What's new

Why did the Brian Lara-era West Indies fail to win so often?

Lefthanded

Tape Ball Star
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Runs
667
Post of the Week
1
This bunch of young men obviously played stunningly, and this England side is much better than any England side from 1998-2005.

So, in a time when Windies had Lara, Chanderpaul, Sarwan, [after the early 2000s] Gayle and better bowling attacks than the one now...

...why did they fail at winning so much?

Some people mention Caribbean politics, Lara's arrogant and divisive nature/captaincy, etc.

Even so, there seems to be something missing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With due respect to Lara, Lara's lack of decipline, selfish behavior at times, his own inconsistency in his batting,etc was one of the reasons why windies didnt play like a team those days. It was more like Pakistan team of 90s. Politics, infighting, backstabbing, etc went on during those days which brought the team down from top 3 when he began his career to bottom 3 when he ended. If he had attitude and decipline like Sachin, windies could have achieved a lot more with talent they had in bowling.

I am not saying because I am a big fan of sachin. This is my honest analysis about windies team. I have a lot of respect for Lara. He was one of the two batting genius in 90s. As good as sachin in talent and ability to take attack to any opposition. I enjoyed watching him bat. Only batsman I ever wanted or wished to score more against India so that I could watch his batting more.ofcourse wanted rest of his team to fail.
 
Because Windies had 0 bowlers after the retirement of Ambrose-Walsh, the best they had were the kinds of Collymore and Dillon. Plus their batting had always been inconsistent and more often than not, Lara was the lone warrior in the batting line up in his entire career, unlike let's say someone like Tendulkar who comfortably occupied the No.4 slot flanked on both sides by very good-great batsmen like Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly etc. Lara was easily the best Test batsmen of his generation and more often than not saved WI from humiliating defeats on a lot of occasions single handedly.
 
The batting was decent in the early to mid 2000s but the bowlers weren't good enough to take 20 wickets. Guys like Vasbert Drakes and Omari Banks weren't going to cut it.

Others like Merv Dillon and Corey Collymore showed promise early on but faded away.

Some put the blame on Brian Lara. He wasn't a good captain, failing to take on the responsibilities of leading Caribbean cricket and had a poor attitude.

What made matters worse were the infighting and players vs board issues that we've come to know WI cricket for. One of the most notorious examples was in 1998 when Brian Lara led a players strike before a tour of South Africa and sat in Heathrow Airport refusing to travel until their grievances were resolved.
 
One of the memorable win was that chasing 415(?) runs. That infamous sarwan-McGrath incident. Remember watching WI inning live!
 
I appreciate the responses and obviously would like more thoughts on this.

I barely remember much from the 90s/2000s, and gave up on cricket for 5 years after the match fixing of 2000. So these are helpful reminders.

Upon recollection, I'd echo that it was the bowlers but didn't remember them well enough. The likes of Roach who came in the late 2000s, Fidel Edwards and Tino Best didn't make the most of their opportunities.

I know that Lara was inconsistent for a bit around board and personal life issues but he did return to greatness before being pushed by the board while still having the form to walk into any XI at the time. Though it was never enough, even if he did single-handedly win some matches by pure genius.

And come to think of it, Chanders didn't fully achieve his potential until Lara retired. And like Lara, he had to carry the entire line-up but from #4 and then 5 position. Which was somewhat selfish, but understandable.

Holder and Sammy before him may have been good at unity, but were not good enough to be in a Test XI [neither were a lot of their cricketers]. Too many people have called both really nice guys, which obviously isn't important to cricket. Gayle and Dwayne Bravo's over-committed to T20 did a lot of damage to WI as a test team.

I think the bowlers were the issue but the board has been criminal at wasting talent [Sarwan was coming into his own until he was injured on a tour to England and then discarded].

I guess I'm just echoing thoughts and adding a little to them.
 
Same reason why Sachin's india struggled in part of 90s until Ganguly, dravid, and Viru showed up. One man can't take care of the whole team.
 
Do people remember how brilliant Bravo was when he was new? Particularly in Australia where he promised to be a genuine and brilliant all-rounder.

I've always wanted WI to succeed just as much as Pakistan since the moment I saw Lara in '92.

I hope this team improves and Darren Bravo comes back. Hope someone can replace Blackwood, who isn't a #6 at all.
 
Same reason why Sachin's india struggled in part of 90s until Ganguly, dravid, and Viru showed up. One man can't take care of the whole team.

