Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Coronis]

I absolutely and completely disagree with the above. If anything, it's the opposite. Lara exuded greatness and class. Don't know which other Brian Lara you were watching with all due respect. And Lara's so called dip coincided with one of the greatest series of all time ie the 1999 Frank Worrell series. Lara dipped to levels lower than Sachin but he also reached heights that none of his contemporaries did (including Sachin). Compared to Sachin, the only area for me where Lara falls short is his away average period.

I love the word exude.

 

[peterhrt]

At the start of Hobbs' career the hardest challenge for batsmen was the new googly bowling. It was dubbed the most significant innovation since overarm and literally created panic. Predictably the first man to master it was Trumper, followed by Hobbs then Jack Hearne.

Vogler was considered by many English observers to be the best bowler in the world, certainly on matting. Hordern, as noted here, was high-class. Johnny Moyes said he was as good as O'Reilly and superior to Mailey, Grimmett and Benaud. When one or other was in the opposition Hobbs averaged 75 in Tests. He also faced plenty of Tibby Cotter who Warner reckoned to be as fast as anybody apart from Larwood and Kortright.

Hutton considered his own peak occurred in 1939, the year war broke out. Similarly Hobbs may well have been at his best in 1914. Following a successful tour of South Africa against the hosts' matting specialists, his knocks in England included 174 runs in 150 minutes across two innings of a match against Yorkshire (Hirst and Rhodes), 183 in 170 minutes in the next game against Warwickshire (FR Foster), 215 in 240 minutes against Essex with the next highest score 27 (Johnny Douglas – the bowler Hobbs surprisingly said he found most difficult of all), and 226 in 260 minutes against Notts.

Among his best post-war Test efforts were 123 off 155 balls in the fourth innings at Adelaide in 1921 against Gregory, McDonald and Mailey, 100 on a rain-damaged surface at The Oval in 1926 to win the Ashes (as recently mentioned here), and 49 at Melbourne on a really vicious pitch in 1928-29 when England successfully chased 332 to win. In the last two of these matches, Sutcliffe also batted with great skill. Unlike many other English batsmen, Hobbs never had any trouble with Gregory's pace and intimidation.

Hobbs' last first-class century was against county champions Lancashire at the age of 51. It was the only hundred scored against Lancashire in the championship that year.

With regards to Lara, could anyone else have broken the records for both highest Test and first-class innings within a couple of months, then broken the Test record again ten years later? After Hutton's 364 in 1938, Bradman's highest score in first-class cricket was 267.

 

[kyear2]

At the start of Hobbs' career the hardest challenge for batsmen was the new googly bowling. It was dubbed the most significant innovation since overarm and literally created panic. Predictably the first man to master it was Trumper, followed by Hobbs then Jack Hearne.

Vogler was considered by many English observers to be the best bowler in the world, certainly on matting. Hordern, as noted here, was high-class. Johnny Moyes said he was as good as O'Reilly and superior to Mailey, Grimmett and Benaud. When one or other was in the opposition Hobbs averaged 75 in Tests. He also faced plenty of Tibby Cotter who Warner reckoned to be as fast as anybody apart from Larwood and Kortright.

Hutton considered his own peak occurred in 1939, the year war broke out. Similarly Hobbs may well have been at his best in 1914. Following a successful tour of South Africa against the hosts' matting specialists, his knocks in England included 174 runs in 150 minutes across two innings of a match against Yorkshire (Hirst and Rhodes), 183 in 170 minutes in the next game against Warwickshire (FR Foster), 215 in 240 minutes against Essex with the next highest score 27 (Johnny Douglas – the bowler Hobbs surprisingly said he found most difficult of all), and 226 in 260 minutes against Notts.

