Brian Lara vs Sunil Gavaskar

[BazBall21]

Kohli played on some proper roads in Australia but his record in SAF is astonishing.

 

[BazBall21]

Again, between the 3 series he averaged 45 odd. Given the circumstances, I will say that counts as a win.

I prefer frequent impactful scores to feast or famine. Obviously going big is important too. Both is ideal.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kohli played on some proper roads in Australia but his record in SAF is astonishing.

He did had his fair share of roads in Australia, but he also scored some tough runs there as well. Perth and Melbourne tons specifically comes to mind.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I prefer frequent impactful scores to feast or famine. Obviously going big is important too. Both is ideal.

Again, given he was very poor in one series, it was not feast or famine in the other two but mostly consistent runs.

 

[BazBall21]

Again, given he was very poor in one series, it was not feast or famine in the other two but mostly consistent runs.

It was almost exclusively famine on the WI tour yeah. Not consistent in the home leg but did better.

 

[BazBall21]

The hundred came in Antigua which was generally flat but Boycott did well v WI for a 40 year old opener.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The 1983 WI tour was legit very poor, as a whole. There was only famine, no feast. He did scored a ton, but on flat pitch where draw was the only option. That was half of his total run tally on that tour.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah he failed against Donald and the 2Ws away.


Sure but without Donald wasn't the same attack. Even Pollock was starting to decline then.

Murali yes, a single series tho.


He averages 47 away and pretty much the entire top tier is 50 above. But at least you grant my point.


Two big issues: not many good series against great attacks and generally not many good series overall.

Yes his record is consistent with being below par against the best attacks. Not only that, but hardly has more than one quality series per country, except maybe Aus

Against Aus, he had two poor and one good series against McGrath. Overall 41 in Aus is disappointing..

Against Pak, failed against 2Ws and only scored against below par attack without Shoaib in 2006.

Against SA, below par against peak Donald and only scored when he was gone.

Against Eng, great series in 95 but the really threatening attack he faced was Ashes quartet 2004 and was below par.

Against NZ, below par against Bond.

SL is glorious exception but a single below par series in India too.

Sachin too failed away to Donald and Pollock.

Failed away to the Ws

Failed away to Bond.

Averaged 46 away to McWarne which is good but not otherworldly.

My point? Against the challenging attacks, they both played against, they both failed.

 

[kyear2]

I don't necessarily think Sunny is a lock for top 10 now. I have him at no.10 but can see him as 11/12.

I have him in a group with Chappell, Hammond, Border, Ponting, Kallis.

I go between him and Chappell for the 10 spot, him generally because of the opening credit.

 

[BazBall21]

Gavaskar wouldn't quite make my 10

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin too failed away to Donald and Pollock.

Mixed results.

Toured as a teen against Donald in 92, goodish series in 96, good and poor series in the 2000s before a near ATG series against Steyn. Much better sample for Sachin in SA.

Failed away to the Ws

Debut series who cares and neither Wasim or Waqar had peaked yet.

Failed away to Bond.

Yes but unlike Lara had a better record in NZ aside from that.

Averaged 46 away to McWarne which is good but not otherworldly.

Good enough to be MOS.

My point? Against the challenging attacks, they both played against, they both failed.

Lara clearly did worse away which you have already acknowledged. And outside of ATGs, Sachin is just generally more consistent whereas Lara was not away from home.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok now answer me this question, name me the great attack that BOTH Lara and Sachin played against where Sachin did distinctly better away.

Away?

Donald IMO. Sachin with a ton as teen and then a goodish series in 96, where Lara had just a poor series in 98.

Against McGrath, Tendulkar had one good series in 99 while Lara two poor ones and one good one.

And of course, Tendulkar had quality series returns against Walsh Ambrose and Steyn on his resume unlike Lara.

 

[kyear2]

You had Sobers as no 1. You even voted for him as no 1 in the Greatest Cricketers Poll.....

So I'm going to stop engaging with you.

I've explained that multiple times to you, but you're stuck on it, I assume to prove some point.

Even on my list I update every couple months Bradman has always been no 1.

But for the last time what I will continue to say, there's an argument to be made if you have a batsman that's arguable no. 2, a slip fielder that's top 5 and a bowler who did everything from his team from open to bowl the mule overs with the old ball, to bowling three distinct types.

So yes, as overall cricketers I don't see how it's not at least an argument.

You believe a lot of stuff I don't.

You think Bradman has a multiple tier gap above everyother batsman ever, I don't, never have, context is a thing. Doesn't meant I don't think he's easily the best.

You believe Hobbs and Sachin is clearly apart and above Richards and Sobers. I don't think Tendulkar was even that far above Lara, so those two gentlemen, not a chance imo.

You believe that Gavaskar is in that top tier after Bradman, I think he clearly isn't. I don't see the argument where it can be argued he's the 2nd best batsman ever. That's what the designation means to me, and for the ones I mentioned, plus Smith, Lara and possibly Hutton, I can.

You believe lower order batting overcomes all, and is the leading consideration for your bowlers and especially your wicketkeeper. I think that's absolute nonsense. The wicket-keeping one being particularly indefensible.

Do I bring those up every discussion? Do I even try to misrepresent any point you've made, and repeat it over and over?

Two months ago you swore Sunny was better than Viv. Do I try to prove somehow you still do since you've voted for that option in the past, even opened a thread for it, an entire thread.
No because you've said you've changed your mind and for me to continue to say so would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[subshakerz]

So I'm going to stop engaging with you.

I've explained that multiple times to you, but you're stuck on it, I assume to prove some point.

