Best After The Don

[centurymaker]

Sachin had an impressive list of knocks in the 3 Test series for sure. However, Kasprowicz appears to be the 'spearhead', so where was Glenn McGrath at the time?

Australia in India: Feb - Mar 1998

As for Kallis' 2010-11 series against India - well, Sreenath et al were bowling pies at the time.

Seriously you need to cut it out with disparaging crap.

 

[Ikki]

In the following study (written 2009) Brian Lara has a very similar 'Consistency Index'/Standard Deviation to Steve Waugh, and is only marginally worse than Tendulkar and Kallis.

Blogs: A consistency index for batsmen | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

From what I can gather Brian Lara's 'inconsistency' has been exaggerated.

Er, doesn't that article basically put Lara amongst the most inconsistent for batsmen with 5000+ runs? Same with Tendulkar. Surprisingly, Ponting is amongst the most consistent for batsmen with 5000+ runs. For the top 8 runs scorers of all time he is the #1 consistent batsman. Viv Richards is also amongst the most consistent batsmen.

 

[watson]

I don't know much about consistency indexes and what not, but i do know that between 1997 to late 2001, Lara swung wildly between unparalleled genius and plain mediocrity.

Between November 1996 and November 2001 (when he plundered Murali and co in Sri Lanka), Lara played 11 test series and apart from THAT series against Australia averaged 50+ only once. So in that 6 year period, Lara produced two of the best series performances maybe ever, but did pretty much nothing else worth noting.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

His average, which was over 60 in 1996, had dropped to 47 by late 2001. Thats as inconsistent as it gets for a batsman of his greatness.

Without checking I'm sure the same can be said for Tendulkar and Ponting who have both been mediocre in recent years.

Anyway, I didn't say that Lara wasn't inconsistent because all batsman apart from Bradman have their lean periods. I just said that his 'inconsistency' has been (unfarely) exaggerated because it happens to be similar to other ATGs like Steve Waugh.

 

[watson]

Seriously you need to cut it out with disparaging crap.

You may be impressed by an attack consisting of: Sreenath-Sharma-Unadkat-Harbhajan

I'm not, especially when Harbhajan was well past his best.

 

[akilana]

Lara didn't do as well as he could have. Was average against south africa and pkistan in 90s when donald, akram, waqar etc were gunning. His batting average was in the range of 35-40 against both countries till those bowlers retired. Dont think he had a hundred against them. India and NZ are two other countries where he wasn't successful. His best came against australia, especially in WI. He played few good knocks in australia but blew hot and cold overall.

ATG batsman but had his limitations too.

 

[centurymaker]

People need to get some perspective here. One 3 Test-series makes up about 2% of a modern great's career.

yeah 2%.

 

[centurymaker]

You may be impressed by an attack consisting of: Sreenath-Sharma-Unadkat-Harbhajan

I'm not, especially when Harbhajan was well past his best.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


List of innings-
1) 201*
2) 10 - run out backing up
3) 17 - http://p.imgci.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/126400/126465.jpg
4) 161- In bowler friendly conditions
5) 109* - under pressure and while being injured

What more could he have possibly done!!!!!!!

 

[Satyanash89]

Er, doesn't that article basically put Lara amongst the most inconsistent for batsmen with 5000+ runs? Same with Tendulkar. Surprisingly, Ponting is amongst the most consistent for batsmen with 5000+ runs. For the top 8 runs scorers of all time he is the #1 consistent batsman. Viv Richards is also amongst the most consistent batsmen.

Yeah just checked that out and frankly I find it ridiculous that the study somehow found Ponting to be more consistent than Kallis and Tendulkar. CBF doing some calculation to find the standard deviation and whatnot, but all it does is prove that such statistical studies can project something which isn't necessarily the truth.
To me, consistency is performing at a high level of quality over a long period without suffering too many lean patches which could hurt the team. By those parametwrs, there is no way Ponting can be called one of the most consistent batsmen in history. Certainly not more than Kallis pr Tendulkar anyway.

EDIT: Ok just saw the date of the article and it's January 2008.We all know what happened to Ponting after that... Makes sense now

 

[watson]

People need to get some perspective here. One 3 Test-series makes up about 2% of a modern great's career.

yeah 2%.

Either the ability of a batsman (or bowler for that matter) to dominate a series, and win it almost 'single-handedly' is a criterion for greatness, or it isn't.

I think that it is because cricket is more about winning a Test match series rather individual averages at the end of a season. But I'm happy to be wrong.

 

[Satyanash89]

Either the ability of a batsman (or bowler for that matter) to dominate a series, and win it almost 'single-handedly' is a criterion for greatness, or it isn't.

I think that it is because cricket is more about winning a Test match series rather individual averages at the end of a season. But I'm happy to be wrong.

Awta.

 

[watson]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


List of innings-
1) 201*
2) 10 - run out backing up
3) 17 - http://p.imgci.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/126400/126465.jpg
4) 161- In bowler friendly conditions
5) 109* - under pressure and while being injured

What more could he have possibly done!!!!!!!

Do something similar against Glenn McGrath.