Among his best post-war Test efforts were 123 off 155 balls in the fourth innings at Adelaide in 1921 against Gregory, McDonald and Mailey, 100 on a rain-damaged surface at The Oval in 1926 to win the Ashes (as recently mentioned here), and 49 at Melbourne on a really vicious pitch in 1928-29 when England successfully chased 332 to win. In the last two of these matches, Sutcliffe also batted with great skill. Unlike many other English batsmen, Hobbs never had any trouble with Gregory's pace and intimidation.

Hobbs' last first-class century was against county champions Lancashire at the age of 52. It was the only hundred scored against Lancashire in the championship that year.

With regards to Lara, could anyone else have broken the records for both highest Test and first-class innings within a couple of months, then broken the Test record again ten years later? After Hutton's 364 in 1938, Bradman's highest score in first-class cricket was 267.

I've never doubted his pedigree or what he did in the period, but in a way the highlighted sentence highlights what I'm trying to say. It was literally a different game.

I will not argue with anyone who disagrees with me, he was undoubtedly a magnificent player of his time. I just personally don't think it's comparable to the greats who came after, the same way I don't even hold Sydney Barnes up for consideration for such teams or lists.

Hutton on the other hand more than proved himself against modern bowlers in various conditions and locations, especially after the war.

 

[Coronis]

I've never doubted his pedigree or what he did in the period, but in a way the highlighted sentence highlights what I'm trying to say. It was literally a different game.

I will not argue with anyone who disagrees with me, he was undoubtedly a magnificent player of his time. I just personally don't think it's comparable to the greats who came after, the same way I don't even hold Sydney Barnes up for consideration for such teams or lists.

Hutton on the other hand more than proved himself against modern bowlers in various conditions and locations, especially after the war.

Hutton never had to deal with reverse swing or the doosra. It was a different game.

 

[subshakerz]

I absolutely and completely disagree with the above. If anything, it's the opposite. Lara exuded greatness and class. Don't know which other Brian Lara you were watching with all due respect. And Lara's so called dip coincided with one of the greatest series of all time ie the 1999 Frank Worrell series. Lara dipped to levels lower than Sachin but he also reached heights that none of his contemporaries did (including Sachin). Compared to Sachin, the only area for me where Lara falls short is his away average period.

I was watching the same Lara you were. Posters here though generally define him based on his career highlights. They ignore the times when he didn't look ATG level, when he threw his wicket away needlessly and when he got owned by the best bowlers.

Tendulkar from the early 90s onwards always look destined to be an ATG and even during his dip 2003 to 2006, when some thought he should retire, he was still a fairly productive bat and there wasn't a doubt he would end his career as a top tier ATG.

In Lara's case, if he retired in 2000, he probably would end up being rated below Dravid/Kallis by many here.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't know which other Brian Lara you were watching with all due respect.

It's cute u think he actually watches cricket.


And yeah Lara > Sachin as a test batsman by a close yet clear margin.

 

[kyear2]

I was watching the same Lara you were. Posters here though generally define him based on his career highlights. They ignore the times when he didn't look ATG level, when he threw his wicket away needlessly and when he got owned by the best bowlers.

Tendulkar from the early 90s onwards always look destined to be an ATG and even during his dip 2003 to 2006, when some thought he should retire, he was still a fairly productive bat and there wasn't a doubt he would end his career as a top tier ATG.

In Lara's case, if he retired in 2000, he probably would end up being rated below Dravid/Kallis by many here.

But he didn't. How you finish matters, otherwise Ponting would be in this conversation.

Can't have it both ways. And regardless, no way he would he had been seen the equal to Dravid

 

[subshakerz]

But he didn't. How you finish matters, otherwise Ponting would be in this conversation.

Can't have it both ways. And regardless, no way he would he had been seen the equal to Dravid

Yeah but the point is that Tendulkar never allowed himself to get to that point where his place among ATGs was questioned. Nor did he get owned in series by ATG bowlers nor did he give the impression he was giving his wicket away or wasn't serious about cricket like Lara of the mid to late 90s. It got to the point where you would wonder which Lara would show up, crap Lara or beastly Lara.