Good point. Personally, I've always rated the contributions of Dravid, Viru and Laxman more than Sachin whose impact was never equal to those guys. All better to watch too.
 
One of the memorable win was that chasing 415(?) runs. That infamous sarwan-McGrath incident. Remember watching WI inning live!

Didn't see it live, but a stunner on replay years later. Aussies always rated Sachin above Lara, though I don't remember Sachin singlehandedly beating Australia as Lara did more than once.
 
How can he win more for the team with those personal glory innings like 400* ?
 
1. The team was constantly being chopped and changed.

2. Lara was constantly fighting with the board over the quality of local pitches, player selection and player pay, leading to several fines, reprimands and loss of captaincies.

3. In the 1990s, Hooper, Chanderpaul and Jimmy Adams were the only consistently selected batsmen other than Lara. Adams took a hit to the head, became a scared batsman, and lost his form in the mid 90s. Hooper was always unreliable and Chanderpaul only became a great after Lara left (it took Chanderpaul almost a decade to learn how to make a ton, due to a problem with a floating bone in his foot, which he had removed late in life).

4. No consistently selected openers. Openers are the bedrock of a test innings, and since the retirement of Greenidge and Haynes, the West Indies have never had consistently selected, decent openers. Sherwin Campbell (mediocre) and Gayle (decent) were their best, non of whom had stable partners.

5. Sarwan and Gayle only became reliable and somewhat mature after Lara left.

6. Once Ambrose and Walsh hung up their boots, the WI had no good pacers. The next wave of decent pacers (Roach, Taylor, Gabriel), coincided with the WICB taking a more active role in creating and training pacers (setting up High Performance Clinics etc).

7. The WICB fired Rohan Kanhai as coach, a masterful player, believing that the West Indies didn't need a coach. The Windies' fall coincides with his removal and the arrival of Steve Waugh's first tour to the Caribbean.

8. Ritchie Richardson was the last reliable WI captain, but he was a political pick by Viv Richards, and set in stone a kind of favoritism and unprofessionalism that carried on for decades. Whilst other teams were becoming well-oiled machines, with modern training methods, routines and technologies (video replay etc), the West Indies relied on raw talent, intra-island cliques and friendly favors.

9. No money and poor organizational bodies.

10. Lara went from poverty to a rich kid with no dad. While someone like Tendulkar had large support and familial/traditional networks to stabilize his transition from poverty to icon, Lara handled it all alone, and went the other way. He burned out, partied hard, and lost interest in cricket (the famous Lara quote, "cricket is ruining my life"). Only in the early 2000s would he, monk-like, sort his head out and resurrect himself.

11. Too many good bowlers. Warne, Donald, McGrath, Kumble, Murali, Gough, Flintoff, Akram, Younis etc etc. West Indies' fall coincides with other teams fielding some of their strongest attacks.
 
Last edited:
In 90s, there was Hooper, Chanders and Lara along with two W's and yet Windies lost more often than not and were a miserable bunch in World Cups.

Later on Gayle, Hinds and Sarwan joined the team yet their fortunes didn't change.
 
Good point. Personally, I've always rated the contributions of Dravid, Viru and Laxman more than Sachin whose impact was never equal to those guys. All better to watch too.

Same here. Not to mention that those three actually played for the team and didn't chase pointless records when they knew they're over the hill.
 
Because Windies had 0 bowlers after the retirement of Ambrose-Walsh, the best they had were the kinds of Collymore and Dillon. Plus their batting had always been inconsistent and more often than not, Lara was the lone warrior in the batting line up in his entire career, unlike let's say someone like Tendulkar who comfortably occupied the No.4 slot flanked on both sides by very good-great batsmen like Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly etc. Lara was easily the best Test batsmen of his generation and more often than not saved WI from humiliating defeats on a lot of occasions single handedly.

Haha. Wi is a far better team than india until ambrose and walsh retired in early 2000.

Upto 2000 sachin is one man team and not lara. After 2000 only laxman, dravid, ganguly became good players and sachin became one of the batsman and not the main batsman.

Tell me how many matches lara has won on his own and how many matches he has avoided them defeat.
 
Same here. Not to mention that those three actually played for the team and didn't chase pointless records when they knew they're over the hill.
Yes who better than the great dravid who was a passenger for nearly 4 yrs until he had one good season in 2011.

