not until around 2000.
Before that it was just tendulkar and azhar really.
The kallis of last few yrs is clearly better than the one before. He just wasn't at the same level for long time.
And your opinion on Bradman is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. What an absolute crock of crap. So, Bradman, who averaged 100 in one particular era, would average "50+" now, but Hammond who played in basically the same era as Bradman and averaged 50 something, would still average "50+" now?
How the **** could you possibly justify that assumption that would be in anyway logical?
And I think the reason some people might think Gavaskar to be a better batsman than Chappell may be because when the past players and experts describe the best batsmen of that era, they name the best attacking batsman, i.e. Viv, and then the best defensive batsman, i.e. Gavaskar, and do not mention that the second best attacking batsman, i.e. Chappell was better than Gavaskar.
~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~
It is nonsensical to suppose that any batsman could be both in-form and out-of-form at exactly the same time when walking out to bat. Or to put it another way, Lara cannot be the the Brain Lara of 1990 and 2006 similtaneously.
When batting at the crease for an ATG XI Brain Lara can only be the Brian Lara from a singular date. Maybe - March 30th 1999. On that date his form was good enough to score153 not out at the Kensington Oval and 'single handedly' defeat Steve Waugh's team.
“I'm writing a book on magic”, I explain, and I'm asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No”, I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic”. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.”
― Lee Siegel, 'Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India'
Yeah, freaked me out too. So I thought I would share the pleasure with you guys
So in the example sited - on balance over the course of his career, under all circumstances and against all opposition, I think Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of his generation and I would take him over Lara, Ponting or anyone else of the modern era in an All Time XI. BUT if we are talking just in terms of their absolute singular one-off peaks - like the best day or innings batting any of them could possibly produce - then personally I would put Lara at the top of the pile.
I was always under the impression that while players are chosen on ghe basis of their whole career, they are choosen at their very best, for example Marshall cica '83- '84, Viv '76 or Hobbs before the war.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
However, when things are roughly equal, as in Tendulkar V Lara, then I am going to gravitate toward Lara because on his 'good days' he was truly stunning.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)