Viv Richards & Allan Donald vs Brian Lara & Curtly Ambrose

[honestbharani]

There is a reason I feel the need to ignore these threads but somebody up there was saying Lara was not proven against spin or some other idiocy.

Here is something from someone who did play spin really well AND smashed Indian spinners in India.

Babar has major spin demons to overcome, and oppositions know this well

India, Pakistan's next opponents in the Champions Trophy, will almost inevitably seek to expose this frailty

www.espncricinfo.com

When the masters of playing spin are at their peak, the thoughts that dominate the higher functions of the mind are not necessarily about the next ball, the pitch, how fast it is turning, how much flight is being given, and how fast or slow it comes, but where the fielders are, how they manipulate them and by extension the opposition captain.

Here's Shivnarine Chanderpaul, a very good player of spin, talking about Brian Lara, who was arguably the best spin player ever (no one dominated Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralidaran, quite like Lara):

"I know Brian, when he bats, he hits the ball behind point, very hard. Sometimes he got spin on the ball, and sometimes he doesn't put spin on the ball. And he does it deliberately. It depends on where the guy on the point boundary is fielding. If the guy on the boundary is out square, then he puts spin on the ball so it keep running away further behind and the guy can't catch it. And sometimes they put him behind, and Brian hit it with no spin so it go in front for four. He still cuts the ball, but he does not put spin on the ball. He's an amazing batter. Serious."

Lara's record against India is a factor of multiple things. He hardly ever played India in India for that to be considered any sort of meaningful stat (and was sawn off two times in the series he did play) and there is context to the 97 and 2002 series that no one wants to consider. He is EASILY the best player of spin from the time I have watched cricket and he is the best batsman I have seen, though that competition is a lot closer than the "batting against spin" one.

 

[subshakerz]

There is a reason I feel the need to ignore these threads but somebody up there was saying Lara was not proven against spin

Who said that?

All I know is that Lara said he didn't like to face flat spinners like Kumble, Harbi and Saqlain.

 

[sayon basak]

All I know is that Lara said he didn't like to face flat spinners like Kumble, Harbi and Saqlain.

What he did matters more than what he said tbf.

 

[subshakerz]

What he did matters more than what he said tbf.

I mean, kinda, but he didn't dominate them, so what he says is relevant too to understand why.

 

[honestbharani]

jelly idiots cant learn

 

[kyear2]

Or that folks who never saw Waugh bat assume he was selfish and scored easy runs, which isn't true at all.

Yes. A more dominant player. Also a bias as Waugh wasn't aesthetic.

Sounds a lot like your critiques of a certain South African all rounder.

 

[subshakerz]

Sounds a lot like your critiques of a certain South African all rounder.

Please stop your BS.

You are openly calling Kallis selfish here? I have issue with Kallis but I will always acknowledge him a consummate teamman.

No. I never said he was selfish.

I said he lacked the ability to dominate like real ATG bats. If a bat can't dominate attacks, that is a valid reason to not put him in the ATG status.

I never called Kallis selfish.

He was defensive and negative which doesn't gel at all with an Aussie batting lineup. Keep that stuff back in SA.

Let's just leave it at the agreement that it is unfair to denigrate Kallis based on what we speculate would be motives for his style of play. I don't call him selfish.

Back to Steve Waugh, I think it is fair to say that he wasn't the most aggressive bat, but I have never seen a better pressure player. He always seemed to save his best for the big occasions too.

Technically and otherwise, Kallis was simply better to watch though. But he is way to safe and conservative a player to rate that great.

 

[kyear2]

What if you are more suitable down the order?

Like Chanderpaul?

There's no such thing, if you're more suitable down the order it means you are basically hiding.

 

[subshakerz]

Like Chanderpaul?

There's no such thing, if you're more suitable down the order it means you are basically hiding.

So was Allan Border hiding? You honestly believe that?

 

[kyear2]

Hutton>

I don't get the Sutcliffe adoration, never have.

He's never been rated along with the other English greats by the pundits, writers nor peers. He batted in the easiest period of batting in history, could never get dismissed lbw if the ball even pitched outside off, yet still barred at a strike rate in the low 30's.

 

[kyear2]

No, just a boring old fogey living in the past. There are plenty of more interesting posters here including yourself. Thank you for the kind words though.

Far from friend, and thank you.

Plus I think you're the only person on the forum who agree with my two primary principles...

And yes, I always look forward to your posts.

 

[subshakerz]

my two primary principles...

What are those?

 

[Johan]

I don't get the Sutcliffe adoration, never have.

He's never been rated along with the other English greats by the pundits, writers nor peers. He batted in the easiest period of batting in history, could never get dismissed lbw if the ball even pitched outside off, yet still barred at a strike rate in the low 30's.

master on wet wickets and sticky pitches, averages 60+, elite ATG against spin and stellar against pace if his record against Larwood is something to go by and iirc in games with sub-average RPW, he averages 47 which shows how good he was when the going got tough, led England to victories in Australia multiple times even on some sticky wickets, he was also an absolute master on Matting wickets. Generally, he is regarded as one of the best "bad-wicket" batters of all time, I rate him around Gavaskar.

also...averages 67 in Ashes tests, a big feat. People are always willing to deduct extra points off of English and Australian players if their Ashes record is middling relative to their career so logically they should get extra points for Ashes domination too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't get the Sutcliffe adoration, never have.