Even on my list I update every couple months Bradman has always been no 1.

But for the last time what I will continue to say, there's an argument to be made if you have a batsman that's arguable no. 2, a slip fielder that's top 5 and a bowler who did everything from his team from open to bowl the mule overs with the old ball, to bowling three distinct types.

So yes, as overall cricketers I don't see how it's not at least an argument.

You believe a lot of stuff I don't.

You think Bradman has a multiple tier gap above everyother batsman ever, I don't, never have, context is a thing. Doesn't meant I don't think he's easily the best.

You believe Hobbs and Sachin is clearly apart and above Richards and Sobers. I don't think Tendulkar was even that far above Lara, so those two gentlemen, not a chance imo.

You believe that Gavaskar is in that top tier after Bradman, I think he clearly isn't. I don't see the argument where it can be argued he's the 2nd best batsman ever. That's what the designation means to me, and for the ones I mentioned, plus Smith, Lara and possibly Hutton, I can.

You believe lower order batting overcomes all, and is the leading consideration for your bowlers and especially your wicketkeeper. I think that's absolute nonsense. The wicket-keeping one being particularly indefensible.

Do I bring those up every discussion? Do I even try to misrepresent any point you've made, and repeat it over and over?

Two months ago you swore Sunny was better than Viv. Do I try to prove somehow you still do since you've voted for that option in the past, even opened a thread for it, an entire thread.
No because you've said you've changed your mind and for me to continue to say so would be intellectually dishonest.

Wait did you actually vote for Sobers over Bradman?

 

[capt_Luffy]

So I'm going to stop engaging with you.

I've explained that multiple times to you, but you're stuck on it, I assume to prove some point.

Even on my list I update every couple months Bradman has always been no 1.

But for the last time what I will continue to say, there's an argument to be made if you have a batsman that's arguable no. 2, a slip fielder that's top 5 and a bowler who did everything from his team from open to bowl the mule overs with the old ball, to bowling three distinct types.

So yes, as overall cricketers I don't see how it's not at least an argument.

You believe a lot of stuff I don't.

You think Bradman has a multiple tier gap above everyother batsman ever, I don't, never have, context is a thing. Doesn't meant I don't think he's easily the best.

You believe Hobbs and Sachin is clearly apart and above Richards and Sobers. I don't think Tendulkar was even that far above Lara, so those two gentlemen, not a chance imo.

You believe that Gavaskar is in that top tier after Bradman, I think he clearly isn't. I don't see the argument where it can be argued he's the 2nd best batsman ever. That's what the designation means to me, and for the ones I mentioned, plus Smith, Lara and possibly Hutton, I can.

You believe lower order batting overcomes all, and is the leading consideration for your bowlers and especially your wicketkeeper. I think that's absolute nonsense. The wicket-keeping one being particularly indefensible.

Do I bring those up every discussion? Do I even try to misrepresent any point you've made, and repeat it over and over?

Two months ago you swore Sunny was better than Viv. Do I try to prove somehow you still do since you've voted for that option in the past, even opened a thread for it, an entire thread.
No because you've said you've changed your mind and for me to continue to say so would be intellectually dishonest.

Yeah no to everything. A keeper who can't bat is a liability, only Hobbs and SRT are prime contenders for best after Don and rest of 6 are around equal and like you voted Sobers ahead. Genuinely did. And I genuinely think Sobers has as much of a case over Bradman as Stokes does over Hutton.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wait did you actually vote for Sobers over Bradman?

CW's 100 Greatest Cricketers Poll

You can define Greatness as you may seem fit; be it impact, consistency, peak or even innovation, in any way shape or form you deem fit. As for formats, its a 100 Greatest Cricketers List. You can take it as Test only, Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 + FC + Grade, only T20s..... Give...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[subshakerz]

CW's 100 Greatest Cricketers Poll

You can define Greatness as you may seem fit; be it impact, consistency, peak or even innovation, in any way shape or form you deem fit. As for formats, its a 100 Greatest Cricketers List. You can take it as Test only, Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 + FC + Grade, only T20s..... Give...

www.cricketweb.net

Huh? Don't understand how he can attack you then.

 

[Johan]

CW's 100 Greatest Cricketers Poll

You can define Greatness as you may seem fit; be it impact, consistency, peak or even innovation, in any way shape or form you deem fit. As for formats, its a 100 Greatest Cricketers List. You can take it as Test only, Test + FC, Test + ODI, Test + ODI + T20 + FC + Grade, only T20s..... Give...

www.cricketweb.net

how come Viv came over Lara and Imran in your greatest cricketers list

 

[kyear2]

look at those 50s numbers, see why Hutton is HIM

Very much so.

 

[Slifer]

Away?

Donald IMO. Sachin with a ton as teen and then a goodish series in 96, where Lara had just a poor series in 98.

Against McGrath, Tendulkar had one good series in 99 while Lara two poor ones and one good one.

And of course, Tendulkar had quality series returns against Walsh Ambrose and Steyn on his resume unlike Lara.

I said that they had in common and Sachin had an ok series and one horror series vs Donald and co. His age is irrelevant. Of course he never played the WWs away in the 90s. And vs Bond he was just as poor.

My point is if you'd just said Lara was below par away (relative to the Vivs and Sachins etc) I'd have been fine but had to stick that bs in about padded stats. That's as if to imply that he had it any easier than anyone else and as if to imply he was the only batsman who did better once the greats retired. He wasn't.


You give Lara in his prime, away series to the Australian, NZ, Bangladesh, Pakistan, SL, etc that existed in the 2000s, that Ramesh feasted on, his stocks would've likely risen.