• 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.

Viv Richards vs Brian Lara

Who was the greater test batsman?

  • Viv Richards

    Votes: 36 57.1%

  • Brian Lara

    Votes: 27 42.9%
  • Total voters
    63
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Jumno said:
I've read a lot of articles, watched YouTube. A lot of them do say Tendulkar was more of a complete, consistent batsman, more organised.

I recall teams said they had to do planning with Tendulkar. Maybe in the mid to late 90s with Tendulkar's attacking game they were genuinely scared of Sachin.

They also said, Lara was flamboyant, attacking, who could win you a game, more dangerous.

I believe these bowlers stated the toughest, best batsman they bowled too:

McGrath: Lara
Warne: Tendulkar
Donald: Tendulkar
Pollock:
Wasim: Crowe, Lara
Waqur:
Murali: Lara
Ambrose:
Walsh:
Lee: Tendulkar
Croft: Lara
Steyn: Tendulkar
Bond:
Click to expand...
MacGill, went with Lara. Waqar, Gillespie, Fleming, Angus Fraser, Hoggard went with Tendulkar. Ponting and Clarke also favored Sachin.

Wasim recently actually picks Viv as the best bat he played against along with Crowe. Holding also rates Viv ahead of Lara.
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Holding on Viv vs Lara. Makes the same distinction.

Holding said Lara was the best batsman against spin and medium-pace but he rated Richards as the best batsman ever. "Viv made runs against everybody - the fastest bowlers in the world, like Imran Khan, the best swing bowlers in the world, like Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev, the best spinners, like Bishan Bedi, (Bhagwat) Chandrasekhar, Abdul Qadir. He made runs against everybody. Lara made runs against spinners and medium-pacers, but used to be in trouble against real pace, like against a Shoaib Akhtar or a Wasim Akram."
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Holding on Viv vs Lara. Makes the same distinction.

Holding said Lara was the best batsman against spin and medium-pace but he rated Richards as the best batsman ever. "Viv made runs against everybody - the fastest bowlers in the world, like Imran Khan, the best swing bowlers in the world, like Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev, the best spinners, like Bishan Bedi, (Bhagwat) Chandrasekhar, Abdul Qadir. He made runs against everybody. Lara made runs against spinners and medium-pacers, but used to be in trouble against real pace, like against a Shoaib Akhtar or a Wasim Akram."
Click to expand...
Not a great but Lara did make runs vs Lee and Lee was amongst the fastest ever. No he doesn't come close to Viv but just putting it out there.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Coronis said:
Idk I don’t think thats quite the case.

Tendulkar scored tons in 15.6% of his innings
Lara scored tons in 14.7% of his innings

Tendulkar scored 50’s in 36.2% of his innings
Lara scored 50’s in 35.3% of his innings

Tendulkar scored 25+ in 54.4% of his innings
Lara scored 25+ in 56% of his innings

So yeah, Tendulkar was definitely a bit better at converting starts into 50’s and tons, and Lara was better at converting those into 150+ or double tons, but he actually “failed” or had a not so good score less often than Tendulkar. I guess it comes down to peoples perception of a failed or poor innings too. (25 was just an arbitrary number I pulled out of my head)


Of course then we get into the not outs debate - are people leaving runs on the board in (non declared) not out innings or is it more valuable for them to stay in and keep scoring.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of how (relatively) close it is here is to do with the massive difference between their number of innings played though? There’s no doubting Tendulkar played on too long (and started very young), which in itself isn’t an excuse but he did play a **** ton of innings so it’s always going to skew slightly compared to what it could have been.
It would be interesting to see the same stats for Sachin at the number of test/innings where Lara had retired
 
Last edited:
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
It’s nearly 70 tests less that Lara played. To put that into perspective, even with the modern era, most accept that Cummins has shown enough in 60 odd tests to rate him as one of the best, and most would accept Bumrah similarly hitting 60-75 tests to rate him similarly. It’s a massive amount of tests that will skew your stats.

From a batting standpoint, we’ve seen how averages can plummet by about 7-10 runs in a matter of 30 tests or so.
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Jumno said:
It is, however I believe the consensus is if he needed the big scores to bolster his average, he must have been inconsistent. A big score and some not so good scores.
Click to expand...
I do speculate whether if he had a more spread out scoring of run rather than just scoring a biggie once a series and not much else, as he often did, if it would have benefitted WI more. Hard to say.

But we can excuse Lara scoring these big scores as necessary for a weaker team, not seflish. He would often score a double and the team still can't score 400.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
subshakerz said:
I do speculate whether if he had a more spread out scoring of run rather than just scoring a biggie once a series and not much else, as he often did, if it would have benefitted WI more. Hard to say.

But we can excuse Lara scoring these big scores as necessary for a weaker team, not seflish. He would often score a double and the team still can't score 400.
Click to expand...
Like the series at home vs RSA in 2005:

196 out of a total of 347
176 out of 296.

He made tiny scores in between and finished the series averaging nearly 80. Inconsistent but for goodness sakes imagine if he didn't make those huge scores.....
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Sobers is better than Viv to the same extent Viv is better than Lara.
Click to expand...
Viv is better than Sobers for me slightly. Better rounded, played on tougher pitches all around, faced a better quality of bowling and dominated more great bowlers than anyone, the best short term peak bar Bradman. Sobers didn’t suffer a dip like Viv and had a much better long term peak but had flatter pitches at home, and his away record is less impressive than Viv’s.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
Plus with Viv you have some special factors such as his rate of scoring which sets him apart from all others, and his psychological domination of the opposition
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
HouHsiaoHsien said:
Viv is better than Sobers for me slightly. Better rounded, played on tougher pitches all around, faced a better quality of bowling and dominated more great bowlers than anyone, the best short term peak bar Bradman. Sobers didn’t suffer a dip like Viv and had a much better long term peak but had flatter pitches at home, and his away record is less impressive than Viv’s.
Click to expand...
Think I can make an argument for any of Sobers, Richards or Tendulkar being the 2nd
best batsman of all time.

Don't need to split them much more than that.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
number11 said:
Viv also understood psychological warfare better than anyone. The attitude, the lack of a helmet - it was all calculated theatre. Viv was the biggest mental warrior cricket has seen.
Click to expand...
I try not to go into that part, but better believe it had an impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top