Steve Smith vs Brian Lara

[Slifer]

No, having watched Tendulkar during his career, it is clear that Tendulkar didn't struggle against them. He just didn't thrive against them. Whereas Lara clearly had issues facing certain pacers in particular series. We don't need to rehash it.


Injuries are an excuse but poor form is no excuse. And it is a chicken and egg, was he in poor form because of facing these guys, or did poor form stop him from scoring against them.



Yes but these overall averages are misleading. For example, Tendulkar didn't get out to the 2Ws at all when he faced them in the late 90s. He never had a series where he consistently struggled against these pacers like Lara did against the 2W in 97, McGrath in 96 and Donald in 98.

Tendulkar can be blamed for not prospering more against them though, but having watched him, he didn't struggle against them particularly. Lara had more problems.

Sooo Sachin didn't have any more success vs Ws,or Donald. I don't care if he didn't get out to them, the fact of the matter is he wasn't more successful. Lara was more successful vs McGrath because he averaged decidedly more than Sachin. McGrath owned Lara in that 1996 series where he dismissed Lara 5 times, but what about the other 5 series?

Lol: "Tendulkar during his career, it is clear that Tendulkar didn't struggle against them. He just didn't thrive against them." What does that even mean? Him and Lara averaged essentially the same, vs Donald and the Ws but because Lara got out more to the Donald (for example)but Sachin was dismissed mostly by part timers like Cronje, this somehow paints Sachin in a better light?? OK...

Fact remains, if in comparison to Smith you're going to hold Lara's below average performances vs tough bowling (Ws, Donald)against him, then do the same for Sachin because he wasn't any more successful: they both averaged in the 30s.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Typical Sachin fans inserting him into every thread smh. Worst fanbase.

 

[subshakerz]

Sooo Sachin didn't have any more success vs Ws,or Donald. I don't care if he didn't get out to them, the fact of the matter is he wasn't more successful. Lara was more successful vs McGrath because he averaged decidedly more than Sachin. McGrath owned Lara in that 1996 series where he dismissed Lara 5 times, but what about the other 5 series?

I do care if they got him out. I also care about how well he played them and how uncomfortable they made him and how likely they were to dismiss him.

As for McGrath, they both did fairly well but edge to Lara there.

Lol: "Tendulkar during his career, it is clear that Tendulkar didn't struggle against them. He just didn't thrive against them." What does that even mean? Him and Lara averaged essentially the same, vs Donald and the Ws but because Lara got out more to the Donald (for example)but Sachin was dismissed mostly by part timers like Cronje, this somehow paints Sachin in a better light?? OK...

Because I also watch him play them and yes if they are more likely to get Lara than Tendulkar then I say Lara struggled more against those bowlers even if they scored similar runs against the teams. That is obvious.

Lara also never tonned up against those bowlers which also goes against him because at least Tendulkar showed he has the temperament to build longer quality knocks against such pacers.

If you put Lara and Tendulkar facing Lillee/Thomo in a series in the 70s, I give Lara very little chance of scoring a ton against them honestly. Tendulkar would IMO.

Fact remains, if in comparison to Smith you're going to hold Lara's below average performances vs tough bowling (Ws, Donald)against him, then do the same for Sachin because he wasn't any more successful: they both averaged in the 30s.

No, Smith was less tested than Lara against such quality bowling so it evens out.

Sachin was better.

 

[Slifer]

I do care if they got him out. I also care about how well he played them and how uncomfortable they made him and how likely they were to dismiss him.

As for McGrath, they both did fairly well but edge to Lara there.


Because I also watch him play them and yes if they are more likely to get Lara than Tendulkar then I say Lara struggled more against those bowlers even if they scored similar runs against the teams. That is obvious. Lara also never tonned up against those bowlers which also goes against him because at least Tendulkar showed he can build longer quality knocks against such pacers.


No, Smith was less tested than Lara against such quality bowling so it evens out.

Sachin was better.

