Steve Smith vs Brian Lara

[subshakerz]

Its not meaningless but requires context. e.g If you had someone dominating their era are they better than someone who wasn’t dominant or were there just less high quality players playing at that time.

e.g Steyn vs 80’s/90’s pacers

I think there are those who dominated but also those recognized as the top 1/2 best of their era, like Ambrose/Wasim and Tendulkar/Lara.

 

[BazBall21]

Lara coming back

 

[kyear2]

At his absolute best still think Lara was the greatest ever, but he wasn't there as often as others.

Have to go with Smith on this one.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara is the best batsman I have seen.

 

[kyear2]

Lara is the best batsman I have seen.

I believe and have said the same thing as well.

 

[shortpitched713]

So Smith > hayden > Tendulkar for you. Interesting. Do you have Lara ahead or behind Hayden?

For you, my man, you'll get the sneak peak at the whole spreadsheet.

Answering your question directly, Lara > Gavaskar > Hayden, is how it would go in my mind.

 

[shortpitched713]

Smith is the BBB, unless he messes up in some way which puts into question his whole approach to being this dominant, which yes it would be possible to have happen.

Yes, this would be over both Weekes and Sobers, who are the only 2 batsmen that really get close to Smith, imo.

 

[shortpitched713]

Lara is the best batsman I have seen.

Lara was the best batsman I watched throughout his career. However, even with a smaller sampling of viewing Smith, Weekes, and Sobers, I can say their best did look better than Lara's extremely formidable best.

 

[Slifer]

Yes, this would be over both Weekes and Sobers, who are the only 2 batsmen that really get close to Smith, imo.

I have to ask. But was Weekes really a better batsman than Walcott? They both sucked away to the two good teams of their times but Walcott managed to absolutely murder two atg England and Australia bowling attacks in back to back series. Something Weekes didn't come close to.

 

[shortpitched713]

I have to ask. But was Weekes really a better batsman than Walcott? They both sucked away to the two good teams of their times but Walcott managed to absolutely murder two atg England and Australia bowling attacks in back to back series. Something Weekes didn't come close to.

Unfortunately, with pre professional era players, you always run into sample size issues, and Weekes is no different. However, he got centuries against all sides, and some really nice performances against England in particular. Yes, he bashed on India, New Zealand, and Pakistan, but that to me is just to be expected. The overall career profile for mine is simply of a batsman who would score prolifically against anyone, although not infallible against the very best sides. Well duh, no batsman was except Bradman.

Edit: The big part of it was also the look. He was perfect at getting onto the back foot, while also playing very, very late while absolutely bludgeoning the ball, especially to all parts of the leg side. Those factors make him, to me, the closest replication of the style of Bradman that I've seen in any batsman. It was also necessary to have that type of style to be as prolific of a boundary scorer as he was, which given the bats of the day, was not an easy feat. A lot of other run scorers of that period given that tool in hand, would look to accumulate via deflections and glances and the like. But to me batsmanship is about putting the middle of willow cleanly on leather, consistently. I think Weekes did it the BBB.

 

[kyear2]

Lara was the best batsman I watched throughout his career. However, even with a smaller sampling of viewing Smith, Weekes, and Sobers, I can say their best did look better than Lara's extremely formidable best.

You actually saw Weekes bat?

 

[honestbharani]

Lara was the best batsman I watched throughout his career. However, even with a smaller sampling of viewing Smith, Weekes, and Sobers, I can say their best did look better than Lara's extremely formidable best.

I have seen almost the entirety of Steve Smith's career and I think Lara is the better test batsman.

 

[shortpitched713]

You actually saw Weekes bat?

There's footage out there, if you want to look. Never actually seen the man bat live, however. I am much too young for that.

 

[shortpitched713]

The further back you go into, and past the wars, the less certain you can be of the quality of bowling these greats of old had to face. I'm certainly never going to place players of which there is literally no footage, into this conversation, regardless of their numbers. Even the Don has some very impressive footage out there. Anyone before him, unfortunately, but as befits the march of time is out of the conversation in my mind.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Lara coming back

Winning now

 

[BazBall21]

Winning now

I voted for Lara in the end. Smith pretty much just needs to avoid a collapse but I still don't think he's definitively ahead no matter what happens from here.

 

[The Sean]

I've still not voted on this as I can't settle on an answer. Smith is and has been I think the more consistently outstanding, and I reckon I'll rate him ahead by the time his career ends.

But God-mode Lara is the best player I've ever seen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Smith is the scariest and most ruthless run machine I've ever seen. Aesthetics aside, I think he's surpassed Lara and even a big career end slump wouldn't change that for me.

 

[ankitj]

I have seen almost the entirety of Steve Smith's career and I think Lara is the better test batsman.

When you base your opinion on "seen", do you mean eye test or aesthetics? That would never do justice to Steve Smith.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Lara would have been bigger superstar if played in Smith era

Absolutely. The bowlers collectively he faced were much better than what Smith has faced.