Viv Richards vs Brian Lara

[subshakerz]

I voted for Viv but the below I can think are points in favor of Lara vs Viv:

- More centuries, and the most double tons since Bradman
- Greatest player of spin
- Led a weak batting lineup
- Strong record against an ATG bowling lineup
- Two ATG series performances

Anything missing?

 

[Slifer]

Lara had some great highs and massive lows against McGrath, whereas Tendulkar only played two full series against him, home and away, and did well in both, and a few tests outside of those.

Bull. Lara averages more vs McGrath than Sachin. Lara failed in 2 of 6 series vs McGrath. Sachin failed in one of 3. But Sachin never dominated McGrath like '99. And in 23 tests, McGrath dismissed Lara 15 times or 63% of the time. Sachin played 9 tests vs McGrath an was dismissed by him 6 times or 66% .

 

[Chrish]

“Greatest player of spin” title goes to Sehwag, but that’s a minor quibble.

He was more flamboyant and better to watch than Viv or probably any other batsman. Orthodox batting technique doesn’t excite me like abstract ones (Lara/ Smith).

 

[subshakerz]

Lara undoubtedly played McGrath better than Tendulkar..

You are going by pure averages which don’t tell you the whole story.

No, not pure averages. I saw him play McGrath throughout his career. People just remember that 99 series. McGrath gave Lara a lot more trouble than Tendulkar overall.

They forget that McGrath absolutely eviscerated Lara in the 96 series, exposing his weakness outside off, reducing him to a shell and dismissing him cheaply 5 times in 6 innings.

Even in that 99 series, Lara overcame McGrath but it is not like McGrath was bowling pies or being dominated. He was still beating the bat regularly, creating chances and posing a stiff challenge to Lara, it was just that Lara had touched a godly level of form that he could still counterattack.

Tendulkar may not have the same peak series but he wasn't struggling vs McGrath and was certainly more comfortable against him.

 

[subshakerz]

He was more flamboyant and better to watch than Viv or probably any other batsman.

Highly debatable. Watching Viv bat in the 70s/80s would be as much a spectacle than Lara in the 90s/2000s.

 

[Chrish]

No, not pure averages. I saw him play McGrath throughout his career. People just remember that 99 series. McGrath gave Lara a lot more trouble than Tendulkar overall.

They forget that McGrath absolutely eviscerated Lara in the 96 series, exposing his weakness outside off, reducing him to a shell and dismissing him cheaply 5 times in 6 innings.

Even in that 99 series, Lara overcame McGrath but it is not like McGrath was bowling pies or being dominated. He was still beating the bat regularly, creating chances and posing a stiff challenge to Lara, it was just that Lara had touched a godly level of form that he could still counterattack.

Tendulkar may not have the same peak series but he wasn't struggling vs McGrath and was certainly more comfortable against him.

Tendulkar never dominated McGrath in tests. Lara did it more than few times.

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar may not have the same peak series but he wasn't struggling vs McGrath and was certainly more comfortable against him.

Except McGrath himself said Lara was harder to bowl at and handled him more comfortably. Its funny how soundbytes that suit your bias make their way into your posts but these don't.

 

[Slifer]

I voted for Viv but the below I can think are points in favor of Lara vs Viv:

- More centuries, and the most double tons since Bradman
- Greatest player of spin
- Led a weak batting lineup
- Strong record against an ATG bowling lineup
- Two ATG series performances

Anything missing?

Actually, Sangakkara has the second most doubles after the Don. But for missing Lara accomplishments:

Most 500 run series (tied with the Don)

3rd Highest percentage of teams runs scored over a career (after The Don and Headley)

Arguably two of the greatest knocks of all time 153* and 213

2nd highest aggregate in a 3 test series (688)

10th highest aggregate in any series (798)

2 world record scores in tests

One of 4 players with 2 300+ scores

Only player to score 350 + 3 times in a match.

Etc.

 

[Chrish]

Highly debatable. Watching Viv bat in the 70s/80s would be as much a spectacle than Lara in the 90s/2000s.

He brutalized bowlers in agricultural way much like Sehwag.


Not my idea of flamboyance..

 

[subshakerz]

Bull. Lara averages more vs McGrath than Sachin. Lara failed in 2 of 6 series vs McGrath. Sachin failed in one of 3. But Sachin never dominated McGrath like '99. And in 23 tests, McGrath dismissed Lara 15 times or 63% of the time. Sachin played 9 tests vs McGrath an was dismissed by him 6 times or 66% .

The series where Lara failed was specifically because McGrath dominated him and dismissing him several times.

Sachin failed only in 2004/5 but that was mainly Gillespie, not McGrath. McGrath never dominated him in a series. Sachin had two strong showings against McGrath in 99 and 2001.

 

[subshakerz]

Except McGrath himself said Lara was harder to bowl at and handled him more comfortably. Its funny how soundbytes that suit your bias make their way into your posts but these don't.