Lara dominated McGrath and Warne, Greg Chappell dominated Holding and Roberts, Hobbs dominated Gregory and Mailey, and so forth - show me something similarly impressive re Kallis and I'll be happier than I am now.

 

[Satyanash89]

Do something similar against Glenn McGrath.

Lara dominated McGrath and Warne, Greg Chappell dominated Holding and Roberts, Hobbs dominated Gregory and Mailey, and so forth - show me something similarly impressive re Kallis and I'll be happier than I am now.

Tendulkar got a mountain of runs against Steyn n Co in the same series. And this was Steyn at his unplayable best too... Kinda hope Tendulkar doesn't get another hundred just so we can say his final one in tests was an epic.

Kallis against England in 04/05 has already been mentioned, but that's the one for him. England's attack was superb.

 

[akilana]

Ya he scored 2 hundreds but 1 of them was after india already lost the match. 2nd hundred was fantastic though.

 

[Ikki]

EDIT: Ok just saw the date of the article and it's January 2008.We all know what happened to Ponting after that... Makes sense now

2009*. I wonder what it would be now. At the time it was written Tendulkar had himself a renaissance two years prior, and has been in a bit of a trough in the last two.

Kallis is also amongst the least consistent when it was written. Besides 08, you have to go a decade prior to have him average under 40 runs for a year, so it is a bit surprising. The method is spelt out in the introduction.

 

[watson]

Tendulkar got a mountain of runs against Steyn n Co in the same series. And this was Steyn at his unplayable best too... Kinda hope Tendulkar doesn't get another hundred just so we can say his final one in tests was an epic.

Kallis against England in 04/05 has already been mentioned, but that's the one for him. England's attack was superb.

Cool.

Incidently, just been through Hobb's 1926 Ashes series. He averaged 81 over 5 Tests and scored a century in the second innings of the last Test. This is significant because the first 4 Tests were drawn and England were under pressure to build a decent total for Australia to chase. In the end England won by 289 runs as the Aussies collapsed on the 5th day.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62553.html

It's these sort of runs made under pressure, and against bowlers of a similar calibre to Gregory, Grimmett, and Mailey that help define greatness IMO

 

[Coronis]

Cool.

Incidently, just been through Hobb's 1926 Ashes series. He averaged 81 over 5 Tests and scored a century in the second innings of the last Test. This is significant because the first 4 Tests were drawn and England were under pressure to build a decent total for Australia to chase. In the end England won by 289 runs as the Aussies collapsed on the 5th day.

5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 14-18, 1926 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

It's these sort of runs made under pressure, and against bowlers of a similar calibre to Gregory, Grimmett, and Mailey that help define greatness IMO

Sutcliffe's 161 doesn't count?

 

[watson]

Yes it counts in England's victory, but it still doesn't automatically make Sutcliffe a better batsman than Hobbs.

 

[Coronis]

Yes it counts in England's victory, but it still doesn't automatically make Sutcliffe a better batsman than Hobbs.

No, but you are using making a century, like Hobbs and Sutcliffe both did, under those circumstances as an example of greatness.

 

[doesitmatter]

Tendulkar may not have dominated a complete series but he has dominating innings against some great bowlers

1) 169 -- Donald, Pollack
2) 136 -- Wasim Waqar Saqlain
3) 119 -- Melbourne..148 sydney..114 Perth (In Aus he has scored in all grounds except Brisbane/Hobart)
4) 2002 series against England some good bowlers ( Gough / Caddick / Flintoff)
5) SA -- Steyn and co (not really dominating)
6) India -- Warne

I think one more important factor is his away record in all countries is phenomenal for a guy who has played lot in the Indian dust bowls and for that alone he is No.2.

I am not making this as an excuse but India played very less test matches robbing more great Tendulkar innings when he was at his peak. Bcci was more interested in unwanted ODIs to make money off of SRTs popularity..

 

[kyear2]

I think no doubt he has had the best career of any batsman ever, longevity, quality of bolwers faced, consistentcy, but that doen't mean he was the best batsman, or the second best. Others have had higher peaks and taken over games and series and inpacted victories and dynasties more than he has. I still think from his own era, Lara was the better batsman, just didn't always apply himself or had himself in the right mindset or focus. But when he was on, he was probably better than anyone, same can be said for Sobers and Viv with Sobers also having consistency to add to that mix.

With regards to being a tier with Bradman and then the rest, I disagree, Tendulkar has had an amazing and un-paralled career, Sobers once he became a batsman first and for the next ten years averaged over 70 in tougher conditions and againts better bowlers, Viv and Lara faced significantly better bolwers and much longer careers and much more varied environs and had hit some amazing highs and were as capable match winners as anyone. Pollock, Headley and Chappell too deserves a place in that pantheon and it's hard to argue againts the peak of Ponting, the challenges and bowlers faced by Hutton, and the again incomparable career of Kallis, especially considering that he (and Sobers) were living a separate life as bowlers. That doesn't even include the original Master, the imcomparable Jack Hobbs who dominated in a bowers era and played on some awful pitches in a totally different time.
Bradman was the best, and with a little daylight, his consistentcy and determination were unmatched, but not in a different tier to those gentlemen and it would be to disrespect the different challenges that they had to overcome in a more modern, global and compeditive sport.