Brian Lara a true Gent

[smash84]

Wow ridiculous stats against the best two teams of the time, namely WI and Aus. He averaged <25 against both of them over many Tests and not just in total but away from home as well.

Although his stats don't seem too good in Pakistan, maybe the partial umpiring was a factor. Therefore, I think the only big mark on his stats is his performance against England. For a swing bowler like him, you'd have expected him to have done much better in English conditions. I wonder what went wrong?

Haha, tbf Kapil really wasn't as great a bowler that you would expect him to average sub 25 in all conditions and I don't think partial umpiring had as much to do with it than the fact that Pakistan had a lot of stupidly flat pitches.

Hi average in New Zealand is even worse than it is in Pakistan and he averages similar in England. He wasn't that great abroad except in WI and Aus, where he was exceptional.

 

[smash84]

Forgot to copy Kapil's bowling record.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Add to that the fact that he played for at least 2 to 3 years too long and you know the averages will suffer

 

[silentstriker]

Is Sachin the best batsman since Bradman? Yes. Is he god? Maybe. Is BC lara right? Probably. Is Sledger always wrong about this? Absolutely.

 

[harsh.ag]

Is Sachin the best batsman since Bradman? Yes. Is he god? Maybe. Is BC lara right? Probably. Is Sledger always wrong about this? Absolutely.

I always have a problem thinking in terms of best batsmen. Sachin the second greatest batsman for me. For greatness, to a large extent, is a summation of achievements. Of course, other factors are there as well. Hobbs next, and almost at par with Sachin, in the greatest list.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Wow ridiculous stats against the best two teams of the time, namely WI and Aus. He averaged <25 against both of them over many Tests and not just in total but away from home as well.

Although his stats don't seem too good in Pakistan, maybe the partial umpiring was a factor. Therefore, I think the only big mark on his stats is his performance against England. For a swing bowler like him, you'd have expected him to have done much better in English conditions. I wonder what went wrong?

I'm disinclined to agree with you and say that the Aussies were the second best team of the time the only really improved significantly towards the end of his career.

 

[honestbharani]

Both are pretty good analysis.

Would have to look it up in greater detail, but great bowlers seems to affect great batsmen stats more that great batsmen affect great bowlers stats. Especially fast bowlers.

The reason is simple.. A bowler can make any number of errors and still get a batsman out and be called the winner.. I remember Lara absolutely smashing Donald for fours all over the place in 98 til he reached 30 or 35 and then he got him out.. It went as a win for the bowler.. That is just how the game is. A batsman mostly gets to make only one mistake. A bowler can make 10 and then get the batsman out and still come out looking like the winner.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The reason is simple.. A bowler can make any number of errors and still get a batsman out and be called the winner.. I remember Lara absolutely smashing Donald for fours all over the place in 98 til he reached 30 or 35 and then he got him out.. It went as a win for the bowler.. That is just how the game is. A batsman mostly gets to make only one mistake. A bowler can make 10 and then get the batsman out and still come out looking like the winner.

Very well said.

 

[kyear2]

Is Sachin the best batsman since Bradman? Yes. Is he god? Maybe. Is BC lara right? Probably. Is Sledger always wrong about this? Absolutely.

Just find it really difficult to separate Viv, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar and Lara as the best behind Bradman but it always more or less come out in that order. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but at their best as a bowler who would I fear bowling to the most, strength of attacks the dominated, batting position, pitches batted on and consistency all factor in.


Assume you are kidding with the god thing.

 

[centurymaker]

when it comes to greatness or just overall then it is Tendulkar.

When it is about being the best, then he's only top 5 to be fair. Some guys, for eg, at their peak were ahead.

 

[kyear2]

yes, but our fielding woes stem most from our wicket keeping and not from the slip cordon. In fact I can't remember any team who has suffered significantly because of having a bad slip cordon. Maybe others can point out.

A great one can really make a significant difference though.

WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION! - YouTube

Curtly Ambrose & Ian Bishop vs Pakistan 1st test 1993 - YouTube

There just as many examples for Lillee and McGrath and the assistance they received from their cordons as well.

