Best batsman after Lara and Sachin

[honestbharani]

When Lara is on song, he's the best batsman I have ever seen, hands down. He's far from the most consistent, but he's truly amazing sometimes.

In ODIs, he has been rather inconsistent, but in tests, apart from a prolonged lean patch between 96 and 99, I don't think he has ever been all that inconsistent.

 

[twctopcat]

Answer to the original question: Kevin Pietersen.

 

[thierry henry]

But Sachin just *looks* gifted. He has a near perfect technical command of batting and just makes it look so easy. This is why people rate him so highly; not just by looking at numbers. Would you count the number of notes in a Beethoven symphony, compare them to a Wagnerian Aria and say that Wagner was the 'better' composer? Of course not. Talent can't just be judged by number, particularly not just averages.

That's ridiculous. Cricket is a game totally about runs. You win by scoring the most runs, and by keeping the opposition to as few runs as possible. The only adequate way to compare players is to look at statistics, and statistics is really just another word for "performances" or "how effectively they actually played". Obviously there are different factors which affect these performances, but over a long career we must assume these things even themselves out, otherwise it's not good ever debating cricket.

 

[cricket player]

I would say dravid,inzimam ul haq,steve waugh,kristin,youhana,

I would say inzy would be a better choice rather then dravid.Inzimam ul haq has been one of the finest players over the years of couse before lara and sachin.Oh boy but when he is at a good form he would destroy any team.Againts india in karachi he played one of his finest innings perhaps being under pressure.

 

[Dasa]

That's ridiculous. Cricket is a game totally about runs. You win by scoring the most runs, and by keeping the opposition to as few runs as possible. The only adequate way to compare players is to look at statistics, and statistics is really just another word for "performances" or "how effectively they actually played". Obviously there are different factors which affect these performances, but over a long career we must assume these things even themselves out, otherwise it's not good ever debating cricket.

Missed the point? What he's saying is that although statistically many players can come close to Tendulkar, just watching him bat makes you believe he is the best...

 

[Deja moo]

Missed the point? What he's saying is that although statistically many players can come close to Tendulkar, just watching him bat makes you believe he is the best...

But if that spectacle doesnt convert to a corresponding amount of runs, it just remains a cosmetic facade. The bottom line is runs scored. You may have all the talent in the world. Good. Can we now get some runs please ? Cricket games arent decided on who looked better.

 

[tooextracool]

personally i think dravid is a better player than all the others mentioned because of his consistency and scoring in every country in the world, kallis comes close. id put ponting below the 2 and inzy even lower simply because hes too inconsistent.

 

[Hit4Six]

personally i think dravid is a better player than all the others mentioned because of his consistency and scoring in every country in the world, kallis comes close. id put ponting below the 2 and inzy even lower simply because hes too inconsistent.

agreed but id rate kallis and dravid on the same level

 

[tooextracool]

i wouldnt, because(assuming that you round his average of 39.47 to 40 against SA) , not only does dravid average over 40 against every country, but he also averages over 40 In every country. neither of tendulkar, lara, ponting or kalllis have done that.
kallis in fact has for until this series been known to succeed significantly against poorer bowling attacks.

 

[tooextracool]

to add further to that, if you round 39.64 to 40, dravid has also averaged at least 40 in every year of his test career so far. again, none of the other players have done the same.

 

[Pratters]

When Lara is on song, he's the best batsman I have ever seen, hands down. He's far from the most consistent, but he's truly amazing sometimes.

I would say Tendulkar is much more talented than Lara. But Lara has the mental toughness which I havent seen any other cricket player possess. This has helped him play far more exceptional innings than Tendulkar.

 

[Arrow]

I would say Tendulkar is much more talented than Lara. But Lara has the mental toughness which I havent seen any other cricket player possess. This has helped him play far more exceptional innings than Tendulkar.

Much more talented?

 

[honestbharani]

Much more talented?

As a cricketer, maybe Sachin is more talented than Lara. But speaking of only batting, I would say it is Lara who is more gifted. He smashed a good Indian spin attack on a turning track (according to Ravi Shastri, who played that game) in 1989, as a mere 19 year old for 189.

 

[Pratters]

As a cricketer, maybe Sachin is more talented than Lara. But speaking of only batting, I would say it is Lara who is more gifted. He smashed a good Indian spin attack on a turning track (according to Ravi Shastri, who played that game) in 1989, as a mere 19 year old for 189.

Tendulkar showed how difted he was when he scored that test century in Perth at a young age. Tendulkar is more gifted IMO, but Lara is mentally much tougher. The 189 at the young age. The big centuries. Tendulkar has managed some big innings at a later stage in his career.

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar showed how difted he was when he scored that test century in Perth at a young age. Tendulkar is more gifted IMO, but Lara is mentally much tougher. The 189 at the young age. The big centuries. Tendulkar has managed some big innings at a later stage in his career.

No, I mean, Sachin was gifted, but the reason I say Lara was more gifted is because he did not have to graft his way to all those big knocks he scored early in his career. That 277 came off 320 odd balls against Australia in Sydney. So, my point about him being more gifted than Sachin is quite valid. Granted, if he had scored that 277 off 400 balls, then the mental toughness comes in. But to score 277 off 320 balls takes talent, and a lot of it.

 

[Dasa]

No, I mean, Sachin was gifted, but the reason I say Lara was more gifted is because he did not have to graft his way to all those big knocks he scored early in his career. That 277 came off 320 odd balls against Australia in Sydney. So, my point about him being more gifted than Sachin is quite valid. Granted, if he had scored that 277 off 400 balls, then the mental toughness comes in. But to score 277 off 320 balls takes talent, and a lot of it.

It was off 372 balls.
I'd rather not get into who is better out of Tendulkar and Lara, however it's my opinion as an Indian that Tendulkar is more talented. If I were from the Caribbean, I would probably go for Lara. I don't think there is any practical way of seperating them.

 

[honestbharani]

lol. I am an Indian too. Sorry about the wrong stat. Anyway, personally, I tend to think that Lara is better than Sachin in tests and that Sachin is better than Lara in ODIs. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Pratters]

So, my point about him being more gifted than Sachin is quite valid.

It shows more mental resolve more than any thing when a player plays a long inning (accepted fitness is a key aspect as well). If a player is talented enough to score a century on a bouncy wicket, he could very well get bigger runs. But Tendulkar could not do that till much later. Like he took a much longer time to score his first one day century.

But I guess its more of a personal belief about who is more talented. People will have different views on it.

There is no doubt however that Lara has achieved much more in his career.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In ODIs, he has been rather inconsistent, but in tests, apart from a prolonged lean patch between 96 and 99, I don't think he has ever been all that inconsistent.

Uh yeh... so that patch between 2001 and 2003 when he scored 2846 runs in 26 matches at 61.86 with 8 hundreds and 12 fifties was inconsistent? That stretch where he only averaged under 40 in two full series... Riiiiight.

He scored 2525 runs between 1996 and 1999 and averaged 43.53 with 6 hundreds and 13 fifties.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i wouldnt, because(assuming that you round his average of 39.47 to 40 against SA) , not only does dravid average over 40 against every country, but he also averages over 40 In every country. neither of tendulkar, lara, ponting or kalllis have done that.
kallis in fact has for until this series been known to succeed significantly against poorer bowling attacks.

Aside from 7 Tests between India and Pakistan though, Lara's spread looks pretty good.