Where does Lara rate?

[greg]

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.

You only get so many opportunities to play against England at Antigua...

 

[Barney Rubble]

IMHO:

Bradman > Tendulkar > Lara > Richards > Sobers > Chappell > Pollock > Hobbs > Grace > Gavaskar > Hutton > Trumper

 

[open365]

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

er...no.

not at all,Lara is still playing aswell as he normaly does,and Tendulkar is just recovering from injury but has stil shown he can play.

Lara is the best player of his age IMO.

when you've scored as many runs as Lara has,averages don't matter.

Tendulkar is a great player and i'm not rubbishing him but i don't think he has the same aura as Lara does and i don't think he has produced as many important innings as Brian either.
Lara is the epitomny of the term 'genius', he has scored more big scores than anyone in history bar bradman.

His style is the pefect match between calypso extravagance and atrritional accumulating.
He can dominate any bowling attack in the world and performs against every country in all circumstances.

 

[Dasa]

This is always a difficult one, and at any point I might be tempted to rate Lara above Tendulkar or Tendulkar above Lara...depending on who I've seen recently and in what sort of form they've been in.
I can conclusively say that Lara and SRT are the best I have ever seen, and both can claim to be the 2nd after Bradman. At this point, I'll say Lara because I've just seen him make that 226, but maybe in a couple of months my opinion might change. There is no doubt though that Lara is a true genius with the bat.

 

[Dasa]

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.

If I remember correctly, I think you've previously said you rate Viv above Lara?

 

[Tom Halsey]

IMO, the Top 5 of all time are:

Bradman > Sobers > Viv > Tendulkar > Lara

As for Lara - Tendulkar, I think when both at their best, Lara is better - but Tendulkar is at his best more often - ie he's more consistent. Both brilliant though.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

you know, if you really force me into nitpicking Lara V Tendulkar, I will have to bring up the fact that Sachin hasn't scored more than 2 hundreds Vs McGrath and Warne. Sure, Lara has played them more often, but really, given their success against all other batsman, I am not too sure even Sachin would have done much better if he had more games against the two of them. And one reason for Sachin's average being so high is that he has more no. of not outs than Lara.


IMHO, the best way to compare two guys who have been around for so long and have been so good is to simply take their runs/innings. It is a very simple way and the result is that both of them are almost equal. That is my take on things, although if I had to, I will still pick Lara over Sachin in a test, while I would easily pick Sachin over Lara in an ODI.

 

[honestbharani]

Anyways, I think some guys here are being rather off in their timing. WE can always have a Tendulkar Vs Lara discussion. This is Lara's moment and whether he is better than Sachin in anyone's opinion or not, he is still one of the greatest batsman this game will ever produce and we shouldn't be stealing his thunder like this.


Maybe we can just keep this thread about Lara. I hate it when Murali does well and then when discussing about him, Warne just creeps in and vice versa. Same has happened when SAchin does well and somehow Lara is brought in. We should avoid it and discuss each players merits on its own.

 

[Pratters]

you know, if you really force me into nitpicking Lara V Tendulkar, I will have to bring up the fact that Sachin hasn't scored more than 2 hundreds Vs McGrath and Warne. Sure, Lara has played them more often, but really, given their success against all other batsman, I am not too sure even Sachin would have done much better if he had more games against the two of them. And one reason for Sachin's average being so high is that he has more no. of not outs than Lara.


IMHO, the best way to compare two guys who have been around for so long and have been so good is to simply take their runs/innings. It is a very simple way and the result is that both of them are almost equal. That is my take on things, although if I had to, I will still pick Lara over Sachin in a test, while I would easily pick Sachin over Lara in an ODI.

If we remove the not outs their averages would be similar? Even keeping that into account the point would stand.

I dont think runs/inning is a solution. Both are greats but cricket fans are cricket fans. We will super analyse these guys. I will just wait till they both retire..

 

[Neil Pickup]

It should be evident which one is which

I was more looking at "one who is almost at the end of his road and the other who has 15+ years of test cricket under his belt".

 

[greg]

Anyways, I think some guys here are being rather off in their timing. WE can always have a Tendulkar Vs Lara discussion. This is Lara's moment and whether he is better than Sachin in anyone's opinion or not, he is still one of the greatest batsman this game will ever produce and we shouldn't be stealing his thunder like this.


Maybe we can just keep this thread about Lara. I hate it when Murali does well and then when discussing about him, Warne just creeps in and vice versa. Same has happened when SAchin does well and somehow Lara is brought in. We should avoid it and discuss each players merits on its own.

Normally that would be a fair point, but seeing as the whole basis of the thread was "where does Lara rate, and has he a claim to being no2 behind Bradman", you can't really, in these circumstances, avoid the Tendulkar comparisons. Ideally other players would be mentioned more that periferally as well, but the problem is that most people here have no knowledge of the other candidates beyond the statistics and even there there is an inevitable bias towards players who are still alive and of whom we have TV footage.

