Brian Lara vs Sunil Gavaskar

[DrWolverine]

Test cricket

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lara as he had a higher ceiling and ability to turn out complete freak not just matches but Series.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara. Just the genius factor.

 

[sayon basak]

Lara.

 

[Johan]

Lara. when on flow, there's really none better.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Lara

 

[number11]

This is quite easy. It's Lara.

Him, Viv and Sobers stand alone for me in the post war period. They were all geniuses.

 

[DrWolverine]

Him, Viv and Sobers stand alone for me in the post war period.

Sachin?

 

[number11]

Sachin?

This is the problem with leaving half a post out. I clearly said they were "geniuses". Sachin was brilliant, Ponting was brilliant, Smith is extraordinary but none of them are geniuses. Genius is something you know when you see it. Other bats worked day and night and became run machines, those 3 had that touch of genius. Perhaps ABDV has it - that's it.

 

[sayon basak]

This is the problem with leaving half a post out. I clearly said they were "geniuses". Sachin was brilliant, Ponting was brilliant, Smith is extraordinary but none of them are geniuses. Genius is something you know when you see it. Other bats worked day and night and became run machines, those 3 had that touch of genius. Perhaps ABDV has it - that's it.

The thread doesn't ask who is the genius. Asks who is better.
And the term genius is very vague, actually doesn't mean too much tbh.

 

[DrWolverine]

It’s hard to quantify who is a genius.

Sachin’s batting may lack the flair of Lara but he is the definition of a genius - Teen prodigy who fulfilled all expectations and became the most accomplished batsman

 

[number11]

The thread doesn't ask who is the genius. Asks who is better.
And the term genius is very vague, actually doesn't mean too much tbh.

I clearly answered the set question by saying Lara was better.
No, genius is clearly identified when it is seen. It's that quality that lets a person do what seems beyond the ability of other people. Pele, Maradona, Ali - you know it when you see it.
Lara has it, Gavaskar - brilliant though he was - did not.

 

[sayon basak]

I clearly answered the set question by saying Lara was better.
No, genius is clearly identified when it is seen. It's that quality that lets a person do what seems beyond the ability of other people. Pele, Maradona, Ali - you know it when you see it.
Lara has it, Gavaskar - brilliant though he was - did not.

I am not trying to invalidate your claim. Just saying that it can be confusing how you use the terms "genius" or "brilliant" etc etc.

 

[DrWolverine]

In tennis Federer is often called a genius. I have often asked myself why he is called a genius but not Nadal or Novak.

Is it because Roger Federer’s game was aesthetically pleasing whereas Rafael Nadal’s game was brutal and Novak Djokovic’s game was just monotonous?

 

[sayon basak]

Wasn't Mark Waugh aesthetically pleasing?

 

[kyear2]

Sachin?

Think I referenced this the other day. Sachin like Bradman and Smith were machines. Smith and Bradman through technique and class, Smith grit, but elite run scorers.

But Richards, Lara, Sobers and the other guy I reference, were touched by genuine genius and could just do things others couldn't.

 

[kyear2]

Lara. when on flow, there's really none better.

This.

 

[DrWolverine]

Wasn't Mark Waugh aesthetically pleasing?

Come on man. You need to have at least some numbers to back up a claim of being called a genius.

If Mark Waugh ended his career with the same numbers as his brother, he would have been called as a genius.

 

[sayon basak]

You have to be a genius to be a run machine.

 

[DrWolverine]

Lara. when on flow, there's really none better.

Just a delight to watch.