Carl Hooper was more talented than Brian Lara

[Lillian Thomson]

So says Curtley Ambrose on page 45 of his autobiography. He obviously knows them personally and saw more of them at close quarters than any cricket fans, but I think he's lost his marbles. Hooper's record was a little less impressive than it should have been given his undoubted talent, but Lara is one of a handful of genuine geniuses in history.

 

[Red]

As a right arm off spinner?

 

[Saint Kopite]

I think he probably meant it the same way many considered Kambli to be more talented than Sachin. Some may have had more pure talent than the likes of Lara and Sachin, but what made them all time greats wasn't just their talent. Their work-ethic, concentration and dedication played a big part as well!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think he probably meant it the same way many considered Kambli to be more talented than Sachin. Some may have had more pure talent than the likes of Lara and Sachin, but what made them all time greats wasn't just their talent. Their work-ethic, concentration and dedication played a big part as well!

That is what he meant. I just think he's incredibly wrong.

 

[Pratters]

That is what he meant. I just think he's incredibly wrong.

I know what you mean. Concentration is a part of the 'talent', say. It's the argument which I often here for Rohit Sharma - he is talented but doesn't put his mind to it. A lot of times, what looks like a careless shot maybe a deficiency in ability to play longer innings consistently.

 

[Cabinet96]

Flem was right tbh. Talent is a rubbish term.

 

[SteveNZ]

But if Hooper had enjoyed the better career, Curtly would've said Lara was more talented.

So, you know.

 

[smash84]

maybe hooper smashed the crap out of ambrose in domestic cricket and lara didn't.

Hooper definitely the one with the more wooden facial expression

 

[Red]

Hooper was great to watch, but you couldn't argue he was greater to watch than Lara even.

 

[Top_Cat]

Aside from the obvious book-selling motives, I can kind-of see where he's coming from. Dunno Hooper's story in the fullest sense but the impression you got was that he could be anything, genuine natural clean hitter who, in the right mood, basically couldn't be stopped and Curtly would have gotten a good look at him at this point in his career. Prior to Sydney '92, though, Lara seemed to be thought of as a bit limited, had pet shots but could be kept quiet. Thereafter, my God did he evolve quickly, though.

 

[fredfertang]

As I understand it his book makes clear that Curtley is a big mummy's boy who does everything she tells him, so it's probably her opinion

 

[watson]

Gotta throw this video in because of the title: 'Carl Hooper - unfullfilled talent'. It's actually not bad.

 

[Pratters]

That was a lovely video. Thanks for linking Watson. Hooper was delightful to watch.

 

[watson]

That was a lovely video. Thanks for linking Watson. Hooper was delightful to watch.

Hooper certainly had one of the nicest cover drives in the game. Lara by comparison was never going to look as graceful or effortless because of his exaggerated back-lift and pugnacious style.

Therefore, I think that is is their contrasting styles that prompted Ambrose's statement. In general, when we see a graceful and effortless batsman like Hooper, Gower, or M.Waugh we make the assumption that they are naturally superior to everyone else. It's a misconception of course, but an understandable one because they look so damned good.

 

[Howe_zat]

Flem was right tbh. Talent is a rubbish term.

Just means whatever you want it to mean.

for when you want something even more vague than 'skilled'

 

[Furball]

Honestly don't get the fapping that occurs over blokes with good looking cover drives. Worst ****ing shot.

Give me KP's flamingo flick any day of the week.

 

[sledger]

A more accurate statement would be that Carl Hooper was more talented than Tendulkar. Genuinely think there's a strong argument to be made in that vein.

 

[Pratters]

A more accurate statement would be that Carl Hooper was more talented than Tendulkar. Genuinely think there's a strong argument to be made in that vein.

I agree.

 

[Riggins]

Lara by comparison was never going to look as graceful or effortless because of his exaggerated back-lift and pugnacious style.

Each to his own etc, but I'm staggered whenever I hear this.

 

[cnerd123]

Lara looked different. Not elegant in the classical sense, but definitely very attractive.

I prefer the extravagant, flamboyant, somewhat unorthodox style of batsmen like Lara, Kambli, KP, VVS, etc more than the graceful strokeplaying of batsmen like Hooper/Waugh. I'd rather watch ABDV than Amla.