 

[uvelocity]

The reason is simple.. A bowler can make any number of errors and still get a batsman out and be called the winner.. I remember Lara absolutely smashing Donald for fours all over the place in 98 til he reached 30 or 35 and then he got him out.. It went as a win for the bowler.. That is just how the game is. A batsman mostly gets to make only one mistake. A bowler can make 10 and then get the batsman out and still come out looking like the winner.

man this always ****s me. nobody's ever heard of a spell of beating the bat, edges flying close to fielders and plumb lbw's turned down all the while some spud like ian bell scores a streaky 124 and then holes out to mid wicket off a part timer and the strike bowler returns 1/150

 

[honestbharani]

man this always ****s me. nobody's ever heard of a spell of beating the bat, edges flying close to fielders and plumb lbw's turned down all the while some spud like ian bell scores a streaky 124 and then holes out to mid wicket off a part timer and the strike bowler returns 1/150

I am not sure what your point is.. but the simple fact of cricket is a bowler gets many chances to beat a batsman even if he is hit around the park.. The batsman only gets one chance. So when folks are doing bowler V batsman specific comparisons that is one fact to be borne in mind. The scenario you are indicating happens a lot lot less frequently than the one I mentioned when comparing individual batsmen against individual bowlers..

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I have no sympathy for batsmen and their "one chance" in this era of flat pitches, bats the size of tree trunks and reduced boundaries. As it is, the batsman quite often gets more than one chance due to the fabled "benefit of the doubt". Batsmen need to harden up and stop whinging about how hard done by they are.

 

[honestbharani]

I have no sympathy for batsmen and their "one chance" in this era of flat pitches, bats the size of tree trunks and reduced boundaries. As it is, the batsman quite often gets more than one chance due to the fabled "benefit of the doubt". Batsmen need to harden up and stop whinging about how hard done by they are.

I don understand this.. No one is saying that batsmen are hard done by here.. It is a just a basic fact and reason why if you take most individual bowler vs batsmen statistics to understand who dominated whom, the results invariably tend to favor the bowler (assuming we are comparing the greats here)..

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It is a just a basic fact and reason why if you take most individual bowler vs batsmen statistics...

Erm, no it's not. And even if they did "invariably favour the bowler" then all the comparisons between different bowlers vs. the same batsman are still comparable. Terry Alderman did dominate Graham Gooch - the stats show that, but there's no skew. Even if you're saying there's an inherent skew in statistics in favour of the bowler vs. the batsman (which I deny anyway) then you can reset your expectations of an 'good' bowler vs. batsman statistical result.

Please feel free to give me some examples of a bowler/batsman pairing where the statistics unfairly demonstrate that the bowler dominated the batsman over a statistically significant sample size.

 

[honestbharani]

No.. I am talking about the definition of domination here.. If a batsman can play a bowler well for 30 deliveries and score around 25 and then get out to him, it still goes down in everyone's debates as the bowler dominating the batsman.. I don't think that is necessarily fair or true...

 

[smash84]

A great one can really make a significant difference though.

WEST INDIES FAST BOWLERS OF THE 80'S - BRUTAL COMPILATION! - YouTube

Curtly Ambrose & Ian Bishop vs Pakistan 1st test 1993 - YouTube

There just as many examples for Lillee and McGrath and the assistance they received from their cordons as well.

It seems to me that the cordons are being provided the assistance here. I wouldn't expect Ishant Sharma or Sami and Sammy keeping the cordons busy.

 

[honestbharani]

Its all about balance folks.. There is no use having an ace cordon if the bowlers can't get the batsmen to nick the ball to them. And there is no use having awesome bowlers creating chances to constantly see the cordon putting them down ..

 

[Black_Warrior]

The reason is simple.. A bowler can make any number of errors and still get a batsman out and be called the winner.. I remember Lara absolutely smashing Donald for fours all over the place in 98 til he reached 30 or 35 and then he got him out.. It went as a win for the bowler.. That is just how the game is. A batsman mostly gets to make only one mistake. A bowler can make 10 and then get the batsman out and still come out looking like the winner.

But there is certainly a difference here..
Lara smashed the hell out of Kaneria too and blasted his way to 216 before Kaneria got him out and guess who was called the winner that day.
Its just a matter of a volume of runs.
Lara's 132 against Warne is also considered a victory for Lara even though Warne ultimately got him out.

 

[honestbharani]

Sure.. But consider this too.. If you are really looking at a bowler V batsman, you need to boil it down to the barest of facts.. Runs scored by said batsman against said bowler.. And assuming an average of a great batsman is 50 and assuming 4 bowlers bowl to you in a typical inning, that translates to roughly 13 runs off a bowler.. Of course, the number of balls bowled by a bowler to a batsman and the number of bowlers a batsman faces all varies very heavily depending on how long the innings went more than any other factor but going any further down increases the levels of complexity exponentially.. So just taking such a simplistic view, if a batsman has scored upwards of 10 runs off a bowler in an inning, does it mean the batsman did get the better of the bowler for that knock?


I know I am oversimplifying and overanalyzing at the same time here, but honestly, just trying to make a bowling team Vs a batsman to be a bowler V batsman is just fraught with the same level of banalness... It is so complicated and comes with so many provisos and assumptions that such a comparison is ultimately pointless and mostly fruitless...