4 & 5

[honestbharani]

Lara didn't do as well as Sachin though. Not in terms of consistency, not in terms of all-round record in different countries or different opposition.

None of that is true. And its very obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, even though you claim to have "seen" him struggle against Donald and Pollock, yet use the "does not have a 100 against them" drivel to indicate failure. I watched the 1998 Windies tour of RSA and Lara was obviously throwing away his wicket in arrogance than any real issue with pace. It would also seem stupid to anyone who watched him smash Wasim, Waqar, Donald in tests and ODIs. And excusing Tendulkar's struggles with tennis elbow but saying there were failings of Lara coz he mistimed hook shots is like saying Sachin struggled to pick short balls coz shoulder before wicket.

Once again, try not to rehash basic false stereotypes if you wanna actually compare them. Watching them through their career, its very clear to me Lara was the better batsman by a slight yet clear margin in tests. And no, he did not struggle against pace and bounce anymore than Sachin did.

If you think sheer longevity weighs so much that for you, Sachin > Lara, that is totally fine. But lets stop with the silly stereotypical and lazy points.

 

[honestbharani]

In 90s, you have a point. But not in 00.

yeah, which is why I say Lara in ODIs is a classic story of what could have been. But then again, his genius always felt needlessly limited in LO cricket anyways to me.

 

[subshakerz]

I broadly agree that Tendulkar is a bit better than Lara mainly due to longevity reasons but it feels a bit harsh to criticise Lara's failings against McGrath considering how very, very few batsman have had great success against Australia in games McGrath is playing yet Lara played a huge chunk of his test career (24 tests) in games against McGrath and scored 2000+ runs at 46 with 6 hundreds including multiple ATG hundreds which is an excellent record considering just how few batsmen have good records against McGrath.

Considering the aggregate of runs, you could argue he is the batsman who has had the most success against McGrath in tests.

WTF is up with Ijaz Ahmad though. 61 tests averaging 37 seems like a non-descripit career yet he scored 4 centuries in 7 games v McGrath post-1995 (when McGrath got good) with an average of 61 including 2 in Australia and 3/4 of those seem to be genuine quality knocks. The only batsman who has made more test centuries against McGrath is Lara (6) and he took 24 games for it. None of Ahmad's centuries came during McGrath's poor start in 1993-94 either.

No doubt, Lara did well overall against McGrath which I acknowledged. My point was in a comparison against Tendulkar, Lara offside weakness got ruthlessly exposed in the mid-90s by McGrath (specifically in the 96 series in Australia when he fell cheaply to McGrath 5 times in 6 innings in a row) to an extent that Tendulkar never did in his entire career by any bowler. Technically speaking, Tendulkar was more sound as a batsman.

Is it a minor point? Yes. But these minor issues matter when comparing career of ATGs.

 

[subshakerz]

What more do you think he needs to do to claim that spot? He's had an 11 year career, scored 7500 runs (20th overall), has the second highest average in the game, has 27 tons (20th overall) and has had an 80 innings peak greater than any batsman not named Bradman. He has an overseas average of 60 and has played the two most incredible overseas series in my lifetime (India 2017, England 2019). He's excelled in pace, spin, high bounce, low bounce, fast wickets, slow wickets and seaming wickets. As complete of a batsman as you'll ever find.

Steve Smith has 'only' played 77 tests. In modern terms, that isn't a lot for a batsman. Yes, his peak from 2014-2019 is unparalleled in modern times, but all signs indicate that his peak has ended, and his average since Ashes 2019 is a more sane 40ish in three series since then. I would be interested to see if he can approach the heights of before in the next few years.

If he were to retire now, I would put a * next to him honestly.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah averaging 40 in a couple of countries is just awful. Disqualifies any batsman from greatness.

He never said that. He said that stopped from from emerging from an already small group of batsmen to emerge as clearly the 2nd best ever.

As is, he's in a group comprising Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Richards. That's literally it.

 

[subshakerz]

None of that is true. And its very obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, even though you claim to have "seen" him struggle against Donald and Pollock, yet use the "does not have a 100 against them" drivel to indicate failure. I watched the 1998 Windies tour of RSA and Lara was obviously throwing away his wicket in arrogance than any real issue with pace. It would also seem stupid to anyone who watched him smash Wasim, Waqar, Donald in tests and ODIs. And excusing Tendulkar's struggles with tennis elbow but saying there were failings of Lara coz he mistimed hook shots is like saying Sachin struggled to pick short balls coz shoulder before wicket.

