which type of batsmen helps the team more?

[Richard]

I would like to know who that batsman is. Richie made 109 but Lara took much of the pressure off of him. So who else could have made runs: Arthurton, Hooper (lol), Adams, Murray???? BTW Haynes and Simmonds were back in the pavilion by the time Lara came out. W/o Laras 277 i doubt wi would have made much more than 300. Richie's century in the same match owes much to the calming effect of a dominating lara at the other end.

You have absolutely no way of knowing Arthurton, Hooper or Adams would not have made plenty of runs on that deck - first-innings or (if neccessary) second-. Arthurton at that point was a decent Test middle-order batsman (he was such a thing between 1992 and 1994/95), Hooper was to make the jump from hopeless to decent immediately after that series, and Adams was at that point a highly promising player just waiting to get a chance of a regular place.

It's very conceivable that any of them would have cashed-in on a deck that bore fair resemblence to the ARG.

 

[Slifer]

Yet to date no batsman West Indian (or non west indian) has done what Lara has in Australia ie score 250+ with oz havin 500+ on the board. And its laughable to suggest that ne of Arthurton, Adams or Hooper would have made the runs Lara did or that the match was a fore gone draw (which it clearly wasnt).

 

[Richard]

I'm not for the remotest second suggesting any of them would have played remotely that well, nor that any of them would have got 250+.

All I'm saying is that the likelihood of West Indies being bowled-out cheaply twice in that match was miniscule. Somewhere, someone would've got enough runs to draw that game, barring something quite extraordinary.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

guys why are you arguing what could have happend or could have not happend. The point is Lara was a genius of his time, every inning he played was genius, even if we got out quickly. Lara was also the most flamboynt and stylish batsmen of this era, no one can match him. Who else would get to 380 by hitting a six?

 

[Richard]

The point is Lara was a genius of his time, every inning he played was genius, even if we got out quickly.

Well, not really - there were quite a few innings between 1996/97 and 2001 where he looked anything but genius. Occasionally he even looked very ordinary indeed.

When he got going he was brilliant and yes, a cameo from him gave off obvious whiffs of genius the way long innings from many others don't, but to suggest he never once looked ordinary would be wrong.

 

[MrIncredible]

Richard (except for Bradman) no cricketer is a genius all the time and im sure all have had their ordinary periods

 

[Richard]

That's exactly the point I'm making.

In fact, for those interested, an article will shortly be being published on CW which demonstrates how there was indeed a certain set of circumstances which made even Bradman very ordinary indeed.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The point is Lara was a genius of his time, every inning he played was genius

Good point. That first ball duck he got against New Zealand in 2006 was of such genius proportions that Heinz are naming a new flavour of soup after it.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

^ even when he got out on low scores, he was always stylish, he was a true entertainer. Thats what i meant