Interestingly, both Lara played Donald exactly 20 innings. Lara got dismissed 6 times and Sachin 5. Lara averaged 34 and Sachin 33. But Sachin did score 2 100s. This says to me that Sachin went big and did not much else. Where as Lara consistently hit 30s, 40s and 50s without any gargantuan scores. Quite the opposite given their reputations.

Either way, you won't convince me or anyone else who really analyzed them in the 90s, that Sachin was better vs the great fast bowlers, because he wasn't. If he was, he'd have averaged decidedly more but he didn't. You know who did better funny enough, another Steve. Steve Waugh to be exact.

 

[subshakerz]

Interestingly, both Lara played Donald exactly 20 innings. Lara got dismissed 6 times and Sachin 5. Lara averaged 34 and Sachin 33. But Sachin did score 2 100s. This says to me that Sachin went big and did not much else. Where as Lara consistently hit 30s, 40s and 50s without any gargantuan scores. Quite the opposite given their reputations.

Either way, you won't convince me or anyone else who really analyzed them in the 90s, that Sachin was better vs the great fast bowlers, because he wasn't. If he was, he'd have averaged decidedly more but he didn't. You know who did better funny enough, another Steve. Steve Waugh to be exact.

Did you watch them play these bowlers? I did and always felt Tendulkar looked more secure. Lara always looked like he was riding his luck against Donald even when he made a quick 30 40 cameo, except in the 2001 series when Donald had lost his pace.

Sachin played Donald in his first series as a teen I believe so consider that as well.

 

[Slifer]

Did you watch them play these bowlers? I did and always felt Tendulkar looked more secure. Lara always looked like he was riding his luck against Donald even when he made a quick 30 40 cameo, except in the 2001 series when Donald had lost his pace.

Sachin played Donald in his first series as a teen I believe so consider that as well.

Nope don't think I will. We don't consider age or injuries or form on this board. Nice try though.

And cameo or not, comfortable or not, Sachin was no more successful vs the fast bowlers of the 90s than Lara.

And yes I did watch them both. Donald downright made Lara look uncomfortable in '98 and Sachin generally, did look more assured but those things are not statistical. They are aesthetics. Steve Waugh was as ugly as they come facing fast bowlers,
especially the way he played short pitched bowling but the results say otherwise: he was outstanding vs said bowlers.

Beyond your eyes and guts, you haven't shown statistically, how Sachin was better vs the great fast bowlers relative to Lara because he wasn't. Therefore if you're going to use that line of argument against Lara, suggest you do the same with Smith and Sachin. But you won't and you haven't because of what longevity?? Be consistent.

 

[Coronis]

Oh good it turned into Tendulkar vs Lara now.

Someone do Ashwin vs Warne so we can bring back Murali vs Warne.

 

[Slifer]

Oh good it turned into Tendulkar vs Lara now.

Someone do Ashwin vs Warne so we can bring back Murali vs Warne.

This is rich coming from you. Anyway, this isn't another Lara vs Sachin because I conceded a long time ago that Sachin was marginally greater. Likewise, imo, I also rate Smith slightly above Lara. But one cannot hold Lara to one set of standards and his near contemporary (Sachin) to another. Both failed in the 90s vs Ws and Donald. That one may have looked more "comfortable" is irrelevant to actually results as I demonstrated with the example of Steve Waugh.

 

[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.

You know, the whole argument of the thread as a whole, and on reflecting on where I think some of these batsmen are, has made me rethink my position on Weekes slightly.

I've got so much more to go on footage wise with Sobers' batting than I do Weekes, let alone Lara's compared to Weekes. Even though I know what I've seen of Weekes is superlative, I can't honestly say there might not be more chinks I'd pick up on having seen more.

So for me, my top 4 batsmen after Bradman I'd now have to revise to:

S. Smith
Sobers
Lara
Weekes

In that order.


