either
1. Not trusting batsman down the order to finish the game (earlier on his career where there were not noteworthy players after him and Azhar),
2. not able to change his game after a certain age like Dhoni did or
3. being selfish for a 100 (this was demonstrated in the last 100 he scored)
Once his runflow is brought under control, the opposition can devise plans to get him out or get the other batsmen out. Also the bowling apart from Kumble and possibly Srinath were not that good. Also these two were not as great as the WI pacemen.

 

[Lefthanded]

As some have already pointed out, for almost the entirety of the career, Lara was backed up bowlers who were domestic class at best.

Even the batting lineup was weak most of the time. Chanderpaul didn’t step up to being a world class batsman until after Lara was pushed out while still a beast. Same for Gayle. And Sarwan was too inconsistent.

Lara would’ve won more matches if he had played for the 90s Zimbabwe team.

Pretty sure neither Ponting nor Sachin would’ve won as many or more matches if they played for WI in Lara’s place. If Lara played for Australia, he probably would’ve won more matches.

Ponting was a better ODI player, but it’s hard to know whether even he could’ve won many matches carrying an entire team on his back with in-fighting and a disruptive cricket board.

Sachin maybe, but for most of his career India had other world class batsmen.

On paper Lara may not seem better, and he wasn’t in the class in ODIs as he was in Tests but winning or losing, he was breathtaking in a way only Viv was before him, and no one since.

 

[Hitman]

As some have already pointed out, for almost the entirety of the career, Lara was backed up bowlers who were domestic class at best.

Really? Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Rose retired after 2000. And Lara retired in WC 2007. So for almost all his career he was backed up by bowlers who were domestic class at best?

 

[Fire Bird]

As some have already pointed out, for almost the entirety of the career, Lara was backed up bowlers who were domestic class at best.

Even the batting lineup was weak most of the time. Chanderpaul didn’t step up to being a world class batsman until after Lara was pushed out while still a beast. Same for Gayle. And Sarwan was too inconsistent.

Lara would’ve won more matches if he had played for the 90s Zimbabwe team.

Pretty sure neither Ponting nor Sachin would’ve won as many or more matches if they played for WI in Lara’s place. If Lara played for Australia, he probably would’ve won more matches.

Ponting was a better ODI player, but it’s hard to know whether even he could’ve won many matches carrying an entire team on his back with in-fighting and a disruptive cricket board.

Sachin maybe, but for most of his career India had other world class batsmen.

On paper Lara may not seem better, and he wasn’t in the class in ODIs as he was in Tests but winning or losing, he was breathtaking in a way only Viv was before him, and no one since.

I disagree. Lara started playing in the early 90s and he retired in 2007. Walsh and Ambrose played till 2000. Bishop played until 97. K.Benjamin and W.Benjamin played until the mid 90s or so. I dont know what you are talking about entire career. He had good bowlers for atleast the first half of his career.

You are giving too much weightage to Sachin's batting partners. He had just Azharuddin till 2000 and Dravid and co came into the fore around the late 90s.

 

[Fire Bird]

And not to mention the Indian bowling in the 90s. I mean Prasad as an opening bowler

 

[Hitman]

And not to mention the Indian bowling in the 90s. I mean Prasad as an opening bowler

How about Dodda Ganesh, Abbey Kuruvilla, Debashish Mohanty, Manoj Prabhakar, etc.

 

[Rahul1]

As some have already pointed out, for almost the entirety of the career, Lara was backed up bowlers who were domestic class at best.

Even the batting lineup was weak most of the time. Chanderpaul didn’t step up to being a world class batsman until after Lara was pushed out while still a beast. Same for Gayle. And Sarwan was too inconsistent.

Lara would’ve won more matches if he had played for the 90s Zimbabwe team.

Pretty sure neither Ponting nor Sachin would’ve won as many or more matches if they played for WI in Lara’s place. If Lara played for Australia, he probably would’ve won more matches.

Ponting was a better ODI player, but it’s hard to know whether even he could’ve won many matches carrying an entire team on his back with in-fighting and a disruptive cricket board.

Sachin maybe, but for most of his career India had other world class batsmen.

On paper Lara may not seem better, and he wasn’t in the class in ODIs as he was in Tests but winning or losing, he was breathtaking in a way only Viv was before him, and no one since.

If Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop were domestic class then either you're a clueless guy or a biased guy.

Pick one.

 

[Fire Bird]

How about Dodda Ganesh, Abbey Kuruvilla, Debashish Mohanty, Manoj Prabhakar, etc.

Excellent bowlers. They give the ball a good flight and drift

 

[Hasan123]

Lara batting in ODIs declined after a while. He underachieved in ODIs for me. His test performances are more noteworthy. Whilst Sachin and Ponting have played iconic knocks in ODIs.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Really? Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Rose retired after 2000. And Lara retired in WC 2007. So for almost all his career he was backed up by bowlers who were domestic class at best?

None of them barring Ambrose was a top ODI bowler.

Walsh was always average. Bishop was done due to injuries. Ambrose lost all his effectiveness after 1996.

 

[Fire Bird]

None of them barring Ambrose was a top ODI bowler.

Walsh was always average. Bishop was done due to injuries. Ambrose lost all his effectiveness after 1996.