He's never been rated along with the other English greats by the pundits, writers nor peers. He batted in the easiest period of batting in history, could never get dismissed lbw if the ball even pitched outside off, yet still barred at a strike rate in the low 30's.

You don't get why a guy who averages 60+ with great innings on sticky wickets gets adoration? What

This is peak strike rate fetishization tbh.

 

[Coronis]

You don't get why a guy who averages 60+ with great innings on sticky wickets gets adoration? What

This is peak strike rate fetishization tbh.

Apparently Greenidge and Smith are borderline ATGs but Sutcliffe isn’t.

 

[akilana]

Sounds a lot like your critiques of a certain South African all rounder.

the mantra is different tunes for different players.

 

[kyear2]

What are those?

He rates and values Barry and...

Agree that close catching in Test cricket is more important than late-order runs.

Also, his all time time is also pretty close to mine.

He has Barnes over McGrath, my only real disagreement, but similar players. Otherwise he has Hobbs over Hutton, which I have no issue with, as Hobbs really is an automatic by my own criteria, Hadlee over Wasim which also makes a ton of sense.

(Edit, he also has O'Reilly over Warne)

And before you ask, the criteria is if anyone can make all 3 of the XIs that matter (to me at least). Wisden, Cricinfo and CW, they're automatic.

That's the Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century plus Tendulkar and Marshall. That's locked in territory.

The crazy part is that even when I add in someone's else's XI, like Martin Crowe for example, Wasim and Gilchrist again pops up, meaning they make 3 out of the 4 and we're the only ones not selecting Wasim and Wisden the offender for Gilly.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

There is a reason I feel the need to ignore these threads but somebody up there was saying Lara was not proven against spin or some other idiocy.

Here is something from someone who did play spin really well AND smashed Indian spinners in India.

Babar has major spin demons to overcome, and oppositions know this well

India, Pakistan's next opponents in the Champions Trophy, will almost inevitably seek to expose this frailty

www.espncricinfo.com

Lara's record against India is a factor of multiple things. He hardly ever played India in India for that to be considered any sort of meaningful stat (and was sawn off two times in the series he did play) and there is context to the 97 and 2002 series that no one wants to consider. He is EASILY the best player of spin from the time I have watched cricket and he is the best batsman I have seen, though that competition is a lot closer than the "batting against spin" one.

The 2002 series at home shouldn't be considered at all, that's literally the first series he played after messing up his shoulder in SL. But I'm with you on this one.

They bring up Lara vs flatter spinners like Kumble and Saqlain (one series vs Saqlain btw) but then ignore the same flatter type spinners that he slaughtered like Kaneria, Tufnell, etc. And I keep stressing that the Indian bowlers who actually bettered Lara ironically, were their seamers. Fine, Kumble got him out a few times but if you play someone often enough, you are bound to fall to them at some point. Doesnt mean they had the wood over you.

But yeah the notion Lara was unproven vs spin flat or whatever other bs they like to make up is nonsense. In the grand scheme of things, Lara man handled the two greatest spinners ever. Next, you know who, like he did b4 will post a clip of Lara being circumpect vs Murali to prove an irrelevant point.....

 

[subshakerz]

The 2002 series at home shouldn't be considered at all, that's literally the first series he played after messing up his shoulder in SL. But I'm with you on this one.

They bring up Lara vs flatter spinners like Kumble and Saqlain (one series vs Saqlain btw) but then ignore the same flatter type spinners that he slaughtered like Kaneria, Tufnell, etc. And I keep stressing that the Indian bowlers who actually bettered Lara ironically, were their seamers. Fine, Kumble got him out a few times but if you play someone often enough, you are bound to fall to them at some point. Doesnt mean they had the wood over you.

But yeah the notion Lara was unproven vs spin flat or whatever other bs they like to make up is nonsense. In the grand scheme of things, Lara man handled the two greatest spinners ever. Next, you know who, like he did b4 will post a clip of Lara being circumpect vs Murali to prove an irrelevant point.....

Kaneria wasnt a flatter spinner at all. Neither was Tufnell much to be honest and Tufnell was a far worse spinner than Kumble, Saqlain and Harbi.

Nobody is saying Lara was 'unproven' vs flat spin. Just that he couldn't really dominate it.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Kaneria wasnt a flatter spinner at all. Neither was Tufnell much to be honest and Tufnell was a far worse spinner than Kumble, Saqlain and Harbi.

Nobody is saying Lara was 'unproven' vs flat spin. Just that he couldn't really dominate it.

Spin is spin. Fact of the matter is, Lara was great vs spin and dominated the 2 goats. When you start to nit pick the one or two times he didn't dominate a lesser bowler it's annoying and screams personal bias. Why? Because with almost every batsman you can pick out a bowler or two who gave them issues every now and then.