He never used the word comfortable and he did say Tendulkar was equally as good, just that Lara was more fearless which I agree with.

 

[Chrish]

How many folks on here have seen Viv in his pomp (70s to early 80s) rather than tail end of his career? I know Lillian Thompson is one; who else?

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar never dominated McGrath in tests. Lara did it more than few times.

Yeah so that is where we come to what constitute playing a bowler better.

Some posters believe it is high run scoring in a series even if he has other series where he sucked.

My own view emphasizes consistent run performance and not struggling in any series.

I dont mind your view, but I think mine is equally valid.

 

[ashley bach]

Impossible one to call this, but Viv because the way he walked out to the crease his body language always said while he's out in the middle there's
only going to be one person in charge, he could make bowlers tremble.

 

[Slifer]

The series where Lara failed was specifically because McGrath dominated him and dismissing him several times.

Sachin failed only in 2004/5 but that was mainly Gillespie, not McGrath. McGrath never dominated him in a series. Sachin had two strong showings against McGrath in 99 and 2001.

I literally showed that McGrath dismissed Sachin at a higher rate than Lara (66% vs 63 %) and Lara averaged 10 runs more than Sachin in tests they both played featuring McGrath. Sachin had two strong showings but nothing special. Lara had 3 strong showings (by your measure) and 1 all once in a lifetime series and 2 failures. Sachin failed in 2004. And the thing about all those McGrath dismissals of Lara, quite a few came when he already had runs on the board: 226, 213, 100.

Funny thing is that you argue that Sachin did better vs Donald and the Ws. But the difference in their averages there is smaller than in their respective averages vs McGrath. I didn't want this thread to devolve into a BCL vs SRT bit it seems like some people just can't give the anyone their due where Sachin is involved.

 

[honestbharani]

I didn't want this thread to devolve into a BCL vs SRT bit it seems like some people just can't give the anyone their due where Sachin is involved.

FWIW, saltshakerz does not rate Sachin even more than he does not rate Lara. He just has an annoying habit of holding hypocritically bad and dumb opinions based on his own biases and refusing to budge when reality is shown to him.

 

[Slifer]

FWIW, saltshakerz does not rate Sachin even more than he does not rate Lara. He just has an annoying habit of holding hypocritically bad and dumb opinions based on his own biases and refusing to budge when reality is shown to him.

Thanks for the fair warning. Back to the main event then....

 

[Slifer]

How many folks on here have seen Viv in his pomp (70s to early 80s) rather than tail end of his career? I know Lillian Thompson is one; who else?

Didn't actually see him live but listened to him more so on the radio lol. Most of us in the Caribbean didn't have tvs in the 80s. Anyway his peak was probably a little b4 my time of following cricket but even then there was glimpses of what he used to be.

My dad told me a story about the series in 1975-76 where WI were utterly destroyed by Lillee and co. He said that in the last two tests that a young Greenidge was afraid to face up to the Aussie pacemen. So Viv being an alpha male stepped up to open in the last two test. Both were lost but Viv made runs and kick started one of the best years of test batting ever.

 

[subshakerz]

FWIW, saltshakerz does not rate Sachin even more than he does not rate Lara. He just has an annoying habit of holding hypocritically bad and dumb opinions based on his own biases and refusing to budge when reality is shown to him.

As usual, you are full of it. Tendulkar to me is the best since Bradman and I have plenty of posts delving into why I rate him so highly.

 

[subshakerz]

I literally showed that McGrath dismissed Sachin at a higher rate than Lara (66% vs 63 %) and Lara averaged 10 runs more than Sachin in tests they both played featuring McGrath. Sachin had two strong showings but nothing special. Lara had 3 strong showings (by your measure) and 1 all once in a lifetime series and 2 failures. Sachin failed in 2004. And the thing about all those McGrath dismissals of Lara, quite a few came when he already had runs on the board: 226, 213, 100.

Funny thing is that you argue that Sachin did better vs Donald and the Ws. But the difference in their averages there is smaller than in their respective averages vs McGrath. I didn't want this thread to devolve into a BCL vs SRT bit it seems like some people just can't give the anyone their due where Sachin is involved.

The rate of dismissals is misleading because in Tendulkar's case it is spread out over 9 tests and McGrath didnt have a series where he owned Tendulkar by dismissing him several times, whereas in Lara's case, his dismissals are clumped together particularly in series in which he didnt do well against McGrath and lost his wicket several times, particularly 96 and 2000. This is important because then you claim Tendulkar failed in 2004, whereas McGrath just dismissed him once then.

Anyways, we can argue in circles. I get your points, Lara had some really top notch series against McGrath which mitigates against his lesser series showings and overall scored more runs. I understand your perspective, it is valid, my point is that Tendulkar may have scored slightly less, but was more consistent and never had a series where McGrath had his number, which to me points to him playing McGrath better, whereas in Lara's case you can argue he may have showed more weaknesses but also much higher strengths vs McGrath.

Let's call peace and move on.