Dravid average dropped from 58 to 51 after he became a passenger for nearly 5 yrs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tests are won by bowlers and till 2000, Lara had the services of Walsh and Ambrose.

Lara was a bit self centered and often rebelled against the management.
 
Haha. Wi is a far better team than india until ambrose and walsh retired in early 2000.

Upto 2000 sachin is one man team and not lara. After 2000 only laxman, dravid, ganguly became good players and sachin became one of the batsman and not the main batsman.

Tell me how many matches lara has won on his own and how many matches he has avoided them defeat.

Nonsense. Ganguly and Dravid debuted in 96, before that he always had the likes of Azhar and Sidhu (a great player at home) to accompany him. Sachin was hardly without support barring a few years in his career whereas Lara was with 0 bowling support and next to negligible batting support after the retirements of Ambrose and Walsh. Try harder.

Also, Sachin could only dream to play an innings like the 153* in the fourth innings chasing 300+ against an attack of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and McGill like Lara did.

Yes who better than the great dravid who was a passenger for nearly 4 yrs until he had one good season in 2011.

Dravid average dropped from 58 to 51 after he became a passenger for nearly 5 yrs.
U don't know rat about cricket and indian cricket in particular

LOL again twisting reality. Dravid averaged 42 from Jan 2007 to the start of the English tour of 2011 where he embarrassed Tendulkar by his performance. On the other hand, Tendulkar averaged 32 in Tests post the 2011 WC and hilariously kept playing ODIs until he got the 100th hundred after which he suspiciously retired from ODIs immediately to focus on his other useless milestone of 200 Tests. Please don't degrade a legend of the game like Brian Lara by comparing him with a self centred selfish individual like Tendulkar.
 
Last edited:
Tests are won by bowlers and till 2000, Lara had the services of Walsh and Ambrose.

Lara was a bit self centered and often rebelled against the management.

One of your few posts that I agree with. Lara played almost his entire career with great bowling strength and very good batting support. He should have won a lot more than he did.
 
One of your few posts that I agree with. Lara played almost his entire career with great bowling strength and very good batting support. He should have won a lot more than he did.

Pleasing to see that u finally agreed with somebody's thoughts.
 
Also, Sachin could only dream to play an innings like the 153* in the fourth innings chasing 300+ against an attack of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and McGill like Lara did.

Lolz, thanks for acknowledging that an attack of Wasim, Shoaib, Waqar and Saqlain was inferior to Mcgrath and co :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lara actually averaged more than his career average from 2001 to the end of his career.

Ambrose-Walsh era ended in 2001. Lara's average after 2001 was 58.24 as compared to his career average of 52.88.

BTW, during this period, these are his averages against some teams:

Australia: 54.55
South Africa: 57.56
Pakistan: 86.55
Sri Lanka: 123.37

And this was the time when the bowlers like McGrath, Warne, Murali, etc. were wreaking havoc on teams.

Lara was back to his best but one man can only do so much in a team sport.
 
Lara actually averaged more than his career average from 2001 to the end of his career.

Ambrose-Walsh era ended in 2001. Lara's average after 2001 was 58.24 as compared to his career average of 52.88.

BTW, during this period, these are his averages against some teams:

Australia: 54.55
South Africa: 57.56
Pakistan: 86.55
Sri Lanka: 123.37

And this was the time when the bowlers like McGrath, Warne, Murali, etc. were wreaking havoc on teams.

Lara was back to his best but one man can only do so much in a team sport.

Lara was also one of the few batsmen who dominated Murali in a singular fashion. And played some of the best innings of the post-Viv era [against McGrath/Warne for one]. I do have to admit that I'm super-biased when it comes to Lara and am generally impartial to all others.

Ian Chappell famously said for years that Lara was the best batsman of medium fast/spin bowling he had ever seen. Seeing how he treated spinners, it's hard to disagree.

And I have to say that I agree with most of the comments here, and am at least sympathetic to all others.
 
1. The team was constantly being chopped and changed.

2. Lara was constantly fighting with the board over the quality of local pitches, player selection and player pay, leading to several fines, reprimands and loss of captaincies.

3. In the 1990s, Hooper, Chanderpaul and Jimmy Adams were the only consistently selected batsmen other than Lara. Adams took a hit to the head, became a scared batsman, and lost his form in the mid 90s. Hooper was always unreliable and Chanderpaul only became a great after Lara left (it took Chanderpaul almost a decade to learn how to make a ton, due to a problem with a floating bone in his foot, which he had removed late in life).