Once again, try not to rehash basic false stereotypes if you wanna actually compare them. Watching them through their career, its very clear to me Lara was the better batsman by a slight yet clear margin in tests. And no, he did not struggle against pace and bounce anymore than Sachin did.

If you think sheer longevity weighs so much that for you, Sachin > Lara, that is totally fine. But lets stop with the silly stereotypical and lazy points.

Dont know why you are so triggered since I have already said Lara was one of my favorite batsman to watch growing up. And I dont see how you saying he threw away his wicket against Donald is somehow a point in his favor. In my view, he was trying to dominate Donald in a personal battle but there seemed an inevitability that he would miscue a shot as he seemed to be riding his luck. It was brilliant to watch though. And he definitely did struggle against Wasim/Waqar in Pakistan in 97 when I watched that series.

My other point was that McGrath ruthlessly exposed Lara in 96 in Australia (dismissing him 5 times in 6 innings) in a way Tendulkar never suffered against any bowler.

Granted, Lara in the 90s in ODIs was a different deal, but I comparing them as test batsman.

The point is not that Lara was technically deficient, it is that Tendulkar was more technically sound. Small differences between ATG bats.

 

[Red]

Is it because of Sachin's 'bang-for-your-buck' impact?

Just think he’s a better all round batsman. Faced stronger attacks over his career. Best I’ve seen.

 

[stephen]

He never said that. He said that stopped from from emerging from an already small group of batsmen to emerge as clearly the 2nd best ever.

As is, he's in a group comprising Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Richards. That's literally it.

He's easily surpassed Richards at this point. Sobers is a more apt comparison. Tendulkar's argument is around his longevity, and it's a strong argument, though he never hit anywhere near the highs Smith has hit. Lara had some monstrous series' just like Smith, but wasn't as consistent, though he does have longevity.

My question is, what more does Smith have to do to make him undisputed as the second best ever?

 

[TheJediBrah]

My question is, what more does Smith have to do to make him undisputed as the second best ever?

If he finishes his career now he's already there. It would take a pretty big slump to finish off to put him back down to the level of Sachin, Lara etc.

Covid (and Sandpaper) really ****ed him a bit though

 

[Burgey]

Just think he’s a better all round batsman. Faced stronger attacks over his career. Best I’ve seen.

What did he average in tests where McGrath played? Genuine question, I'm running a hearing atm and can't look it up.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What did he average in tests where McGrath played? Genuine question, I'm running a hearing atm and can't look it up.

Oh that's ok because I'm just sitting on the toilet and can look it up

36.77

Meanwhile Lara averaged 46.38 in games involving McGrath

 

[Teja.]

He's easily surpassed Richards at this point. Sobers is a more apt comparison. Tendulkar's argument is around his longevity, and it's a strong argument, though he never hit anywhere near the highs Smith has hit. Lara had some monstrous series' just like Smith, but wasn't as consistent, though he does have longevity.

My question is, what more does Smith have to do to make him undisputed as the second best ever?

SRT original peak from the middle of 1997 to 2002 where he averaged 70.xx and nobody who scored even half the amount of runs came within 11+ of his average:



He also had a second peak of 26 tests from mid-2008 to 2011 where he scored 2750 runs @ 74.xx. Smith's peak of 5 years where he averaged thereabouts of 75 for 50 tests is probably better than any one of Tendulkar's peaks but the idea that Tendulkar was incapable of having monstrous peaks averaging 70+ over several years is incorrect. He in fact did it twice with the first one being staggeringly dominant over half a decade, much like Smith where KW also averaged 65ish in that period.

Smith's average of 61.8 in 77 tests is incredible but it's worth noting that Tendulkar had a very similar record at that stage in his career as well. By his 90th test, he was averaging 58.xx which is the highest average anyone has ever had in their first 90 tests. Again, Smith's achievements until this stage of his career are incredible but the idea that they are on another plane to SRT is completely incorrect.

More importantly, after playing significantly more than twice the amount of tests, Tendulkar averaged 57 over 177 tests till the 2010/11 season. The question is not what more Smith can do. For me, it's more that, just like Smith, Sachin has had a great peak averaging 70+ and dwarfing everyone else over half a decade and had an average close enough to 60 at a similar point in his career as Smith. By the end of 2001, he was already considered a leading contendor for being the best after Bradman and was similarly placed to Smith now though I'd put Smith slightly ahead of Sachin 89-02.