Taking it even a step further, and consistent with my overall critical view I take in comparing any cricketers between eras, I have to express extreme skepticism about cricketers from a long time back as to if they were "great" at all by the standards we now consider. Cricket was an unthinkably cloistered sport during the earlier days of Test cricket, even into the first couple of decades of the 20th century. In my heart of hearts I'd have to say I think there's a 50/50 chance if we transported back say a batsman with the skill, eye, and talent of even a Shakib al Hasan he'd probably replicate what Hobbs' did in his batting career or possibly better it. Which is all to say, I think the stuff just isn't comparable, especially going back to the early history of cricket, and for better or worse I'll always skew towards the cricket as I know it in current time and living memory of those still around as being better for any all time comparison, because it almost certainly is.

 

[Coronis]

This is rich coming from you.

?_?

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Nope don't think I will. We don't consider age or injuries or form on this board. Nice try though.

And cameo or not, comfortable or not, Sachin was no more successful vs the fast bowlers of the 90s than Lara.

And yes I did watch them both. Donald downright made Lara look uncomfortable in '98 and Sachin generally, did look more assured but those things are not statistical. They are aesthetics. Steve Waugh was as ugly as they come facing fast bowlers,
especially the way he played short pitched bowling but the results say otherwise: he was outstanding vs said bowlers.

Beyond your eyes and guts, you haven't shown statistically, how Sachin was better vs the great fast bowlers relative to Lara because he wasn't. Therefore if you're going to use that line of argument against Lara, suggest you do the same with Smith and Sachin. But you won't and you haven't because of what longevity?? Be consistent.

Yep. That's why I still (in my opinion) rate Lara slightly higher than Tendulkar and Steve Smith.

I was looking at some footage of him on YouTube last night....gee when he was in a mood....he just ran riot...hard to get out.

 

[ma1978]

No, having watched Tendulkar during his career, it is clear that Tendulkar didn't struggle against them. He just didn't thrive against them. Whereas Lara clearly had issues facing certain pacers in particular series. We don't need to rehash it.


Injuries are an excuse but poor form is no excuse. And it is a chicken and egg, was he in poor form because of facing these guys, or did poor form stop him from scoring against them.



Yes but these overall averages are misleading. For example, Tendulkar didn't get out to the 2Ws at all when he faced them in the late 90s. He never had a series where he consistently struggled against these pacers like Lara did against the 2W in 97, McGrath in 96 and Donald in 98.

Tendulkar can be blamed for not prospering more against them though, but having watched him, he didn't struggle against them particularly. Lara had more problems.

You know, the whole argument of the thread as a whole, and on reflecting on where I think some of these batsmen are, has made me rethink my position on Weekes slightly.

I've got so much more to go on footage wise with Sobers' batting than I do Weekes, let alone Lara's compared to Weekes. Even though I know what I've seen of Weekes is superlative, I can't honestly say there might not be more chinks I'd pick up on having seen more.

So for me, my top 4 batsmen after Bradman I'd now have to revise to:

S. Smith
Sobers
Lara
Weekes

In that order.


Taking it even a step further, and consistent with my overall critical view I take in comparing any cricketers between eras, I have to express extreme skepticism about cricketers from a long time back as to if they were "great" at all by the standards we now consider. Cricket was an unthinkably cloistered sport during the earlier days of Test cricket, even into the first couple of decades of the 20th century. In my heart of hearts I'd have to say I think there's a 50/50 chance if we transported back say a batsman with the skill, eye, and talent of even a Shakib al Hasan he'd probably replicate what Hobbs' did in his batting career or possibly better it. Which is all to say, I think the stuff just isn't comparable, especially going back to the early history of cricket, and for better or worse I'll always skew towards the cricket as I know it in current time and living memory of those still around as being better for any all time comparison, because it almost certainly is.

Wait so you reassessed Weekes down and he’s still top 5? There is little to no justification for this. It’s hard to justify him as a top 5 Windies bat let alone top 5 of all time. I want the good stuff you’re smoking.

 

[kyear2]

Yep. That's why I still (in my opinion) rate Lara slightly higher than Tendulkar and Steve Smith.

I was looking at some footage of him on YouTube last night....gee when he was in a mood....he just ran riot...hard to get out.

Yeah, just rewatched the 226 and the 277, he was masterful. To watch Lara is almost like watching Sober's in color.
I had begun to leave out Lara from the best after Bradman category, but even though he was behind the little master, the Prince deserves to be there as much as anyone.