4. No consistently selected openers. Openers are the bedrock of a test innings, and since the retirement of Greenidge and Haynes, the West Indies have never had consistently selected, decent openers. Sherwin Campbell (mediocre) and Gayle (decent) were their best, non of whom had stable partners.

5. Sarwan and Gayle only became reliable and somewhat mature after Lara left.

6. Once Ambrose and Walsh hung up their boots, the WI had no good pacers. The next wave of decent pacers (Roach, Taylor, Gabriel), coincided with the WICB taking a more active role in creating and training pacers (setting up High Performance Clinics etc).

7. The WICB fired Rohan Kanhai as coach, a masterful player, believing that the West Indies didn't need a coach. The Windies' fall coincides with his removal and the arrival of Steve Waugh's first tour to the Caribbean.

8. Ritchie Richardson was the last reliable WI captain, but he was a political pick by Viv Richards, and set in stone a kind of favoritism and unprofessionalism that carried on for decades. Whilst other teams were becoming well-oiled machines, with modern training methods, routines and technologies (video replay etc), the West Indies relied on raw talent, intra-island cliques and friendly favors.

9. No money and poor organizational bodies.

10. Lara went from poverty to a rich kid with no dad. While someone like Tendulkar had large support and familial/traditional networks to stabilize his transition from poverty to icon, Lara handled it all alone, and went the other way. He burned out, partied hard, and lost interest in cricket (the famous Lara quote, "cricket is ruining my life"). Only in the early 2000s would he, monk-like, sort his head out and resurrect himself.

11. Too many good bowlers. Warne, Donald, McGrath, Kumble, Murali, Gough, Flintoff, Akram, Younis etc etc. West Indies' fall coincides with other teams fielding some of their strongest attacks.

This!

To be fair to Lara, matches are won by teams and not individual. People here mentioning Lara's stats improved later on in his career does not reflect in wins. Carl Hooper was the last Windies captain who had a decent W/L ratio
 
One of the memorable win was that chasing 415(?) runs. That infamous sarwan-McGrath incident. Remember watching WI inning live!

What a match that was! Sarwan and Chanderpaul won both hit tons in the run chase. Also, can't believe how many people used to turn up to see test cricket in the Carribean. These days, all you can see in Caribbean crowds are crows.
 
West Indies simply didn't have a consistent team. 3-4 batsmen actually performed consistently rest were just mediocre. Bowling was particularly mediocre. And the board was, is always will be looking to derail any effort the team make.
 
Nonsense. Ganguly and Dravid debuted in 96, before that he always had the likes of Azhar and Sidhu (a great player at home) to accompany him. Sachin was hardly without support barring a few years in his career whereas Lara was with 0 bowling support and next to negligible batting support after the retirements of Ambrose and Walsh. Try harder.

Also, Sachin could only dream to play an innings like the 153* in the fourth innings chasing 300+ against an attack of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and McGill like Lara did.



LOL again twisting reality. Dravid averaged 42 from Jan 2007 to the start of the English tour of 2011 where he embarrassed Tendulkar by his performance. On the other hand, Tendulkar averaged 32 in Tests post the 2011 WC and hilariously kept playing ODIs until he got the 100th hundred after which he suspiciously retired from ODIs immediately to focus on his other useless milestone of 200 Tests. Please don't degrade a legend of the game like Brian Lara by comparing him with a self centred selfish individual like Tendulkar.
Yeah a legend whose selfishness for his highest scores is for everyone to see. Please keep u r selfish theories to u r self
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah a legend whose selfishness for his highest scores is for everyone to see. Please keep u r selfish theories to u r self

There is some truth to it. Tendulkar just scored 3 100s and 7 50s in 60 4th innings. That's one 50+ score in every 10 innings. These are poor numbers for someone who is supposed to be the greatest batsman of all time.
 
Lara actually averaged more than his career average from 2001 to the end of his career.

Ambrose-Walsh era ended in 2001. Lara's average after 2001 was 58.24 as compared to his career average of 52.88.

BTW, during this period, these are his averages against some teams:

Australia: 54.55
South Africa: 57.56
Pakistan: 86.55
Sri Lanka: 123.37

And this was the time when the bowlers like McGrath, Warne, Murali, etc. were wreaking havoc on teams.


Lara was back to his best but one man can only do so much in a team sport.


What was Lara's avg in Aus and SA during the period you mentioned ?
 
