subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
To a lesser extent, Wasim also had some really impressive performances as a teen too. We shouldn't penalise them for that but give them credit even if it wasn't worldclass figures.
-
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.
Brian Lara vs Shane Warne
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
The whole point is Tendulkar averaged 'only' 54 because of his teenage years. He is averaging close to 60 between ages 21 and 37 (which is the playing duration of Lara). Sachin was still batting above replacement value in his teenage years and was even the best player on some away tours then (though he was not good in his final years). I don't think anyone seriously believes that Lara would average around the same as his career average if he debuted at 16 and retired at 40.
Coronis
International Coach
Not before he was an adult. Well over 18 for Aus and SA was my nitpickiness. Obviously still impressive af as a teenager.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Imran is technically better than Viv, but Viv simply was the greatest cricketer of his generation.
Hadlee may be technically better than Marshall, but Marshall was greater by virtue of higher reputation as a bowler.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
For Wasim before he was 20:
-10fer in 2nd game in NZ.
- Matchwinning sixfer against WI at home with fifty
- Credible series performances in WI and Eng
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
@subshakerz surely Grace belongs in top 3, at worst 4 then??
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Don't know how to rate Grace frankly.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Since it's not better, I don't see how the Father of modern cricket can be outside the Top 3, anyways you rate him.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
True but I don't know how to gauge his skill level at a time when cricket wasn't a professional sport. But I don't have a problem putting him on a Mount Rushmore of cricket.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
The whole point of using Greatest instead of Best is not comparing skill levels outside respective era and mostly look at overall contribution.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
We don't ignore skill level entirely but you also add their impact on the game to determine greatness. At least in my equation.
For example, McGrath is a better bowler than both Warne and Murali, but the impact of the latter two in terms of taking spin to the next level, scaling new records, etc. make up for McGrath's skill advantage.
Pundit assessment of greatness based on impact has to corrected based on our own assessment of their skill level.
Among pundits, Imran is generally a top 10 cricketer, Marshall and Hadlee top 15. But their skill levels are underestimated, so Imran is corrected to be a top 5 cricketer and Marshall and Hadlee top 10.
Similarly, Warne among pundits is seen as a top 5 cricketer and Lillee a top 10. But their skill levels are overestimated, so Warne becomes a top 10 cricketer and Lillee a top 15.
Granted, it's a bit convoluted but it's how I am looking at my ranking.
Last edited:
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I think some times impact can be large enough that skill level shan't be that important any more. Without Grace, it is not a hyperbole to say cricket won't had been the same today. And I don't think it is true to this extent for anyone else. Now, that's impact.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah I will think about that and dig into more on Grace to determine.
BazBall21
International Captain
I think Warne just but this is a very good comparison, as difficult as bowlers v batsmen is.
Two guys with relatively big drawbacks in their records for players who are rated by many as being among the top 10 cricketers ever (Lara's patchiness v pace&Warne's struggles v India/elite players of spin) and they were both goated entertainers with monstrous performance thresholds.
Two guys with relatively big drawbacks in their records for players who are rated by many as being among the top 10 cricketers ever (Lara's patchiness v pace&Warne's struggles v India/elite players of spin) and they were both goated entertainers with monstrous performance thresholds.
Slifer
International Captain
Lara very easily could've debuted for the WI as a teenager but didn't because of politics. And by politics I mean he rubbed the then captain of the west indies the wrong way(viv) and you know the rest. You won't see these stories written anywhere. Lara tore up youth cricket in his early years, not to mention performing well in the red stripes cup when he transitioned to FC cricket. But players like Keith Arthurton, Best and Hooper made it ahead of him. His 92 vs Garner and MM and 182 vs Hirwani and India are the stuff of legends.
So yes, I could see lara maybe not debut at 16 but certainly as a teenager and playing well into his late 30s and maintaining a 50+ average.
DrWolverine
U19 Cricketer
It’s good that Lara did not make his debut when he was 16. There is no doubt he was an extraordinary talent but not sure if he could have handled it mentally.