Where does Lara rate?

[honestbharani]

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.

Over his career Tendulkar has been consistently good much more. The innings required to score a century is far lower in Tendulkar's case - consistently good. Another way to check it would be to remove the extreme x innings of a career and check the average and s.d. to see consistency along with being good (remove the extremes as it would be unfair to Lara to include the higher innings as it would show adversely on the s.d.)

And the consistently good was far better before the inconsistent phase of Tendulkar's you mentioned.

Lara has shown he is rhythm player and when in rhythm his run scoring is second only to the Don. The exploits of Lara in Sri Lanka is testament to that.

So one point in favour of Tendulkar and one point in favour of Lara as it stands. I repeat I am not saying Lara>Tendulkar or Tendulkar>Lara.

How will the two careers match up once its over? We do not know and should leave the analysis till then.

Honestly, if we have to take a stand on the Lara/Sachin issue now... I think we should decide what we want... Sachin will give us a bit more consistency, but Lara will make his starts count more, in terms of making big hundreds. I would rather have a batsman who can make big hundreds and has only "really" failed for about 3 or 4 years in 14 years of international cricket, than a guy who has only failed in 2 years out of 16, but doesn't have the capacity to play big knocks (which is what is needed in test cricket).

 

[JASON]

Question - Where does Lara rate ?

My opinion - Definitely the greatest Left Handed Batsman of his generation.

Second greatest of all batsmen of this Era after SR Tendulkar.

Quite likely to be within the ten greatest cricketers(Batsmen/bowlers/All Rounders/Keepers) of his generation .

Regarded by many to be self centred and perhaps keen on personal milestones rather than the interests of his Team. (c.f . Test v England at Antigua in the face of a choice between declaration v personal Milestone of 400 , failure to get his Team to gel under his leadership - Thus definitely not one of the better Captains the Windies have had )

 

[Pratters]

Plus, Sachin has always had good batsmen around him (atleast at home)...

And a fairly poor display by most of the batting line up and bowlers abroad..

what happens then?

We should wait for the career of both the players to end - else we do not do justice to them.

 

[Fusion]

If it counts for anything, here's what the Great Wasim Akram has to say about Tendulkar's chances of breaking future records (from www.dawn.com):

Tendulkar will smash all records, claims Wasim

LAHORE, Nov 26: Indian superstar Sachin Tendulkar will smash all batting records before he quits international cricket, according to former Pakistan captain Wasim Akram.

“I think Tendulkar will not stop before 600 One-day Internationals and by that time all records will be in his name,” Wasim said.

Tendulkar surpassed Wasim’s world-record 356 appearances in one-dayers during India’s fourth match against South Africa at Kolkata on Friday.

“He has already set so many batting records and, with age on his side, he is capable of achieving more,” said Wasim.

Tendulkar, 33, is already the highest scorer in One-day Internationals with 13,879 runs in 357 matches with a record 38 centuries.

He is also just one Test century short of smashing compatriot Sunil Gavaskar’s world mark of 34 hundreds.

Tendulkar is the fourth-highest scorer in Test cricket with 10,134 runs in 123 matches, behind only West Indian Brian Lara and Australians Allan Border and Steve Waugh.

Wasim said Tendulkar looked more focused and relaxed after recovering from an elbow injury.

“I think Tendulkar is more focused and relaxed after a long layoff and I don’t agree with those who say he is not a match-winner,” Wasim said, adding that bowling to Tendulkar was always a challenge.

“Tendulkar is one of the most difficult batsmen to bowl at and I always liked the challenge of bowling at him,” said Wasim, who described the 2003 World Cup match against India in South Africa as one of his best.

“We were beaten by India and I remember Tendulkar was at his best in that match,” he said.

“People love to see Tendulkar in action and he is an icon.”—AFP

 

[honestbharani]

Who is doubting Sachin's greatness here?

 

[honestbharani]

Anyway, while we are at discussing others opinions on the two, Langer and Macgill have claimed that Lara is the best.

 

[Pratters]

Roebuck in SMH:

I have quoted the critical points Roebuck raises.

Considering this mighty innings, his sporting outlook and subsequent mastery, it might be supposed that Lara has commanded unwavering respect wherever the game is played. Instead, his reputation is patchy and his legacy is mixed. Of course younger players admire him, but their testimony lacks weight. Senior voices accept his genius but point towards the troubles that have accompanied him and the inconsistencies that have weakened his case.

Lara's record overseas tells part of the story. At home, he scored 61 runs an innings in Test cricket. On the road, his average falls to 46. If Australia alone is considered, the statistics are even more telling. Then, his home averages rises to 66, not least as a result of his scintillating batting in the 1999 series as he inspired his comrades and saved his captaincy with a succession of dazzling displays. Lara has always been at his best when fighting for a cause. Although not much of a leader, he knew the game, and in the African way regarded captaincy as part of his prerogative.

Contrastingly, Lara has not batted well in Australia. Remove the 277 and his average drops from 38 to 29. Admittedly this is like asking God what he did besides creating the world. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he has scratchy record down under. His other hundreds were scored in a losing cause in Adelaide and in a dead rubber in Perth. And Australia has, for almost the entirety of his career, been the true test of batsmanship.

Of course, any batsman can have a bad tour or a poor spell. Lara's reputation has been hurt not so much by a lack of success as by an impression that at times during his career he has taken more than he has been prepared to give. His stunning early years were followed by a long period of self-indulgence. In his private moments, Lara admits he took his eye off the ball between 1994 and 1998, but the confession does not excuse the offence. When West Indian cricket most needed him, he was least to be found. Hereabouts, English counties, opponents and frustrated colleagues did not always enjoy his company.