However, subsequently, SRT also was an ATG batsman for another full decade after the above point averaging 55+ with a huge second peak in 2008-10. That obviously added an incredible amount of value to the team beyond what he had already achieved in his first 80-90 tests and it seems bonkers to me to not consider this a huge factor in favour of SRT.

For me to consider Smith better despite this huge factor in favour of SRT, he has to replicate his peak a second time over 35-40ish tests where he dominates to the same extent as 2014-2019 or he has to have an unrealistic amount of longevity from this point onwards.

 

[_00_deathscar]

46 avg 82 SR, almost Sachineseque.

48.60 at 91 SR (Sachin’s opening stats in the 90s - ie when he actually got good at this ODI stuff). Pretty big difference.

Some weird **** with Sachin too. In the 90s his average batting #1 was 31, striking at 79. It’s not even a low number of innings - 32. Was he getting out first ball every time he went in as #1? What’s weird is the strike rate is much much much lower than his average overall/90s average etc. Weird

At #2 it’s a staggering 54 at 94 SR from 107 innings

 

[Burgey]

Oh that's ok because I'm just sitting on the toilet and can look it up

36.77

Meanwhile Lara averaged 46.38 in games involving McGrath

Yeah. Pretty average for such a great player really.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

SRT original peak from the middle of 1997 to 2002 where he averaged 70.xx and nobody who scored even half the amount of runs came within 11+ of his average:

View attachment 29648

He also had a second peak of 26 tests from mid-2008 to 2011 where he scored 2750 runs @ 74.xx. Smith's peak of 5 years where he averaged thereabouts of 75 for 50 tests is probably better than any one of Tendulkar's peaks but the idea that Tendulkar was incapable of having monstrous peaks averaging 70+ over several years is incorrect. He in fact did it twice with the first one being staggeringly dominant over half a decade, much like Smith where KW also averaged 65ish in that period.

Smith's average of 61.8 in 77 tests is incredible but it's worth noting that Tendulkar had a very similar record at that stage in his career as well. By his 90th test, he was averaging 58.xx which is the highest average anyone has ever had in their first 90 tests. Again, Smith's achievements until this stage of his career are incredible but the idea that they are on another plane to SRT is completely incorrect.

More importantly, after playing significantly more than twice the amount of tests, Tendulkar averaged 57 over 177 tests till the 2010/11 season. The question is not what more Smith can do. For me, it's more that, just like Smith, Sachin has had a great peak averaging 70+ and dwarfing everyone else over half a decade and had an average close enough to 60 at a similar point in his career as Smith. By the end of 2001, he was already considered a leading contendor for being the best after Bradman and was similarly placed to Smith now though I'd put Smith slightly ahead of Sachin 89-02.

However, subsequently, SRT also was an ATG batsman for another full decade after the above point averaging 55+ with a huge second peak in 2008-10. That obviously added an incredible amount of value to the team beyond what he had already achieved in his first 80-90 tests and it seems bonkers to me to not consider this a huge factor in favour of SRT.

For me to consider Smith better despite this huge factor in favour of SRT, he has to replicate his peak a second time over 35-40ish tests where he dominates to the same extent as 2014-2019 or he has to have an unrealistic amount of longevity from this point onwards.

ok

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yeah. Pretty average for such a great player really.

He had problems with the occasional bowler (who hasn’t?) but overall when you filter for his average involving matches with the best bowlers of his time (rather than just McGrath or just Donald etc) it’s still 50ish or thereabouts.

He’s the most complete/consistent and technically most proficient bat I’ve seen.

 

[sunilz]

Imagine being called 2nd best batsman and having never won a test series in Asia ?

But then neither did Bradman .

 

[Burgey]

Imagine being called 2nd best batsman and having never won a test series in Asia ?

But then neither did Bradman .

Imagine being called the second best batsman and never winning a series in Australia...

 

[ankitj]

48.60 at 91 SR (Sachin’s opening stats in the 90s - ie when he actually got good at this ODI stuff). Pretty big difference.

Some weird **** with Sachin too. In the 90s his average batting #1 was 31, striking at 79. It’s not even a low number of innings - 32. Was he getting out first ball every time he went in as #1? What’s weird is the strike rate is much much much lower than his average overall/90s average etc. Weird

At #2 it’s a staggering 54 at 94 SR from 107 innings

Please see meaningless stats thread

 

[sunilz]

Imagine being called the second best batsman and never winning a series in Australia...

Tendulkar is not undisputed second best batsman imo . He is there along with Lara, Hobbs, Sobers and now Smith.

It is certain Australian posters who are adamant that Steve Smith is already 2nd best batsman.