WI was sharply on the decline once Ambrose and Walsh retired, same way Ponting's downfall came after Mcgrath and Warne left... Bowlers win matches, batsmen setup the game in most circumstances...
 
There is some truth to it. Tendulkar just scored 3 100s and 7 50s in 60 4th innings. That's one 50+ score in every 10 innings. These are poor numbers for someone who is supposed to be the greatest batsman of all time.
The game is set up in the 1st and 2nd innings of the test match, by 4th innings the match is almost over.
 
What were the results of the matches where Lara scored 400 and 375 ? Tame draws. So he often batted for personal glory rather than to earn wins for his team, at least in these two matches, if not in others.

If Tendulkar was selfish record seeker as alleged by some, then so was Lara. Tendulkar at least has some results to show for his "selfish" batting efforts. When he demolished Warne in a test series, his team defeated Australia 2-1, who were then the strongest test team going around. It is in sharp contrast to Lara's demolition of Muralitharan. His batting did not help his team much and Sri Lanka blanked West Indies 3-0.

Tendulkar has a few limited overs trophies, including a world cup to show for his ODI batting efforts . What Trophy does Lara have to show ? So going by the yardsticks with which some people judge Tendulkar, Lara was one of the biggest personal glory seekers, and a record chaser and his individual runs rarely helped his team.
 
Last edited:
Good point. Personally, I've always rated the contributions of Dravid, Viru and Laxman more than Sachin whose impact was never equal to those guys. All better to watch too.

Viru, Laxman and Dravid never made impacts anywhere close as Sachin did. Viru is probably the closest to Sachin in terms of contribution with his aggressive batting which game rest of the batsmen more balls to play but then someone like Dravid and laxman would eat those.
 
The game is set up in the 1st and 2nd innings of the test match, by 4th innings the match is almost over.

Chennai test was there to take but he choked. Bangalore test India could have easily drawn but Tendulkar went into his shell and gave his wicket to Afridi when barely 10-15 overs were left.
 
Chennai test was there to take but he choked. Bangalore test India could have easily drawn but Tendulkar went into his shell and gave his wicket to Afridi when barely 10-15 overs were left.

Did you even watch the chennai test? Do you even know what a choke is? He didn't choke in the chennai test, he was batting with an injured back, and singlehandedly brought the team 13 runs away from the total, he was the only one who didn't choke, he was the one who got the team into the match winning position in the first place.

Secondly, there are very very very few tests that can be won in the fourth innings, more than 90% of the test matches are won in the first and 2nd innings, those who obsess over 4th innings have very little knowledge about test cricket
 
Did you even watch the chennai test? Do you even know what a choke is? He didn't choke in the chennai test, he was batting with an injured back, and singlehandedly brought the team 13 runs away from the total, he was the only one who didn't choke, he was the one who got the team into the match winning position in the first place.

Secondly, there are very very very few tests that can be won in the fourth innings, more than 90% of the test matches are won in the first and 2nd innings, those who obsess over 4th innings have very little knowledge about test cricket

Before asking me if I watched that match, go and rewatch what shot he played to get out.
 
Before asking me if I watched that match, go and rewatch what shot he played to get out.

Did you not read what I wrote? He was batting with an injured back, he had to finish the match quickly, he could barely even bend while batting. There would be no match winning position to choke from if he didn't play that splendid innings, he's the one who got India to that position, this is not a choke
 
I'm sure it was in the mid 40s in Australia. BTW, why should his performance against Australia at home be ignored? Australia dominated almost everywhere.

I am all for what you are saying, why should stats at home be ignored, for example Sehwag avgs something like 60 vs SA in India and 25 in SA. Also on test matches in which Mcgrath played in Australia vs WI, Lara avgs in the 30s, so that is quite a big drop..
 
Before asking me if I watched that match, go and rewatch what shot he played to get out.

Chennai test match was not a choke, a choke is when you get out for a single digit score chasing a big enough target in the 4th Innings. Chennai test match was won, Pakistan was done, 12 runs away from victory, Pakistani bowlers gave up and realized SRT was not going to get out. However SRT became impatient and went for an Afridi like brainless slog which ended the match....
 
I am all for what you are saying, why should stats at home be ignored, for example Sehwag avgs something like 60 vs SA in India and 25 in SA. Also on test matches in which Mcgrath played in Australia vs WI, Lara avgs in the 30s, so that is quite a big drop..

