Where does Lara rate?

[Craig]

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.

Even if Lara didn't get to 400 (say he got out) or didn't break Hayden's record, yet got a 300 and avoided a 4-0 drubbing you would have to be pretty satisfied with that effort. But breaking the record was just the bonus.

The one thing about Lara is that amount of big innings he has played when his team really have needed it (like his 400* and 213) and the special knocks to win a game with a bunny at the other end (Walsh) to beat the future World Cup Champs in 1999 (certain game in Bridgetown where he got 153*) - man I had guessbumps when I was watching it, even though I was a novice to cricket.

 

[Craig]

Or we could just agree that these two are both greats of the game and at one stage of another they have had to both have had to carry their team with the bat. We have been down this road many a time, must we go down it again?

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Perhaps people can agree that based solely on achievements, Lara is the most prolific batsman since Bradman (in Tests that is.)

 

[honestbharani]

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


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.

That was basically what I was trying to point out as well. Gower says that Sachin is the best (atleast, he did in the 2003 WC), but Ian Botham always rates Lara higher. When even the greats (not just one or two, in which case, they may be wrong) are so split on the issue, it is obvious that it is basically too close to call. One may have his own pick on the issue, but there is no real way to say that one is easily better than the other.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, Lara did wello when he had a chipped wrist bone, fair enough.

The second part doesn't fly though - mental strongness is a part of sport, and clearly he failed here - think of the pressure on Tendulkar every time he goes out to bat (I know he plays in a stronger team, but the following of the game is far bigger in India than it is in the West Indies atm and the pressure is huge).

I have heard Sachin himself say that it is the pressure from the dressing room that really affects a person. The pressure from the fans is there on every player of the home team, really. He said that the only pressure he felt was how much his team depended on him at that particular time.

 

[honestbharani]

LMAO! That's such rubbish its unbelievable.

And all this talk about Lara carrying his team, he also had Ambrose and Walsh there for a number of years. So he actually had a bowling attack to back him up if he failed.

It was no secret that throughout the 90s it was often said you remove Tendulkar you win. Particularly away from home where the rest of the batsman were literally useless. Dravid wasn't anyway near as good as he was now, and Ganguly was never brilliant in tests. Laxman didn't peak till 2001. On top of that the bowlers were extremely placid away from home back then. Whereas a lot of the WI batting relied on Lara, the whole of the Indian team relied on Sachin's batting, because the bowling could very rarely do the job.

I honestly think the Indian bowling attack at home was much better than the Windies bowling attack in the late 90s, even with the Ambrose/Walsh duo playing.

 

[Slifer]

Any assertion that Tendulkar carries India close to or more than Lara is refuted by the fact that Lara has scored a higher percentage of his team's runs (close to 20%) in his career than anyone else (barring Bradman and George Headley). The correspodnign number for tendulkar is about 16-17%

 

[THRU DA GAIT]

Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time but Lara is the best.

 

[Googenheim]

Any assertion that Tendulkar carries India close to or more than Lara is refuted by the fact that Lara has scored a higher percentage of his team's runs (close to 20%) in his career than anyone else (barring Bradman and George Headley). The correspodnign number for tendulkar is about 16-17%

Thats BS of the highest order.

You Lara fans keep harping about how Lara has had to carry a weaker batting attack for longer than Sachin has had to.

Which should mean that WI score fewer runs/inns on an average than Indias batting order do.

To afford your argument some dignity, lets assume that difference is 50 runs per inns.

So lets assume India score 300 per inns, and WI 250.

If Lara scores 20%, thats 20% of 250 = 50.

If Sachin scores 17%, thats 17% of 300 = 51. ( despite his career record pointing to a higher average)

And even without any mental calisthenics, its pretty obvious that given their averages, Laras 20% << Sachins 17% simply because if it werent, Lara would be averaging more than Sachin.
How does that make Lara any superior to Sachin on that count ???

 

[marc71178]

Which is all well and good, but what basis do you have for that 50 run difference?

 

[Slifer]

Thats BS of the highest order.

You Lara fans keep harping about how Lara has had to carry a weaker batting attack for longer than Sachin has had to.

Which should mean that WI score fewer runs/inns on an average than Indias batting order do.

To afford your argument some dignity, lets assume that difference is 50 runs per inns.

