Where does Lara rate?

[greg]

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.

I think the argument was quite well put by Simon Hughes in the Telegraph, in so doing highlighting the futility of comparing players from different eras. There has to be the odd question about how Lara would have coped if no helmets existed. It is often argued that Lara would have had an even better record had he had the sort of batting line up around him that Richards enjoyed - however one could also argue that Richards' famous "laziness" or "boredom" would not have limited the fulfillment of his talent had his team had to relt on him more than they did.

 

[social]

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

Having watched them play, it's rather simple.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

And thus he can't rightfully rank among the greats. Not only is his FC average less than 40 (though averages lie), but several players have had fantastic records outside of Test cricket, but were hardly great in Test cricket. It's all well and good to say that Richards and Grace SHOULD have been great batsmen, but you can't actually say they WOULD have and thus give them the title. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

however one could also argue that Richards' famous "laziness" or "boredom" would not have limited the fulfillment of his talent had his team had to relt on him more than they did.

So that a player is lazy, and gives away his wicket at times, it doesn't detract from the greatness of a player? You can't say that Richards is better than Lara and the reason the stats don't show it is because Richards was lazy, got bored, and gave away his wicket.

Besides, that can be countered with the length of period during Lara's career when he lost it almost entirely. The "cricket is ruining my life" period.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Having watched them play, it's rather simple.

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?

I can envision a lot of people saying 'yes' to the last question, but both batsmen have utmost reverence from opposing bowlers. I don't see how either one can be considered more destructive than the other.

It really does show why players from different eras can't rightfully be compared. No one can truthfully say that Lara WOULDN'T have scored less runs if he played in a less batsman-friendly era, or that Richards WOULD have scored more runs today. It's a futile point really. Compare players to their contemporaries, and even then it's a strained comparison.

 

[jamesicus]

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)

 

[greg]

And thus he can't rightfully rank among the greats. Not only is his FC average less than 40 (though averages lie), but several players have had fantastic records outside of Test cricket, but were hardly great in Test cricket. It's all well and good to say that Richards and Grace SHOULD have been great batsmen, but you can't actually say they WOULD have and thus give them the title. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie.

I'm guessing you missed my point. A players worth can only be judged by how he performed at the pinnacle of the game, and how he performed relative to others in that era. If test cricket does not exist (as was the case in Grace's time) then it is not the pinnacle. And yes, Grace's first class average is totally meaningless if somehow used to compare with modern players on modern pitches.

 

[social]

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?

I can envision a lot of people saying 'yes' to the last question, but both batsmen have utmost reverence from opposing bowlers. I don't see how either one can be considered more destructive than the other.

It really does show why players from different eras can't rightfully be compared. No one can truthfully say that Lara WOULDN'T have scored less runs if he played in a less batsman-friendly era, or that Richards WOULD have scored more runs today. It's a futile point really. Compare players to their contemporaries, and even then it's a strained comparison.

All true.

Both are/were fantastic players.

You pick Lara, I pick Viv - matter of personal taste/opinion is all.

However, saying that Headley is better or even comparable to either is very far-fetched. The guy may as well have been playing a different sport for all the relevance that era has to recent times.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

However, saying that Headley is better or even comparable to either is very far-fetched. The guy may as well have been playing a different sport for all the relevance that era has to recent times.

Me saying Headley is better is because of the time he played at and the consideration that he literally was the West Indies batting, yet averaged 60.

But me saying that also contradicts my last point, so I'll stop now.

 

[open365]

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)

you make this weekes guy seem pretty special.
i really want to see him now.

 

[open365]

reading the article on cricinfo,its clearer that Lara is the best of the post-war age.

i just can't understand how people can ignore him occupying the highest test score twice and scoring 501 in FC cricket.

thats unbelievable.no one of the modern age has the powers that Lara has, not Tendulkar,not Kallis,no body.

 

[nick-o]

Before looking at statistics, I declare my subjective opinion: after the Don, second is Sobers, then Sir Viv.

But, the statistics don't support that conclusion, and I was surprised.

In this thread, the names most frequently mentioned as second to Bradman have been: Sobers, Richards, Lara, Tendulkar and Greg Chappell.

I think there are three crucial criteria: career average, number of centuries as a % of innings played, and runs scored in centuries as a % of total runs scored.

These three tell us a) best average (obviously), b) likelihood of scoring a century, and c) propensity to hit a huge innings.

These are the stats for those criteria:

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

% centuries per innings:
Bradman: 36.25
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%
Sobers: 49%
Chappell: 49%
Lara: 48%
Richards: 43%

Personnally, I was hugely surprised to find that Viv Richards was the poorest in every category -- I have to adjust my conceptions.

Lara, in my opinion, by breaking every available record, has cemented his place in history. But reviewing the statistics has made me conclude that he is not the best since Bradman.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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?