Lara did play McGrath better than any other batsman I recall tbh
 
Lara did play McGrath better than any other batsman I recall tbh

At home he played well, in Aus he struggled vs Mcgrath, I believe he avgd INZI like, in the 30's in Aus in games Mcgrath played
 
Last edited:
At home he played well, in Aus he struggled vs Mcgrath, I believe he avgd INZI like, in the 30's in Aus in games Mcgrath played

Even in Australia he played few memorable innings. Something others failed to manage
 
Even in Australia he played few memorable innings. Something others failed to manage

Well considering the amount of games he played in Australia it is only natural, I mean if you are supposed to be one of the greatest batsmen of your ERA and you play around what 20 plus test matches in Australia, YOU have to PLAY A FEW MEMORABLE innings...A few memorable innings followed by being majorly and on most occasions owned by Mcgrath in Aus... His Avg of 37 odd perfectly shows his struggles vs Mcgrath in Aus..
 
Well considering the amount of games he played in Australia it is only natural, I mean if you are supposed to be one of the greatest batsmen of your ERA and you play around what 20 plus test matches in Australia, YOU have to PLAY A FEW MEMORABLE innings...A few memorable innings followed by being majorly and on most occasions owned by Mcgrath in Aus... His Avg of 37 odd perfectly shows his struggles vs Mcgrath in Aus..

Conversely Lara owned Mcgrath in WI?

Pretty decent effort considering SRT averaged 14 against MCG.
 
From where did you pull that stat out? Sachin averaged 46 against mcgrath in australia

Charles Davis did the head-to-head summary for SRT against bowlers who dismissed him the most.
 
Head-to-head figure is 88 runs in 287 balls dismissed 6 times: averaged 14.7

So you pull sachin's head to head record vs mcgrath and compare it to overall average of lara against australia with mcgrath in the team and call it decent? lmao genius :yk
 
So you pull sachin's head to head record vs mcgrath and compare it to overall average of lara against australia with mcgrath in the team and call it decent? lmao genius :yk

Lara's hth is available as well on cricinfo.. He played Mcg better than SRT

Of course Lara's record has its own weaknesses; but "failure" against Mcgrath isn't one of them.
 
Sachin averaged 54 in Australia against Australia and that is what matters. Breaking it up for individual bowlers is like trying to split the hair into four pieces. It does not serve any purpose.
 
Last edited:
Sachin averaged 54 in Australia against Australia and that is what matters. Breaking it up for individual bowlers is like trying to split the hair into four pieces. It does not serve any purpose.

Yeah but it's completely fine when degrading the players who are competitors of your beloved hero
 
Tendulkar played 20 tests against Ausralia in Australia and scored 1809 runs in 38 innings at an average of 53.20, with six centuries.
 
But failed pathetically against McGrath overall
 
What is lara's head to head average against mcgrath though? Can't be too great considering he was a bunny of mcgrath :kp
 
Lara played 19 tests in Australia against Australia and scored 1455 runs in 35 innings at an average of 41.57, with four centuries. This average is way below his overall career average.
 
Another record that Lara's fan would love to note. Lara ended on the losing side in as many as 63 test matches. He is second only to his compatriot Chanderpaul who ended up on the losing side on 69 occasions in test matches. So we know what good Lara's batting did to his side in the 131 tests where he supposedly owned all the great bowlers of the era. His team got owned by the opposition in vast majority of these matches.
 
Another record that Lara's fan would love to note. Lara ended on the losing side in as many as 63 test matches. He is second only to his compatriot Chanderpaul who ended up on the losing side on 69 occasions in test matches. So we know what good Lara's batting did to his side in the 131 tests where he supposedly owned all the great bowlers of the era. His team got owned by the opposition in vast majority of these matches.

But But.. I thought he was a match winner :wahab2
 
This is very funny people are arguing who is better between Kara and Tendulkar by using selective stats vs one bowler? Seriously height of Cricinfo generation at their best..
 
In all seriousness, credit where it is due, Lara is one of my favourite batsmen. SRT and Lara were the greatest of their time with SRT slightly ahead as far as being the more complete batsmen.. You cannot go wrong with either, it is matter of preference imo.
 
This is very funny people are arguing who is better between Kara and Tendulkar by using selective stats vs one bowler? Seriously height of Cricinfo generation at their best..

Of course Lara's record has several limitations. It's just someone tried to use his "failure" against McGrath as an excuse and I just tried to bring him back on earth
 
Anyways I have always maintained SRT was a better batsman than Lara.