So no more than the briefest mention of Hobbs and Grace, no mention of Hammond, for example, (or numerous Australians of whom I can't name).

 

[honestbharani]

yeah, that is the problem. My uncle thinks that Sunil Gavaskar was actually better than Sachin has ever been, but having not seen him, we cannot really take that seriously, even though we should, for he is as much a cricket fan as any of us are.

 

[jamesicus]

My list apart -- the best of the best -- batsmen is (in rank order):

Bradman
Weekes
Lara
Headley
Sobers
Tendulkar

 

[open365]

can anyone remember who won out of Lara or Sachin in Richie Benaud's greatest 11?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

can anyone remember who won out of Lara or Sachin in Richie Benaud's greatest 11?

Sachin.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO, the Top 5 of all time are:

Bradman > Sobers > Viv > Tendulkar > Lara

As for Lara - Tendulkar, I think when both at their best, Lara is better - but Tendulkar is at his best more often - ie he's more consistent. Both brilliant though.

Just because Brian Lara's trough came at a different time to Tendulkar's doesn't make Tendulkar better more often. Brian Lara's peaks have been higher than Tendulkar's, and those peaks have come twice in his career. The current peak has lasted 3 years and counting. Over the past 3+ years, Lara has been far better far more often.

In Tendulkar's last 30 Tests, he has scored 2265 runs in 49 innings, with 6 not outs, 5 hundres (2 unbeaten doubles, 194*, 193, 176), 10 fifties. He averaged 284 against Bangladesh (284 runs in 2 innings). Lara has scored 3389 runs in his last 30 Tests (not including the current one). He has played 55 innings for 2 not outs, scoring 12 hundreds (2 double hundreds, 191, 196, 176, 176, 153, and a small matter of 400*) and 9 fifties. Lara's conversion rate is inferior to Tendulkar's? In that period, Lara's conversion rate was 57.14. Tendulkar's = 33.33.

Lara averaged 65.83 against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe (395 runs in 6 innings).

Also, how can anyone rate Viv Richards better than Lara?

1. Lara has scored 2647 more runs in 31 more innings (average 85.38).
2. Lara's average is almost 4 runs higher with half as many not outs (6 << 12).
3. Lara has scored centuries more frequently (every 6 odd innings < every 7 odd innings).
4. Lara has a MUCH better conversion rate (40.25 >> 34.78).
5. Lara has gone past 200 on 8 occasions. Viv Richards did it 3 times.
6. Lara has gone past 300 twice. Viv Richards never did it.
7. Lara has infinitely more pressure on him when he bats.
8. Lara is a better player of spin.
9. Lara vs Australia = 51.61; Richards = 44.43 (51.61 >> 44.43).
10. Lara reached 1000 runs faster than Richards (21 < 25 innings).
11. Lara reached 2000 runs faster (35 < 36 innings).
12. Lara reached 3000 runs faster (52 < 54 innings).
13. Richards reached 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000 runs faster than Lara - he reached 7000 in 6 less innings - yet Lara charged back to reach 8000 in 3 less innings than Richards.

Why exactly is Viv Richards better then? 'Cause he's hit 3 more sixes? It's not even about arguing with reference to stats. It's arguing with reference to performance. What claim, on the basis of performance, does Richards have over Lara?

I think a lot of people get carried away with the glory of Viv Richards, largely due to the fact that he played in a very special era of West Indies cricket. If there's any West Indian batsman who was better than Brian Lara, it would have to be George Headley, and Headley >>>> Richards.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So no more than the briefest mention of Hobbs and Grace, no mention of Hammond, for example, (or numerous Australians of whom I can't name).

As a Test batsman, WG Grace has no right even being mentioned in the same paragraph with Bradman, Hobbs, or Hammond.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If I remember correctly, I think you've previously said you rate Viv above Lara?

Opinions change. See my second-to-last post before this one.

 

[PY]

I'd take Lara over anyone who's played in my lifetime.

He's got comparable stats to anyone (and better than all bar a select few) and he's just Lara, there isn't a cricket fan in the world who doesn't delight in Lara smashing runs. I can't say I feel the same way about Tendulkar. I don't know why and the whole thing is very subjective and down to opinion but I enjoyed watching Lara in full flow against England (all 400* of 'em ) but I don't enjoy anyone else doing well against England.

 

[greg]

As a Test batsman, WG Grace has no right even being mentioned in the same paragraph with Bradman, Hobbs, or Hammond.

Who mentioned test batsmen? - the reason that lack of test cricket tends to disqualify players such as Barry Richards from "greatest batsmen" debates is because for them lack of test cricket meant that they were not exposed to the pinnacle of the game as it was during their time.

The situation with Grace is obviously more complicated because most of his career (including his peak years) was conducted before test cricket existed.