I would have had any of those aging bowlers in place of Prasad, Kuruvilla, Mohanty, Dodda Ganesh, etc

 

[anikrc1]

Was quite surprised by this fact:

In terms of centuries in ODIs contributing to wins the stats are these:

For Tendulkar, 67% of his centuries resulted in wins
For Ponting, 83% of his centuries resulted in wins.
However for Laram 84% of his centuries resulted in wins

I know for Ponting people will bring the old, worn out argument of him being part of better teams.But Lara, who was certainly part of inferior teams over the course of his career than either one of these batsmen.

He really was some match winner in ODIs then!

Sachin had a match winning century every 14 match. Lara had a match winning century every 18.5 match. How is Lara a better match winner than sachin?

 

[Ab Fan]

Was quite surprised by this fact:

In terms of centuries in ODIs contributing to wins the stats are these:

For Tendulkar, 67% of his centuries resulted in wins
For Ponting, 83% of his centuries resulted in wins.
However for Laram 84% of his centuries resulted in wins

I know for Ponting people will bring the old, worn out argument of him being part of better teams.But Lara, who was certainly part of inferior teams over the course of his career than either one of these batsmen.

He really was some match winner in ODIs then!

Can you support your argument with some of Lara's match winning performances in odis?

The definition of a match winner is someone who has the ability to take the game by the scruff of its neck.

Something like Tendulkar innings in Sharjah 1998.

 

[Ab Fan]

There is also an argument that out of 34 tons Lara scored in teSTS, only 8 came in wins. What you make of that?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Read first two words of the title )

That is even more a joke lol Brian Lara does not even in the same stratosphere of Sachin in the one dayers . For the sheer weight of runs Tendulkar produced in the world cup he is in a different league.

 

[Send1983]

Sachin had a match winning century every 14 match. Lara had a match winning century every 18.5 match. How is Lara a better match winner than sachin?

Yep. Much better way to find out who is a better matchwinner. scoring a century in losing cause should not be considered worse than scoring 0 or 50 or 99 in the same game.

While chasing 350 against India in 2004 ODI series, inzi scored 100 and got pak close to the target and pak lost by 7 runs. For me, that’s one of the best innings I have seen of him, if not the best. He should not be penalized for scoring century and got the team close.

Sachin’s 175 against Australia chasing 350 too was similar type of innings.. 130 against pak chasing 330 in 2004 series. These are some of the great ODI innings. If those innings are making them considered lesser matchwinner, then something is wrong with the metric or filter here.

Sachin’s 100th century innings can go against him. As far as I know, that’s a only century of his, that can really be said as match losing. But still 295 was not a bad score against bangla. But I completely understand his innings, media pressure was too much. He wanted to get it out of the way.

 

[AMSS]

Not for nothing I rate Lara as the only true equal of Tendulkar from his era. Neither Ponting, nor Kallis belong to the same class.

Nevertheless, have to say that that centuries in won matches is a bogus marker of match winning quality. I mean what about scores from 50s to 90s? Or even the many 30s and 40s in low scoring affairs?

Once you account for scores above 50, arbitrary as it is, the difference becomes less stark. 70 percent of Lara's scores above 50 resulted in victories for his versus 65 percent for Sachin.

On the other hand, Sachin did it for longer, much longer. A full 160 more matches than Lara. More than half of Lara's career. And Sachin had three breakthrough WCs where he single handedly carried the team, ending up as champion once. While I don't believe a single batsman can deliver wins consistently, Lara's lack of a dominant WC holds against him.

 

[CricFan2012]

He was but this is unfair on Tendu who was playing in a mediocre side in the 90s, but he is still the second best ODI batsman of all time after Viv.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I would have had any of those aging bowlers in place of Prasad, Kuruvilla, Mohanty, Dodda Ganesh, etc

Srinath was a better ODI bowler than Walsh and Kumble was better than Bishop.

 

[Lefthanded]

Really? Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, Rose retired after 2000. And Lara retired in WC 2007. So for almost all his career he was backed up by bowlers who were domestic class at best?

Fair point about Walsh and Ambrose, but you should check the stats/number of matches for Rose, particularly his last couple of years.

Lara rose '94 onwards, and two great bowlers for those six years aren't/weren't enough to take 20 wickets when the batting wasn't of great quality around Lara.

 

[Chrish]

Short answer: No

Detailed answer: Nah

 

[Lefthanded]

If Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop were domestic class then either you're a clueless guy or a biased guy.

Pick one.

If Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop were domestic class then either you're a clueless guy or a biased guy.

Pick one.

I should've mentioned Walsh/Ambrose because no one in their right mind would disregard them. It's Bish, Rose, and the Benjamins whose stats, period of overlap and period that make for a more complicated reading. And maybe I'm not parsing the years to find that complicated picture.

Still, look into how Bish did after an initial period of being fantastic and before injury/his last couple of years.

I'm all right with being called clueless or biased, and happy to admit that I might be wrong. I don't believe I'm biased though.

I'm not sure I'd call you clueless but maybe you shouldn't be convinced that two great bowlers and one great batsmen can carry the other 8 to be successful side? Or even four players could carry a mediocre to rubbish other 7?

Post '94 WI, when Lara first showed his class, suffered from in-fighting, warring with the board, regional conflict too.

 

[kuskash]

Indian batsmen's averages should be considered +10 of their actual avgs and their 80s should be considered 100s as they never get to bash Indian bowling