Will watch some of Smith's and Sachin's efforts later today as well.

Not on topic, but ended up watching some of Ambrose's demolition vids as well, and Lara did have the nicest hands and technique in the cordon when he was in rhythm.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Yeah, just rewatched the 226 and the 277, he was masterful. To watch Lara is almost like watching Sober's in color.
I had begun to leave out Lara from the best after Bradman category, but even though he was behind the little master, the Prince deserves to be there as much as anyone.

Will watch some of Smith's and Sachin's efforts later today as well.

Not on topic, but ended up watching some of Ambrose's demolition vids as well, and Lara did have the nicest hands and technique in the cordon when he was in rhythm.

The 213 Lara made against Australia in 1999...good innings this one:

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Yeah, just rewatched the 226 and the 277, he was masterful. To watch Lara is almost like watching Sober's in color.
I had begun to leave out Lara from the best after Bradman category, but even though he was behind the little master, the Prince deserves to be there as much as anyone.

Will watch some of Smith's and Sachin's efforts later today as well.

Not on topic, but ended up watching some of Ambrose's demolition vids as well, and Lara did have the nicest hands and technique in the cordon when he was in rhythm.

One mazing stat about Lara was that usually when he got a 100 in Test cricket - he went on with it.

He scored 34 Test hundreds, 19 of them were 150+ scores.....a staggering 55.8% and in terms of 200+ scores.....9 of them were 200+....so 9 out of 34 - 26.4%.....I guess this is why I rate Lara so highly...he had the ability to score big. All time great.

 

[Slifer]

One mazing stat about Lara was that usually when he got a 100 in Test cricket - he went on with it.

He scored 34 Test hundreds, 19 of them were 150+ scores.....a staggering 55.8% and in terms of 200+ scores.....9 of them were 200+....so 9 out of 34 - 26.4%.....I guess this is why I rate Lara so highly...he had the ability to score big. All time great.

Another amazing fact is the few not outs he has. He has the lowest proportion of not outs for a top 5 batsman and still managed to average 53. And that's with just 4 tests vs minnows. And no other batsman carried their teams batting more than Lara with the exception of Bradman and Headley.

 

[CricAddict]

If inconsistency is the reason you don’t rate Sachin that highly, how do you rate the guy that most consider marginally worse than him, many consider him the equal, and some consider him marginally better - a player who was most certainly less consistent - as better than him?

Your question has the answer.

 

[shortpitched713]

Wait so you reassessed Weekes down and he’s still top 5? There is little to no justification for this. It’s hard to justify him as a top 5 Windies bat let alone top 5 of all time. I want the good stuff you’re smoking.

Yeah the batting technique is clearly superior to everyone ( barring those on the list above him ). It puts aside any question marks on the prodigious output, which is rarely matched in cricket history.

 

[subshakerz]

And yes I did watch them both. Donald downright made Lara look uncomfortable in '98 and Sachin generally, did look more assured but those things are not statistical. They are aesthetics. Steve Waugh was as ugly as they come facing fast bowlers,
especially the way he played short pitched bowling but the results say otherwise: he was outstanding vs said bowlers.

Great we agree on this. And AI noticed the same against the 2Ws too I just don't call it aesthetics, which relates to how goodlooking a player's style is. I consider this a more technical issue against pace and it is a valid reason to out Lara behind.

 

[Slifer]

Great we agree on this. And AI noticed the same against the 2Ws too I just don't call it aesthetics, which relates to how goodlooking a player's style is. I consider this a more technical issue against pace and it is a valid reason to out Lara behind.

We also both agree that both Sachin and Smith were marginally better than Lara. Where I disagree with you, is when you say things like Lara performed worst vs the great fast bowlers of the 90s when that's patently not true. Sachin scored hundreds and looked more assured than Lara vs the Ws and Donald but at the end of the day, they still averaged around the same. And in the case of Donald, they literally played the same number of innings and got dismissing by him and identical number of times (5 vs 6). I didn't mention McGrath because you/we already agreed that Lara was better vs him.