Where does Lara rate?

[nick-o]

I do believe that if Everton Weekes had not lost his health so early he would have been second only to Bradman in consistency and statistical average -- I think there would have been a chasm between Bradman & Weekes and everybody else -- before and after.. In the late 1940s and early 1950s he was a run producing machine -- a record five successive test centuries (run out at 90 in the sixth).

Adding Weekes to the stats, we get

Average:
Bradman: 99.94
Weekes: 58.61
Sobers: 57.78
Tendulkar: 57.25
Lara: 54.04
Chappell: 53.86
Richards: 50.23

% centuries per innings:
Bradman: 36.25
Weekes: 18.52
Tendulkar: 17.17
Sobers: 16.25
Chappell: 15.23
Lara: 14.58
Richards: 13.18

% of runs scored in innings of 100+ against total runs scored:
Bradman: 63%
Tendulkar: 52%
Weekes: 51%
Sobers: 49%
Chappell: 49%
Lara: 48%
Richards: 43%

However, Weekes' career ended with less than 5000 runs, and despite the vagaries of history there has to be a cut-off point somewhere. I feel that to claim to be second to the Don, you must at least have scored as many runs...

 

[open365]

I don't think that's fair.

Viv Richards is the batsman I've most enjoyed watching in all the years I've watched cricket. Nothing will change that.

I thought the statsitics would show he was second only to the Don and Sobers in terms of consistency and aggression. I was surprised to find that wasn't the case. Doesn't mean I like him less, but it does question whether my subjective liking of him matches objective criteria.

fair enough.

just remeber that stats can mask many things,such as Richards decline as he became older.

 

[Anil]

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.

i completely agree with your appraisal except that chappell wasn't that below the others mentioned here...

 

[nick-o]

How do you score a percentage of centuries per innings?

It might have been easier for you if i said 'percentage of centuries per innings played'

but I thought it was clear...

Anyway, the point is the likelihood of scoring a ton as a percentage of the number of innings, which I think is a good criterion for judging a batsman.

 

[marc71178]

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.

At the moment the consistency issue is far from clear.

 

[marc71178]

Following is a link to a current photograph (26 November 2005) of great Windies cricketers including Everton Weekes (the oldest survivor of the greats), Sobers, Richards, et al.

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/10/05/announced.shtml

You could pick a pretty decent 11 out of those guys.

 

[Jamee999]

Richie Richardson
Gordon Greenidge
(Brian Lara)
Garfield Sobers
Vivian Richards
Everton Weekes
Clive Lloyd
Desmond Haynes (+)?
Curtley Ambrose
Ian Bishop
Joel Garner
Courtney Walsh

Lloyd would be replaced by Lara, if he was there, probably Bishop to sit out for Gibbs on a turner.

 

[C_C]

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".

Oh that.
I meant Lara, who's almost at the end of his road ( well he's 36 and even he doesnt think he will go beyond 2007 world cup).

 

[C_C]

Viv Richards too was not immune to fast bowlers and was not without his troughs either. There's no merit in placing him above Lara in that regard.

Nobody is immune but he was much much much better against fast bowlers than Lara.
Not only has he succeeded against higher quality pacers, he played in an era when pitches were far more bowler-friendly than today's. It isnt a co-incidence that Lara barely averaged 50 and went into an extended slump after his weaknesses were exposed(following his record-breaking 94 season) and came back rather strongly against diminished bowling sides such as Pakistan, South Africa, etc. in an era when pitches are getting flatter and flatter.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And thus he can't rightfully rank among the greats.

Of course WG Grace can lie among the greats!

Just because his Test career was way beyond his peak doesn't make him less of a player in his peak.

EDIT: Plus the quite diabolical nature of the pitches back then would also have hindered his FC average a lot.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Questions...

Did Richards make batting look easier than Lara?
Did Richards have more a genius streak with his batting?
Was Richards a more destructive batsman than Lara?

Yes to all 3.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Tendulkar has, though, been dogged with injuries lately. I'm fairly certain that if he had been injury free those numbers would look different.

 

[C_C]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk
Questions...

Did Richards make batting look easier than Lara?
Did Richards have more a genius streak with his batting?
Was Richards a more destructive batsman than Lara?

A definitive Yes to all three.

 

[C_C]

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.

I am sorry but that simply doesnt cut it. Lara's peaks have been higher than Tendulkar's but his troughs have been lower as well.
Your comment that not outs inflate average is demonstrative of misconstruing the statistics.
Not outs are simply runs denied- Tendulkar has had less opportunity to bat till he gets out-like Lara does.Simply because he is surrounded by a better batting caste, which means the team is in a position to win/draw the match before Tendulkar completes his innings many times- far more often than Lara's.

Lara's peaks have been more pronounced, simply because of his abyssimal batting at times.
As per your comment about Lara not doing well against PAK/RSA because he was re-considering his cricketing career- it doesnt fly. Mental makeup is very much a part of the equation, as all the talent in the world counts for naught if you are mentally weak and lack the drive to explore those talents to the fullest of their capacity.

PS: Viv's stats were spoilt by the last 3 years of his career- that is 37,38 and 39 years old.

 

[Slifer]

A definitive Yes to all three.

Did Viv have to face the best attack in the world consistently?
Did Viv come in consistently at 10/2, 20/2, 30/2 etc etc etc?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Did Viv have to face the best attack in the world consistently?
Did Viv come in consistently at 10/2, 20/2, 30/2 etc etc etc?

Yes.
No.

 

[Slifer]

Strange, considering that he was in a team with arguably the greatest of all time.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Strange, considering that he was in a team with arguably the greatest of all time.

IN the early part of his career it could be argued (though probably not successfully) that the Aussie attack of the late 70s was better than WI of the late 70s. What I meant was he faced the best apart from his own.

 

[C_C]

Did Viv have to face the best attack in the world consistently?
Did Viv come in consistently at 10/2, 20/2, 30/2 etc etc etc?

That has no bearing to the three questions initially posed - the genius, the destructiveness and the ease of batting.
But on another note- Viv did face an overall superior bowling cast in his batting days on pitches far harder to bat than today- the 90s would be a good comparison both for pitches and attacks and Lara was very very good in the 90s but not superior to Viv and Tendulkar

 

[Slifer]

Oh ok fair enuff. either way i refuse to get into this argument of comparin Lara with the greats of the near and distant pass. He is great and thats all that really matters. Some i guess understandably get a bit carried away with sum of the praise we hail on him and y not? Lara is a genius in a team of incompetents. he has had to carry his team to an extent like no other. He is not a saint by ne means but he is still the player i wood pay my last penny to watch ne day of the week.