And yeah, if Lara finished with an average of 48, half this board would rate Dravid and Kallis ahead of him.

My point is that this board tends to underestimate the level his reputation took a hit in the middle of his career. Yes he recovered in the last third but it is a valid reason to put him behind the top tier of Hobbs/Sobers/Viv/Tendulkar/Smith.

Donald slams 'unprofessional' Lara | Cricket | The Guardian

<p>The World Cup is still nine days away but the mind games and verbal jousting have begun in earnest, with South Africa's champion speedster Allan Donald aiming his first bouncer at the West Indies captain Brian Lara.</p>

amp.theguardian.com

 

[honestbharani]

What a moronic take arguing hypotheticals that no one can be sure of, as if its the surest thing in the world.

If Sachin never recovered from his tennis elbow, then he will go down lower than Dravid and Kallis.

The fact remains Lara > Sachin and that is the only thing that matters.

 

[subshakerz]

What a moronic take arguing hypotheticals that no one can be sure of, as if its the surest thing in the world.

If Sachin never recovered from his tennis elbow, then he will go down lower than Dravid and Kallis.

The fact remains Lara > Sachin and that is the only thing that matters.

I am not arguing what ifs. I am saying Lara reached a significant lowly point on his career that excludes him from reaching the very best tier.

Btw, if Tendulkar retired end of 2006, at his nadir of his form but still with an average of 54, he would still be rated ahead of Dravid and Kallis, but not in the top five bats ever.

Lara ahead of Tendulkar is a decent take achieved by just focusing on Lara's positives but far from a fact. Tendulkar simply has a better career.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is the dumbest hypothetical of all time. "Take away 6 of the best years of his career and he wouldn't be considered as great as he is now". What. How do you even come up with this **** sometimes it's truly ridiculous.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the dumbest hypothetical of all time. "Take away 6 of the best years of his career and he wouldn't be considered as great as he is now". What. How do you even come up with this **** sometimes it's truly ridiculous.

Sigh.

Again, Lara reached a lower low than the other top tiers which is why he doesn't belong there.

See? No hypothetical.

And before you all predictably answer about his super highs, yes, I know that, my point is that this board has consistently underestimated how low his lows were.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Highs carry more value than lows.

 

[Line and Length]

Hutton never had to deal with reverse swing or the doosra. It was a different game.

Ball tampering and chucking.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sigh.

Again, Lara reached a lower low than the other top tiers which is why he doesn't belong there.

See? No hypothetical.

And before you all predictably answer about his super highs, yes, I know that, my point is that this board has consistently underestimated how low his lows were.

So why do you hold Viv in higher regard. He had a much worse slump.

 

[subshakerz]

Highs carry more value than lows.

Maybe for you.

For me it doesn't. Especially if the lows are more frequent.

If we just ignore all the times a player plays crap, it paints a misleading picture.

 

[subshakerz]

So why do you hold Viv in higher regard. He had a much worse slump.

Richards' slump was his last 19 tests and like Tendulkar, Pointing, etc. when his powers had waned but his ATG status had already been solidly confirmed. That is much more forgiveable than a longer mid career slump in which you struggle across series against the world's best and your entire professionalism and ATG status is questioned.

Richards' peak from 76 to 80/81 against ATG pacers is the greatest batting peak ever for me. And Richards' mid career from 81 to 88 was still worldclass and his overall record across countries doesn't really have a notable weakness. Plus Richards didn't have a noticeable weakness in his style of play like Lara.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Maybe for you.

For me it doesn't. Especially if the lows are more frequent.

If we just ignore all the times a player plays crap, it paints a misleading picture.

Yeah that's just your opinion

 

[ataraxia]

And yeah, if Lara finished with an average of 48, half this board would rate Dravid and Kallis ahead of him.

Half? More like all except hb.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah that's just your opinion

And that is yours. I at least try to justify mine.