So lets assume India score 300 per inns, and WI 250.

If Lara scores 20%, thats 20% of 250 = 50.

If Sachin scores 17%, thats 17% of 300 = 51. ( despite his career record pointing to a higher average)

And even without any mental calisthenics, its pretty obvious that given their averages, Laras 20% << Sachins 17% simply because if it werent, Lara would be averaging more than Sachin.
How does that make Lara any superior to Sachin on that count ???

B4 u start mouthing off did i ever say that Lara was superior to SRT quite the contrary. i think SRT is slightly better becuz he's been a bit more consistent. Geez someone makes a point that favors Lara and u have to throw a hissy fit. etiher way im not the one who came up i actually got it from cricinfo. but i dont see this making much of a diff u are probably one of those SRT groupies who consider it blasphemy if ne one dares to say ne thing against ur 'god' aka SRT.

 

[Googenheim]

Which is all well and good, but what basis do you have for that 50 run difference?

1) The repeated moaning of Windian fans about how Lara carries a weaker batting lineup

2) It has to be atleast 50, otherwise it would contradict the fact that Sachins average > Laras.

 

[Googenheim]

B4 u start mouthing off did i ever say that Lara was superior to SRT quite the contrary. i think SRT is slightly better becuz he's been a bit more consistent. Geez someone makes a point that favors Lara and u have to throw a hissy fit. etiher way im not the one who came up i actually got it from cricinfo. but i dont see this making much of a diff u are probably one of those SRT groupies who consider it blasphemy if ne one dares to say ne thing against ur 'god' aka SRT.

No, but it certainly didnt warrant a statement that "Lara carries WI more than Sachin".. they make the same number of runs approximately, only that the Indian Lineup has been better than the Windian one for around 5 years or so.. I agree that having better batsmen around you lessens pressure on you, but not to the extent that having better bowling attacks does. And Sachin hasnt had Ambrose or Walsh to fall back on.

 

[Eclipse]

1) The repeated moaning of Windian fans about how Lara carries a weaker batting lineup

2) It has to be atleast 50, otherwise it would contradict the fact that Sachins average > Laras.

Yes but Lara ony has 4 not outs in his test carear and if i'm right or though his test 'average' is lower he actually averages more runs per innings / match.

 

[Slifer]

No, but it certainly didnt warrant a statement that "Lara carries WI more than Sachin".. they make the same number of runs approximately, only that the Indian Lineup has been better than the Windian one for around 5 years or so.. I agree that having better batsmen around you lessens pressure on you, but not to the extent that having better bowling attacks does. And Sachin hasnt had Ambrose or Walsh to fall back on.

I never did say Lara carries WI more than SRT. I just said that anyone that says that SRT does it more would be refuted by the stats that i posted. lets just say that at present it seems as if Lara is carryin the WI batting line-up more than SRT. fair enough??

 

[marc71178]

1) The repeated moaning of Windian fans about how Lara carries a weaker batting lineup

2) It has to be atleast 50, otherwise it would contradict the fact that Sachins average > Laras.

So you've just plucked a number from thin air then.

 

[tooextracool]

No, but it certainly didnt warrant a statement that "Lara carries WI more than Sachin".. they make the same number of runs approximately, only that the Indian Lineup has been better than the Windian one for around 5 years or so.. I agree that having better batsmen around you lessens pressure on you, but not to the extent that having better bowling attacks does. And Sachin hasnt had Ambrose or Walsh to fall back on.

depends on where he was playing. srinath and kumble provided enough support when he played half his games at home.

 

[C_C]

depends on where he was playing. srinath and kumble provided enough support when he played half his games at home.

Srinath wasnt in the Ambrose/Walsh bracket- neither at home, nor away.
Kumble was and is as good as any bowler at home but man for man, the WI bowling attack till 2000 or so was significantly superior to that of the Indian bowling attack.

 

[Googenheim]

So you've just plucked a number from thin air then.

yes, of course.

 

[C_C]

All the 'carries the batting lineup' is largely irrelevant and misleading interpretation of statistics.

You could insert Stuart Williams in a team with my granny, your granny and eight other grannies and have Bradman in the current OZ lineup and guess what ? Stuey will score a higher % of runs than Bradman would....sure means a lot, eh ?