• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Sunil1z said:
I once said on this forum that Gavaskar’s record against Great fast bowlers was better than Sachin/Lara .
Averaged 50 vs Imran
Averaged 40 vs WI pace quartet
Had a very good tour of England in 1979 against Botham, Willis and Underwood.
But many on this forum considered this opinion highly controversial
Click to expand...
Gavaskar's record is top drawer.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
Lara faced just as good attacks, McWarne, Donald and Pollock, 2Ws, Murali.

But how about again, Hammond, Hutton post war outside of Lindwall and Miller, Bradman.

Viv faced Imran, Wasim, Snow, Underwood, Lillee, Thompson, Quartet, Botham, Hadlee. Never played minnows.

Who besides Lara, Sachin, possibly Sobers faced names like that, and succeeded. And not just succeeded, dominated them, everywhere.

The revisionist history is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yes. The difference is Viv dominated at various points these respective ATGs. Whereas Lara never dominated Donald and 2Ws.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ma1978 said:
Hard to see a strong case for Smith over Viv or Lara. I get the case but it’s a weak one
Click to expand...
Smith isn't better than Viv but he is surely better than Lara as an all-round bat.

Lara has a dodgy away record. So-so in Aus, unproven in India, poor in NZ, salvaged records in SA, Eng and Pak in absence of ATG/worldclass quality bowlers.

Also, for an entire mid-career portion between 96 to 2001, he was outright poor by ATG standards averaging less than forty, not because of age but basically because of his own poor work ethic.

Also, he has a weakness against higher quality pace due to a faulty technique.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Hobbs, Tendulkar, Sobers, Viv and Smith are all best of their respective eras and belong in a single group with only first among equals.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Smith isn't better than Viv but he is surely better than Lara as an all-round bat.

Lara has a dodgy away record. So-so in Aus, unproven in India, poor in NZ, salvaged records in SA, Eng and Pak in absence of ATG/worldclass quality bowlers.

Also, for an entire mid-career portion between 96 to 2001, he was outright poor by ATG standards averaging less than forty, not because of age but basically because of his own poor work ethic.

Also, he has a weakness against higher quality pace due to a faulty technique.
Click to expand...
just your prejudices coming up with random opinions that mean nothing in the overall analysis

he was better for longer than Smith
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
Gavaskar. And again, I don't have Hammond and Hutton ahead of Viv, and let's not talk Don. Viv played great attacks and dominated plenty of them, but saying Lara didn't faced around equal attacks is ridiculous to me and the definition of toxic nostalgia. And Pakistan and New Zealand did had pretty weak overall attacks, which got heavily carried by Hadlee and Imran. Also, Indian bowling post quartet wasn't really much better than minnow level, if not for Kapil Dev.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing about Lara, he was brilliant and without doubt the best batsman I've ever seen in real time.

And we've discussed Sunny already.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Smith isn't better than Viv but he is surely better than Lara as an all-round bat.

Lara has a dodgy away record. So-so in Aus, unproven in India, poor in NZ, salvaged records in SA, Eng and Pak in absence of ATG/worldclass quality bowlers.

Also, for an entire mid-career portion between 96 to 2001, he was outright poor by ATG standards averaging less than forty, not because of age but basically because of his own poor work ethic.

Also, he has a weakness against higher quality pace due to a faulty technique.
Click to expand...
Smith had a better peak than Lara. More dominant against pace and better overseas production.

Does he have enough outside that peak though?
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
BazBall21 said:
Smith had a better peak than Lara. More dominant against pace and better overseas production.

Does he have enough outside that peak though?
Click to expand...
Even if Smith continues to decline he will end up with a better overall record than Lara. And without any noticeable weakness in his game in his prime.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
You do not, 😂
Click to expand...
I do. He is a flawed genius and my favorite bat growing up but I think that blinded me to his lowlights.

CW does a really bad job of remembering how poor a particular great seemed when outside their element except for Ponting in India.

We forget how toothless Murali seemed in Aus in 2007 or how staggeringly bad Lara was in 1996 against McGrath. It's just not considered polite to bring up.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
subshakerz said:
CW does a really bad job of remembering how poor a particular great seemed when outside their element except for Ponting in India.

We forget how toothless Murali seemed in Aus in 2007 or how staggeringly bad Lara was in 1996 against McGrath. It's just not considered polite to bring up.
Click to expand...
Shane Warne bowling in India with a broken toenail.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
I do. He is a flawed genius and my favorite bat growing up but I think that blinded me to his lowlights.

CW does a really bad job of remembering how poor a particular great seemed when outside their element except for Ponting in India.

We forget how toothless Murali seemed in Aus in 2007 or how staggeringly bad Lara was in 1996 against McGrath. It's just not considered polite to bring up.
Click to expand...
Really? If anything, Murali gets too much flank for essentially what was one bad series, and you work overtime to point how poor Lara was against express pace....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top