However contrary to popular belief from his fanbois who portray him as "god", his record has limitations; his performance against McGrath being one of the biggest chinks in the armor.

And that's also the reason there is no way to be certain he was better than guys like Viv or Sobers
 
Last edited:
No one is claiming that Tendulkar was better than Viv Richards and Sobers. It is not possible to compare players who played in different eras just based on statistics or their footage.
 
Obviously you haven't been around here for long
 
Why is Tendulkar being discussed in a thread about lara anyway? Jealous gals just can't control their emotion and have to drag srt into every thread because they can't stand the FACT that SRT is the greatest cricketer of all time. This is the power of SRT, even the bitter haters can't ignore SRT, in fact they are more obsessed with srt than his fans.
 
SRT only averaged 14 against best bowler of his generation; that's beyond pathetic
 
Again you haven't been around here for long :)
 
You have been here since february 2015. I have been here since march 2008.

Same applies when it comes to following cricket. I have been following test cricket from the time when Lara was not even born and Sobers was still around.
 
Every thread turns into SRT thread over here. Not the 1st time and sure as heck not the last one either
 
Anyways I have always maintained SRT was a better batsman than Lara.

However contrary to popular belief from his fanbois who portray him as "god", his record has limitations; his performance against McGrath being one of the biggest chinks in the armor.

And that's also the reason there is no way to be certain he was better than guys like Viv or Sobers

No one said SRT dominated Mcgrath, cant help it if you make your own assumptions. I have always maintained over the years that Mcgrath vs SRT was a stale mate. 1999 India series in Aus which Mgrath played SRT avg 46, Mcgrath's trip to India in 2001, SRT avgd 51 odd. In 2004 where SRT didnt complete the series due to the Tennis Elbow he avgd 17 in that test series with Mcgrath. Both Mcgrath vs SRT on an even playing field with no injuries was always a stale mate....
 
No one said SRT dominated Mcgrath, cant help it if you make your own assumptions. I have always maintained over the years that Mcgrath vs SRT was a stale mate. 1999 India series in Aus which Mgrath played SRT avg 46, Mcgrath's trip to India in 2001, SRT avgd 51 odd. In 2004 where SRT didnt complete the series due to the Tennis Elbow he avgd 17 in that test series with Mcgrath. Both Mcgrath vs SRT on an even playing field with no injuries was always a stale mate....

McGrath won the battle against SRT. Not sure why you are embarrassed to admit the obvious.
 
No one said SRT dominated Mcgrath, cant help it if you make your own assumptions. I have always maintained over the years that Mcgrath vs SRT was a stale mate. 1999 India series in Aus which Mgrath played SRT avg 46, Mcgrath's trip to India in 2001, SRT avgd 51 odd. In 2004 where SRT didnt complete the series due to the Tennis Elbow he avgd 17 in that test series with Mcgrath. Both Mcgrath vs SRT on an even playing field with no injuries was always a stale mate....

If tendulkar didn't rush back into the team after injury in 2004, he had this battle won easy. They played like 3 series together and in 2 series tendulkar averaged 46 and 51. So much for ownage :yk
 
If tendulkar didn't rush back into the team after injury in 2004, he had this battle won easy. They played like 3 series together and in 2 series tendulkar averaged 46 and 51. So much for ownage :yk

That tennis elbow series in 2004 was brutal, SRT looked so horribly out of touch it was painful to watch, however if he was healthy India would have won the series with the usual SRT vg of 45-50 in that series.. I think Mcgrath got SRT a whopping 4 times total during the last 3 series before the 2004 one..
 
Injury etc are part of career and there is simply no place for sympathy; it's like saying sanga would have averaged 75 if not burdened with keeping

Those variables are not quantifiable so as long as player participates in the game he is 100% as far as I do concerned. He shouldn't have played if not fit. There is no room for excuse at that level
 
All this hogwash aside, McGrath won the battle against SRT in tests without a shadow of the doubt. He is one the few who forced SRT to go on a defensive mode. That's why Lara played him better because he always took McGrath head on. He got out plenty but also managed to score big on occasions as well. That's the reason McGrath himself rates Lara slightly higer from the batsmen he bowled to.

In ODI that matters less, they ended up even IMO. In ODI SRT was far more willing to attack McGrath and ended up having edge at times.

Makes no sense to argue when stats are these overwhelming
 
Last edited:
Back
Top