Tendulkar would be considered by many to be in the top 5 of all time(and maybe Ponting will, depending on how he does in the future)marc71178 said:But does he?
Amongst current players, Dravid, Hayden, Kallis, Ponting, Tendulkar, Smith and Samamraweera all average more than him.
SRT beside, I'd wager that nobody would seriously rank any of those in the top 5 of all time!
i m prolly the biggest fan of sunny gavaskar and he currently has more runs ans centuries than Lara. He facedmore potent attacks and he was for quite a while the only Wclass performer.. but i don't think he'd make the top five in any list.....roseboy64 said:Of course Lara is in the all time top 5.Who else is their to beat him out?Bradman certainly but then....He's soon to be only the 4th batsman ever to score 10,000 Test truns.He has 26 centuries and that's going to improve to more than 30.Currently has the FC and Test records for the highest individual score.Only the second batsman ever to score two triple centuries and the only to score a quadruple century.Isn't that enough to get him in there?
yep.. just have to see how haydens future goes.. and depends how much he can carry on.. because he is a potential to make a mark is what im feeling..SRT beside, I'd wager that nobody would seriously rank any of those in the top 5 of all time!
You said Lara had the stats, and I showed there's 7 current players with better stats than him, kind of negating your stats theory.Revelation said:Lara averages 53.50 vs 58.61 for Smith (the highest for the group). That aside, how do they compare??? The simple answer: They don't.
I don't see what's wrong with it!Revelation said:viktor, what a superbly uninformed comment
the only world class player...you forget Richards,Greenidge,G Chappell,Miandad,Boycott etcviktor said:i m prolly the biggest fan of sunny gavaskar and he currently has more runs ans centuries than Lara. He facedmore potent attacks and he was for quite a while the only Wclass performer.. but i don't think he'd make the top five in any list.....
ok... that really was meaningless ....hadn't seen sunny's name up there for a while....
this goes back to a thread on here a while ago....Deja moo said:Sachin played in a weak team for around 6-7 years too , so why mention just lara and the Windies ?
Gavaskar was the lone Wclass batsman in his side too , and playing the Windies , he scored 13 centuries against them . How many has Lara scored vs Australia ?( I am not suggesting that Gavaskar is a top 5 candidate )
I do not think any of the other greats took a couple of years off from the game just because they felt like it .
dravid might if he maintains his form, but i doubt anyone could make a clear cut case for him.marc71178 said:But does he?
Amongst current players, Dravid, Hayden, Kallis, Ponting, Tendulkar, Smith and Samamraweera all average more than him.
SRT beside, I'd wager that nobody would seriously rank any of those in the top 5 of all time!
that really is a stupid comment......look at laras record from 96-00 and you'll see why at the time he went from being a great to just another good player(his average fell from 60 to around 47). of course since then hes done a lot to pull that back but theres no way you can tell me that hes been 'great' for over a decade.Arrow said:Many of you seem to be forgetting that longevity is probably the most important component of "greatness".
Lara has been "great" for over a decade while the others are merely flash in the pans in comparision.
Two or three years of great performance doesnt mean your great,it just means your playing great.
u cant compare samaraweera to Lara ? samaraweera has played very little cricket compared to lara !marc71178 said:You said Lara had the stats, and I showed there's 7 current players with better stats than him, kind of negating your stats theory.
because individual milestones dont matter as much as you make them out to be? by your count courteney walsh should be the best fast bowler ever.Revelation said:Lara averages 53.50 vs 58.61 for Smith (the highest for the group). That aside, how do they compare??? The simple answer: They don't.
There is no need to disprove what you are saying because it's all based on your opinion, and that cannot be disproven, or proven. Despite the stats you have provided, they do not conclusively prove anything.Revelation said:do something similar to disprove what i am saying.