Where does Lara rate?

[Peter Henderson]

No one's yet mentioned Barry Richards when discussing the greats.

 

[social]

No one's yet mentioned Barry Richards when discussing the greats.

Brilliat player but, unfortunately for him, he'll always be in limbo somewhat because of his lack of test match exposure.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I've been watching Tests since 1990 and he's the best I've ever seen - still, tricky to compare him to with Viv personally as I only saw Viv when I was five, and I don't recall that all too well.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lara > Viv Richards.
Lara > Tendulkar.
Lara >> Greg Chappell.
And yes, IMO Lara > Sobers.

Brian Lara will never truly get the acclaim he deserves. As much praise as he gets, he gets equal amounts of criticism at the mere sniff of failure.

 

[Pratters]

Lara > Viv Richards.
Lara > Tendulkar.
Lara >> Greg Chappell.
And yes, IMO Lara > Sobers.

Brian Lara will never truly get the acclaim he deserves. As much praise as he gets, he gets equal amounts of criticism at the mere sniff of failure.

Or maybe you should have put it as

"Lara IMO > Viv Richards.
Lara IMO > Tendulkar.
Lara IMO >> Greg Chappell.
And yes, IMO Lara > Sobers."

As all those will be disputed and argued among fans.

 

[Burpey]

I can't argue with Lara's record, it's absolutely superb. It's just that from what I have seen of him I couldn't call him the second best batsman ever. His technique and consistency just don't seem all that flash to me.

 

[C_C]

Ultimately it boils down to the way you view the game.

From a purely entertainment perspective, Lara is ahead of Tendulkar, primarily because of his ability to turn out glittering and humongous innings more often.

From a utilitarian perspective, one who contributes to the team more regularly and in a more diverse conditions is better, as one who contributes to the team cause more often is a more valuable member to the team goal.

It all boils down to what you consider more important : scores of 12,15,20,2, 220 ( aggregate of 269 @ 53.80 ave) or scores of 60, 4, 110, 1, 94 ( aggregate and ave are the same - though Tendy does average more than Lara).

 

[greg]

Ultimately it boils down to the way you view the game.

From a purely entertainment perspective, Lara is ahead of Tendulkar, primarily because of his ability to turn out glittering and humongous innings more often.

From a utilitarian perspective, one who contributes to the team more regularly and in a more diverse conditions is better, as one who contributes to the team cause more often is a more valuable member to the team goal.

It all boils down to what you consider more important : scores of 12,15,20,2, 220 ( aggregate of 269 @ 53.80 ave) or scores of 60, 4, 110, 1, 94 ( aggregate and ave are the same - though Tendy does average more than Lara).

Yes I can see that Lara should be marked down for the minimal contribution he has made to the West Indian batting in recent years.

 

[Pratters]

c_c you have brought out a vital point I did not wish to highlight upon.

Tendulkar vs Lara.

I would not wish to compare them till their careers are over to be fair to them.

But it has to be kept in mind..

Tendulkar is more consistently good over his career than Lara

1) Else how would explain an average of 53 or so Lara has despite bigger scores like so many doubles, 375, 400*..
2) Tendulkar having more centuries than Lara

I say this not to say Tendulkar>Lara or Lara>Tendulkar as I wont be able to judge on them properly till their careers are over but to show its not as simple to decide who the better player is as it seems..

A lot of aspects will have to be kept in mind when an analysis is done and without them it cannot be convincing either way.

 

[C_C]

Yes I can see that Lara should be marked down for the minimal contribution he has made to the West Indian batting in recent years.

Do not put words in my mouth.
I am talking relativistically here and Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara - overall and overseas as well as against a bigger variety of opposition.
Besides, when comparing two players, one who is almost at the end of his road and the other who has 15+ years of test cricket under his belt, i look from an overall perspective, not just a segmented section of their careers.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Do not put words in my mouth.
I am talking relativistically here and Tendulkar is more consistent than Lara - overall and overseas as well as against a bigger variety of opposition.
Besides, when comparing two players, one who is almost at the end of his road and the other who has 15+ years of test cricket under his belt, i look from an overall perspective, not just a segmented section of their careers.