That's ridiculously oversimplifying the arguments in favour of Richards, ignoring the fact that he played in a different era and the things he did beyond hitting sixes that made him so special as a batsman. Lara is one of the greatest ever in my opinion, but (while we are in the habit of criticising greats) he has had his problems against seamers who can move the ball away from him, and has gone into extended slumps against guys like McGrath and Donald where he looked incapable of scoring against them, even on pitches with very little in them for seamers.

It is similar, I suppose, to pointing out that for all his success against brilliant fast bowlers in all conditions, Richards had some problems against spin, and had he played in a time of a greater range of quality spin bowlers this might have been exposed more. Had Lara been forced to consistently face the attacks put out by Australia, Pakistan, England and so on during the peak of Richards career it is possibly that the chink in his armour that McGrath and Donald (among others) have found would have been exposed more consistently. The fact that he never made many runs against Pakistan or South Africa until their attacks had declined backs up the McGrath point further. Or, maybe not, and it's really anybody's guess. The same could be argued about Richards against Murali and Warne.

Also regarding your statistical points, a number of those are influenced (as indeed is the so-called performance based assessment of Richards in general) negatively by the fact that he played on too long. I doubt even Richards greatest fan would disagree that, at the same age as Lara is today, Richards was a far poorer batsman, and it showed in the sharp decline in his average from equal to Lara's (and before that, a fair bit higher) to where it ended up at 50 odd.

Anyway, my rankings for the "big six" that nick-o has offered up are:
Bradman
Sobers
Chappell
Richards
Lara
Tendulkar

Hobbs deserves to be in there somewhere as well, and Lara is certainly interchangable with Richards depending on your exact criteria.

 

[open365]

Personnally, I was hugely surprised to find that Viv Richards was the poorest in every category -- I have to adjust my conceptions.

Lara, in my opinion, by breaking every available record, has cemented his place in history. But reviewing the statistics has made me conclude that he is not the best since Bradman.

so your now making yourself belive differently because so and so has a better average than someone else?

your missing the entire point of cricket.

cricket is so much more than a game of chess with averages. Stats aren't the be-all and end-all of cricket,as neil pointed out,with carefull analysis of stats you can prove that anyone(within reason) is better than anyone else.

after reading a lot of cricket autobiographies,no one talks about cricket in terms of averages.

 

[jamesicus]

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

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

How do you score a percentage of centuries per innings?

 

[a massive zebra]

Centuries/innings*100

ie Bradman would be 29/80*100

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's ridiculously oversimplifying the arguments in favour of Richards, ignoring the fact that he played in a different era and the things he did beyond hitting sixes that made him so special as a batsman.

No, this is ridiculously oversimplifying the arguments:

It really does show why players from different eras can't rightfully be compared. No one can truthfully say that Lara WOULDN'T have scored less runs if he played in a less batsman-friendly era, or that Richards WOULD have scored more runs today. It's a futile point really. Compare players to their contemporaries, and even then it's a strained comparison.

...in that I negate the ability to argue it at all.

Lara is one of the greatest ever in my opinion, but (while we are in the habit of criticising greats) he has had his problems against seamers who can move the ball away from him, and has gone into extended slumps against guys like McGrath and Donald where he looked incapable of scoring against them, even on pitches with very little in them for seamers.

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.

the chink in his armour that McGrath and Donald (among others) have found would have been exposed more consistently.

The fact that he has been dismissed several times by Glenn McGrath does not mean that Glenn McGrath had it over Lara. The sheer quantity of runs that Lara has scored against the likes of McGrath shows this. He may well have been dismissed often by a Lillee, or a Thompson, or Bothan, or Hadlee, but there's nothing to suggest that he wouldn't have had the same approach - score big runs anyway.

The fact that he never made many runs against Pakistan or South Africa until their attacks had declined backs up the McGrath point further.

That is oversimplifying it. Consider that Lara struggled against Pakistan and South Africa in the years when he was seriously questioning his future in cricket in general.

Also regarding your statistical points, a number of those are influenced (as indeed is the so-called performance based assessment of Richards in general) negatively by the fact that he played on too long. I doubt even Richards greatest fan would disagree that, at the same age as Lara is today, Richards was a far poorer batsman, and it showed in the sharp decline in his average from equal to Lara's (and before that, a fair bit higher) to where it ended up at 50 odd.

The fact is that Lara is pushing on as an absolute top class player later into his career than Richards did. Shouldn't that count for something? You can't say that Richards' stats are tainted by him playing too long and not bring mention to Lara playing as long or longer and still improving his stats.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Centuries/innings*100

ie Bradman would be 29/80*100

That's the percentage of his innings which were hundreds, not the percentage of hundreds PER innings.

 

[nick-o]

so your now making yourself belive differently because so and so has a better average than someone else?

your missing the entire point of cricket.

cricket is so much more than a game of chess with averages. Stats aren't the be-all and end-all of cricket,as neil pointed out,with carefull analysis of stats you can prove that anyone(within reason) is better than anyone else.

after reading a lot of cricket autobiographies,no one talks about cricket in terms of averages.

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.