How much Lara is to blame for the decline in West Indian cricket is debatable. In many ways he has been an easy target, a player isolated in his genius from whom more was expected than any predecessor. It was not his fault that West Indian cricket failed to rebuild at the top or that bad habits set in under Viv Richards. By the time he came along, the ants were already at work. Nevertheless, he has lacked the strength and determination needed to unite cricket in the Caribbean. In his time he has made attacks bend to his will but he has been unable to sustain the effect and has not taken responsibility for the game across the region.

Instead, Lara has been involved in disputes that affected tours to South Africa and Sri Lanka. His team has failed miserably overseas. He was the most influential figure in a group that spoke more about its rights than its responsibilities. There is something thin about his smile. He likes to get his own way and has not always made life easy for his various captains.

The full article can be viewed here.. (written before the current Adelaide test)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...nd-heres-hoping/2005/11/24/1132703315640.html

I think Roebuck was being highly critical of Lara's record in Australia really.

 

[Dasa]

Who is doubting Sachin's greatness here?

Aren't you?
It irks me that in order to praise Lara, some feel that they have to denigrate Sachin...same with those on the other side. Why not just focus on the great things both have done rather than focus on the negative aspects? No one can prove one way or the other with statistics or testimonials from former players etc that one is greater than the other...

 

[Craig]

IMHO:

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

Sorry but I have to disagree - the sheer volume of runs he has scored in his career have to put him next Bradman and where is George Headley? Look at what he did in his 22 Tests and is absolutely amazing and his ratio of 100s per match is greater then that of Bradman IIRC. Now he was the first West Indian great batsman.

I'm not saying he is better then Bradman, but he should be in the list - and he really had to carry the team. So your under-rating him a bit by not including him in your list.

 

[Craig]

How did Viv face the West Indies attack?
Viv Richards was in an entirely different era of West Indies cricket. He was allowed to play the way he did, because the West Indies generally won even when he threw away his wicket - which he did often.

Did you not read the bit where Tom corrected himself he meant the best attack outside of the West Indies? I mean it is impossible to face his own attack at Test level, unless he deflected to England or somewhere.

 

[greg]

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.
Make no mistake- he is in the top 10 and one of the alltime great bats along with being at worst the #2 batsman since 1990 IMO.

Hobbs? Hutton? Sutcliffe? Weekes?

 

[C_C]

Hobbs? Hutton? Sutcliffe? Weekes?

Outside top 10 for me.

 

[greg]

Outside top 10 for me.

You know more about them than Greg Chappell?

 

[Jono]

I hate getting into the Lara v Sachin debate seeing as I rate them equally, but:

Anyway, while we are at discussing others opinions on the two, Langer and Macgill have claimed that Lara is the best.

1) Because in MacGill's 4 tests against India, Sachin had a shocking series and only scored in one of them.
2) I believe Warne and McGrath rate Sachin better, despite your point that Lara has played more against the Warne/McGrath duo than Sachin. And I'd take their opinions on who is better rather than MacGill.

Ian Chappell also stated on Channel 9 at the tea break, that if he had a gun put to his head he'd pick Lara just over Sachin, as long as his brain was switched on.

Its obvious opinions between greats of the game who have both watched and played against Lara and Sachin are split on the issue.

 

[Jono]

You know more about them than Greg Chappell?

No, he just has an opinion. One doesn't need to know more than Greg Chappell to have that.

 

[C_C]

You know more about them than Greg Chappell?

You know more about them than Clive Lloyd ?

 

[greg]

You know more about them than Clive Lloyd ?

No. Put him in the list if you want. Just wondering on what criteria you have Greg Chappell (about whom you admit you know little) scrapping it out with Lara for 6th place, but confidently rule out many others with very impressive records, and who are also widely acknowledged as greats of the game.

 

[C_C]

No. Put him in the list if you want. Just wondering on what criteria you have Greg Chappell (about whom you admit you know little) scrapping it out with Lara for 6th place, but confidently rule out many others with very impressive records, and who are also widely acknowledged as greats of the game.

I've already stated that criteria numerous times and we've been through this before i think.

 

[PY]

Regarded by many to be self centred and perhaps keen on personal milestones rather than the interests of his Team. (c.f . Test v England at Antigua in the face of a choice between declaration v personal Milestone of 400)

I'm sorry to go off topic but the West Indies had been smashed that series, they had nothing to positive about it yet through one 'selfish' act he might well have saved West Indian pride in some small yet significant fashion.

It wasn't a certainty they'd have taken 20 English wickets by any means, it was a road in reality and the only reason IMO we had to follow on was because of the sheer amount of time spent in the field having to watch a player score a monstrous total. It mentality and physically shot them down.

If I was a West Indian fan, I'd have taken 3-0 and a 400* by one of my fave players over 3-1 and no records with a win in a dead rubber. Obviously, Liam and other WI fans will be able to confirm if that was the case but you only have to watch the reaction of the crowd at the ground to see what that meant to them. I had goosebumps and I'm English with only the radio to keep me company.

 

[greg]

I'm sorry to go off topic but the West Indies had been smashed that series, they had nothing to positive about it yet through one 'selfish' act he might well have saved West Indian pride in some small yet significant fashion.

It wasn't a certainty they'd have taken 20 English wickets by any means, it was a road in reality and the only reason IMO we had to follow on was because of the sheer amount of time spent in the field having to watch a player score a monstrous total. It mentality and physically shot them down.

If I was a West Indian fan, I'd have taken 3-0 and a 400* by one of my fave players over 3-1 and no records with a win in a dead rubber. Obviously, Liam and other WI fans will be able to confirm if that was the case but you only have to watch the reaction of the crowd at the ground to see what that meant to them. I had goosebumps and I'm English with only the radio to keep me company.

He should have declared on 381*