C_C said:
I think Tendulkar is marginally better than Viv because while Viv was marginally better than Tendulkar against quality pace bowlers, Tendulkar is definitively better than Viv against spin bowlers ( in Lara vs Viv, i consider Lara to be a good player of quality pace, not great and his pace game is considerably behind Viv's but his game against spin is considerably ahead however, i consider the overall balance of the two components to be in slight favour of Viv).Slifer said:
Six or seven. I am not really sure- i've read a bit about Greg Chappell but i havnt seen much of him or read as much to comment whether he deserves merit over Lara or vice versa.Slifer said:
Lara's first innings dismissal demonstrated beautifully why he has so few not outs. Lara doesn't bat in a team with Sehwag, Dravid and Laxman. He has had to carry the West Indies batting almost entirely. That said, assumptions can't be made that things would be different if he were Indian. That's why comparisons are essentially futile.C_C said:
That is ridiculous. Lara's peaks have been outstanding simply because he's played fantastic cricket. His magical run in 1994 was not magical because of poor batting before or after - it just was amazing.C_C said:
The fact that Lara managed to refocus his game and dominate in the way he has since that point proves that he is a great cricketer. He may have doubted himself in that period of his career, but even Michael Jordan doubted himself once. That makes them human, not less than great sportsmen.C_C said:
So if Lara finishes strong with keen stats as a 37, 38, 39 year-old, he will be comparable with Viv Richards? Surely it shows that he was great for longer, ending with far better stats and thus a greater player. Maybe not.C_C said:
How did Viv face the West Indies attack?Tom Halsey said:
C_C said:
There is a difference between assumptions and logical extrapolations - India has won/declared/drawn matches more often than the WI with the IND team still batting. As such, Tendulkar doesnt get the chance to bat till he gets out ( Lara has that luxury- he knows that WI are almost never gonna declare an innings shut) and therefore has more not outs.
His peaks have been outstanding- of that there is no doubt. But his troughs have been more frequent and more pronounced than most great batsmen, providing the contrasts and thus accentuating his peak even further - its like a jagged mountain range has peaks that look more majestic simply because of the accompanying valleys right next to it than a huge massive range with lesser elavation changes.
I never claimed that lara isnt a great player- he is a great player and one of the alltime best.
He already is comparable. But not better in my books so far. If he manages to pull a Gooch, he may become better than Viv, Tendy,Sobers and Gavaskar.
When you are the lone warrior, your accomplishments often get blown out of proportions( nomatter how incredible those accomplishments are, an extra gloss is always added due to public perceptions).
I consider pre-professional cricket to be substandard, owing to lower fitness levels and lack of the absolute necessity to do your absolute best. As such, pre-professional cricketers with similar averages ( or in the ballpark) IMO would almost definately end up averaging less if transplanted into the same era with a professional player.Slifer said:
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
...but again this is just your opinion. It's certainly not worth arguing if you're determined to somehow prove to other that their opinions are wrong - which seems to me what you've been doing in this thread, and, you're acting as if people are saying Lara is terrible and he has no worth at all, which is clearl wrong. You won't find a single person in this thread saying Lara is not an all-time great, so why not let people have their opinions rather than try to change them, because we all have our own reasons for our opinions and given the time, we could make a statistical case (as you've done) for any batsman mentioned in this thread being the best since Bradman.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
It is no secret that Tendulkar has been inconsistent in the recent phase of his career. I do not understand why you bring this phase to compare - a trough in Tendulkar's career with a superb phase of Lara's.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
You know, it is so nice to find someone posting in these threads who has actually seen all of these guys play. For that reason alone, I think James' opinion should be given more weightage than the others. We guys are simply talking stats and suppositions. He is talking facts based on what he has seen.jamesicus said: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).
I was so priveleged to see both of them at the height of their power -- Bradman in 1938 and Weekes in 1949. I know that Lancashire League cricket is not comparible to worldwide first class cricket, but Everton Weekes completely and absolutely dominated the League from 1949 until he departed in 1955. One of the greatest batting displays I ever witnessed was his double century in 1949 -- the only one in the league, ever. I believe his triple century for the West Indies vs Cambridge in 1950 was one of the fastest on record. Thus, my top three batsmen of all time:
Bradman
Weekes
Lara
Everton Weekes (1950)
Lara had a chipped wrist bone throughout 1999. And he even managed to single handedly draw the series against Australia with that. Plus there was a period between 95 and 97 when he was bogged down by controversies and politics within the team and the "cricket is ruining my life" period. Shouldn't all those things be taken into account?Tom Halsey said:
