Steve Smith vs Brian Lara

[subshakerz]

I meant his record vs Mcgrath

Lara I have admitted was slightly better than even Tendulkar overall against McGrath, Lara didn't have an issue with bowlers of McGrath's pace except McGrath did expose him technically often.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

The 99 series to me is the greatest series performance by a bat of all-time, even better than 2001 SL, so I agree.

Agreed the 99 series is the best ever for me too. The 2001 SL will also be in my top ten tho(along with others like Amarnath 83 vs WI, Kohli RSA 2017, Dravid 2011 vs Eng(vs a very amazingly formidable attack, Viv vs Aus 1979(cause of shifting the centre of dominance, being the main difference between the sides, and dominating an ATG pace attack in their home, better than 1976 England for me etc)

 

[honestbharani]

Hmm, I take issue with a lot of this. Lara scored a lot of runs vs a depleted Australia attack in 03 at home, the same attack Sachin faced in 03/04 down under.

Morkel was also a very good bowler and I think saying Donald-Pollock >>> Steyn-Morkel especially considering the form Steyn was in at the time is wrong or atleast highly overstating things. That series from Steyn was one of the highest levels of quality fast bowling I've seen, and Morkel was great at the time too. I don't think there's much difference in quality between those attacks for those series.

The series Tendulkar averaged 25 in nz had pre WWI level scores. Can't use numbers from that to prove a point here imo.

I dont think Brad Hogg or McGrath played against India but they all played against the Windies in 2003. They automatically make the Aussie attacks Lara faced better, no?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I dont think Brad Hogg or McGrath played against India but they all played against the Windies in 2003. They automatically make the Aussie attacks Lara faced better, no?

Mcgrath of course . Hogg, not sure tbh.

Also I was only looking at the games Lara scored the bulk of his runs in in that series. Although he got two fifties in the last game where Mcgrath played, the large majority of his runs (and both tons) came in the two games Mcgrath missed.

Overall Lara faced tougher attacks vs Australia on average for sure but it's sure not accurate to say he never benefited from weakened Australia attacks.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah I definitely think that version of Hogg was better than MacGill was at that time.

 

[subshakerz]

I dont think Brad Hogg or McGrath played against India but they all played against the Windies in 2003. They automatically make the Aussie attacks Lara faced better, no?

Sure but the tests McGrath missed are the ones Lara scored two hundreds and a ninety.

However, the conversation was on Tendulkar vs Lara in Australia where Lara hasnt done as well as he has against Australia at home.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hogg was garbage and literally never better than macgill.

However this is a pointless discussion. My point that Lara also occasionally benefitted from a depleted attack has not been disproven.

 

[honestbharani]

Hogg was garbage and literally never better than macgill.

However this is a pointless discussion. My point that Lara also occasionally benefitted from a depleted attack has not been disproven.

That is not much of a point given almost every batsman does.

And no, Hogg was better than MacGilll in 2003. Easily. And Sachin faced more depleted Australian attacks than Lara did. That is obvious.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Lara Fanboys experts at missing the point deliberately smh

 

[Slifer]

Lara Fanboys experts at missing the point deliberately smh

No we aren't. The only times Lara faced depleted attacks were those two tests in '03. And let's be clear, that was at home. Even if McGrath had played, I have no doubt Lara would've still taken him apart. Lara was in the form of his life in '03 and in the previous series at home in '99, we all know what Lara did.

When else did Lara face a depleted Aussie attack?? Since McGrath debuted, those two tests are the only ones he missed vs Lara. The attacks in '95, '96, '99, '00, '03 and '05 were all at or near full strength. I didn't mention 92/93 because A McGrath hadn't debuted as yet and B Sachin also faced that '92 attack and was praised for doing well vs them.

If you wanna say Warne missed some of those tests, then that's fair but Warne posed absolutely no problems for Lara (same as Sachin). McGrath was the bowler that troubled both Lara and Sachin.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No we aren't. The only times Lara faced depleted attacks were those two tests in '03.

Good yes we agree

 

[subshakerz]

When else did Lara face a depleted Aussie attack?? Since McGrath debuted, those two tests are the only ones he missed vs Lara. The attacks in '95, '96, '99, '00, '03 and '05 were all at or near full strength. I didn't mention 92/93 because A McGrath hadn't debuted as yet and B Sachin also faced that '92 attack and was praised for doing well vs them.

Ok but still praising Lara for averaging in the 30s against McWarne, and failing in 2/3 series in Australia just seems odd to me. I don't count that as a success. He needed that 92/93 series to get his average barely over 40 there.

Between the 96 and 2000 series, McGrath dismissed Lara 8 times in 10 tests and had exposed serious chinks in his armor. Lara got some measure back thanks to the double in his last test there but I don't think it can be argued McGrath trumped Lara at home as much as Lara had the advantage over him in WI.

So yes, he had it harder than Tendulkar in Australia but it can hardly be faulted on Tendulkar who scored runs against whatever attack he faced, including McWarne, until his last series.