Which player's which?

 

[C_C]

Which player's which?

Should be obvious, isnt it ?
One of them is more consistent and churns out scores ( from an overall career perspective) in a larger diversity of conditions and the other is less consistent but has humongous innings more frequently than the other.
It should be evident which one is which provided one has followed their careers.

 

[greg]

Besides, when comparing two players, one who is almost at the end of his road and the other who has 15+ years of test cricket under his belt, i look from an overall perspective, not just a segmented section of their careers.

Can you rephrase this?

 

[C_C]

Can you rephrase this?

Ie, the last 'X' # of years or matches are not my focus - rather, everything inclusive throughout their whole careers is what i look from. Ie, just as its undeniable that Lara has been superior to Tendy over the past few years, its equally undeniable that Tendy has been superior to Lara in the mid-late 90s/early 2000s as well.

Sorry, i am not good at rephrasing at 4:45 in the morning.

 

[greg]

I think your characterisation of Lara as a player who will score loads of low scores to go with one big score, to contrast with Tendulkar's "consistency", is unfair. If that is the case looking at the raw stats of Lara's career then that is more a function of the greater number of cycles of good and bad form he has had (and probably not at all unrelated to the combined pressures of captaining a losing team, playing in a consistently losing team - sometimes simply as the only source of Windian runs, and other issues in his personal life). He has had plenty of series where, rather than scoring (10,15,4, 26, 240) he has scored (70, 150, 200, 110, 40).

 

[magsi23]

Both Lara and Tendulkar have past their best no question about it, but i still rate Lara higher than Tendulkar

 

[C_C]

He has had plenty of series where, rather than scoring (10,15,4, 26, 240) he has scored (70, 150, 200, 110, 40).

Yes. He's had many series where his runs tally has surpassed Tendulkar's best ( though that owes a lot to Lara playing more 4 and 5 test series than Tendy) but equally, his low scoring series are more numerous as well.

The representation was intended to be a microcosm of their entire careers and not a generalisation of every single series they've played.
Lara is less consistent and less versatile( ie, performs in less diverse circumstances) but his penchant for scoring huge is surpassed only by Sir Don.
Tendy is more consistent and versatile but doesnt have Lara's penchant for huge innings.

 

[howardj]

Since 1990, when I first started watching cricket seriously, Lara has been the standout. Honourable mentions, in no particular order, go to Dravid, Tendulkar and Steve Waugh.

 

[greg]

Yes. He's had many series where his runs tally has surpassed Tendulkar's best ( though that owes a lot to Lara playing more 4 and 5 test series than Tendy) but equally, his low scoring series are more numerous as well.

The representation was intended to be a microcosm of their entire careers and not a generalisation of every single series they've played.
Lara is less consistent and less versatile( ie, performs in less diverse circumstances) but his penchant for scoring huge is surpassed only by Sir Don.
Tendy is more consistent and versatile but doesnt have Lara's penchant for huge innings.

I suppose it depends on the context in which you are comparing them. Considering the debate is (partly) about the no2. to the Don, and ability to consistently produce massive scores is one of the major things which separates him from all others then it is reasonable IMO to mark Lara up massively as a result.

My point about separating series was not to emphasise that Lara had a talent for big scores but to challenge the implied perception that he has always been a bit "hit and miss", "all or nothing". When Lara has been fully focussed on the cricket, and free of the various off-field distractions that have blighted him throughout his career, he has been incredibly consistent, metaphorically booking in on the first morning of the series, and still being there come the last morning.

 

[howardj]

Gotta respect a man who sets a world record which lasts for ten years, and then reclaims that record within a few months of someone else breaking it. Brilliance.