The question is how do we rate Lara's success in Australia overall and I give it a disappointing B- and Tendulkar a solid A. Then there is Smith who also didn't struggle anywhere really overall.

 

[Slifer]

Lara wasn't particularly successful in Australia, duh but overall he was. And he was more successful (than you know who) vs their stronger attacks. And I honestly think if he'd faced an attack like that '04 one without McGrath, he'd have feasted and raised his overall record there to around 45 or so; much more acceptable. We can agree to disagree....peace

 

[Slifer]

Ok but still praising Lara for averaging in the 30s against McWarne, and failing in 2/3 series in Australia just seems odd to me. I don't count that as a success. He needed that 92/93 series to get his average barely over 40 there.

Between the 96 and 2000 series, McGrath dismissed Lara 8 times in 10 tests and had exposed serious chinks in his armor. Lara got some measure back thanks to the double in his last test there but I don't think it can be argued McGrath trumped Lara at home as much as Lara had the advantage over him in WI.

So yes, he had it harder than Tendulkar in Australia but it can hardly be faulted on Tendulkar who scored runs against whatever attack he faced, including McWarne, until his last series.

The question is how do we rate Lara's success in Australia overall and I give it a disappointing B- and Tendulkar a solid A. Then there is Smith who also didn't struggle anywhere really overall.

That A for Sachin should come with an asterisk because he only faced a strong attack there in '99. You give Lara grief for making runs vs RSA when Donald was gone which is fair, so why is it so hard for you to admit Sachin faced lesser Aussie attacks more often than Lara. Lara faced strong Aussie attacks in 13 tests in Australia. Sachin: 3. The likes of Mitchell Johnson and Clark that Sachin faced later are good but now where near McWarne or McGrath+ Gillespie (healthy Gillespie). Lara would've destroyed them, especially on those flatter wickets.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

That A for Sachin should come with an asterisk because he only faced a strong attack there in '99. You give Lara grief for making runs vs RSA when Donald was gone which is fair, so why is it so hard for you to admit Sachin faced lesser Aussie attacks more often than Lara. Lara faced strong Aussie attacks in 13 tests in Australia. Sachin: 3. The likes of Mitchell Johnson and Clark that Sachin faced later are good but now where near McWarne or McGrath+ Gillespie (healthy Gillespie). Lara would've destroyed them, especially on those flatter wickets.

In Australia, I’d give Sachin A marginally(Viv, Hobbs, Hutton would be A+), cause outside the 99 series, he was impressive in 2007 vs a good attack too, and a teen scored tons in Aus including a ton on a bouncy Perth. Would a bit unsure about Johnson vs Lara.

 

[subshakerz]

That A for Sachin should come with an asterisk because he only faced a strong attack there in '99. You give Lara grief for making runs vs RSA when Donald was gone which is fair, so why is it so hard for you to admit Sachin faced lesser Aussie attacks more often than Lara. Lara faced strong Aussie attacks in 13 tests in Australia. Sachin: 3. The likes of Mitchell Johnson and Clark that Sachin faced later are good but now where near McWarne or McGrath+ Gillespie (healthy Gillespie). Lara would've destroyed them, especially on those flatter wickets.

I literally admitted that in my post.

But it seems you don't disagree with my logic for Lara not being that good in Australia.

 

[subshakerz]

How I grade them when it comes to their away performances:

SL: Lara A+, Tendulkar A, Smith A
Pak/UAE: Tendulkar B-, Lara B, Smith B+
India: Lara C (single series), Smith A
Aus: Tendulkar A, Lara B-
Eng: Tendulkar A-, Lara B+, Smith A+
SA: Tendulkar B+, Lara B, Smith B-
NZ: Tendulkar A-, Lara C+, Smith A
WI: Tendulkar A-, Smith A-

Overall: Tendulkar A, Smith A, Lara B

Lara only really was excellent overall in SL thank to just one series, albeit an ATG one.

 

[Slifer]

I literally admitted that in my post.

But it seems you don't disagree with my logic for Lara not being that good in Australia.

Well yes I agree Lara was well below par in Australia. Hand shakes...

 

[Slifer]

How I grade them when it comes to their away performances:

SL: Lara A+, Tendulkar A+, Smith A
Pak/UAE: Tendulkar B-, Lara B, Smith B+
India: Lara C (single series), Smith A
Aus: Tendulkar A, Lara B-
Eng: Tendulkar A-, Lara B, Smith A+
SA: Tendulkar B+, Lara B, Smith B
NZ: Tendulkar A-, Lara C+, Smith A
WI: Tendulkar A, Smith A

Overall: Tendulkar A, Smith A, Lara B

Lara only really was excellent overall in SL thanks, and that was just one series, albeit an ATG one.

Umm no way is Sachin an A in the WI

And him and Lara are identical in RSA stats wise

And Lara in SL is more than A+ he's S tier there.

The rest, I can live with.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara is just an overall better test batsman than Sachin.