Just a thought - answer without emotions !

Richard said:

You knew about them without me reminding you of them, now, and you know it.

Click to expand...

I neither knew about them, nor cared about them.

There's a surprise, you make a habit out of not caring about stuff that's amongst the most important and caring about tiny little irrelevant things.

SJS said:

I am not so sure on his one.

I still remember he day he overook Sobers and when he scored 501. I remember talking with awe on these two achievements. This guy MUST be something was the unanimous opinion. Both these feats and coming so close to each other left a huge huge impression. The fac hat he had a great career even after these early major milestones meant he wasnt a Hick. But I suspect, we would have been more critical of him in his poor times (and he has had a few) had we not already posiioned him, subconciously as a superstar of a once in a life time sort.

Take away these two feats and he remains a great player but the difference is major, I suspect, and the competiion/pool for comparison increases dramatically.

Of course, that is unfair, I agree.

Click to expand...

What on earth is unfair about it? What are people going to be saying about him in fifty years time? "Lara, the bloke who broke the individual Test scoring record twice, the first to 500 in f-c cricket and the first to 400 in Tests, and a generally amazing batsman," that's what.

Those world records are part of what he is, and if he hadn't scored them, he wouldn't have scored some of the other big innings.

You think that it's only fans and the media who are impressed by great players? What about the people they play against? Every time Lara walks out to the crease, the eleven fielders see the bloke who can score more runs in an innings than anyone else in history and has proved it repeatedly. That inevitably affects the way they play against him.

Of course he would be regarded differently if he hadn't broken the world records. And not just by fans.

Yes, they established him in our minds as a superstar - it would be incredibly surprising if they had not - and that is indeed why everyone was much more tolerant of his mid-career slump than they would have been otherwise.

Now, the 277 at Sydney was the innings which actually announced that Lara was officially to be regarded as a star: from then on, everyone had their eye on him to see whether he would go on and become a really great player. Which he then proceeded to do in the spring of 1994. His name was going to shine out in the history books for ages as a result of that couple of months, he had already booked his place in the pantheon - and everything that has happened since has been seen through that prism.

And if there is anyone who thinks that is unfair, I do hope that they will be able to similarly ignore any other record-breaking feats performed by other players in the future. I know I won't be able to.

Cheers,

Mike

Richard said:

There's a surprise, you make a habit out of not caring about stuff that's amongst the most important and caring about tiny little irrelevant things.

Click to expand...

The stuff that is the most important is how many runs were scored - in this case, 309.

badgerhair said:

What on earth is unfair about it? What are people going to be saying about him in fifty years time? "Lara, the bloke who broke the individual Test scoring record twice, the first to 500 in f-c cricket and the first to 400 in Tests, and a generally amazing batsman," that's what.

Click to expand...

As happens do often on this forum. You spent lot of time and emotion on a misunderstanding.

When I said Of course, that is unfair, I agree., I was meaning, its unfair to Lara to compare him with others AFTER taking away his record breaking efforts. You thought I was saying the exact opposite.

SJS said:

As happens do often on this forum. You spent lot of time and emotion on a misunderstanding.

When I said Of course, that is unfair, I agree., I was meaning, its unfair to Lara to compare him with others AFTER taking away his record breaking efforts. You thought I was saying the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly a misunderstanding, because I didn't quite think you were saying the exact opposite. I admit to rhapsodizing, but I wasn't actually trying to disagree with *you*, but those who think it unfair that one *should* take the record-breaking into account even though the actual record-breaking innings were in meaningless draws - and it didn't seem to me that you were siding with those given that you too were recalling the wonderment with which you learned of his feats.

I don't always manage it, but I try not to get into a one-to-one dialog in a public forum. I may well "reply" to a post with which I mostly agree in order to amplify one or two points, and the person I'm most often arguing with is an imaginary fellow whose chief characteristic is a joyless approach to cricket in which analysis of numbers can solve any question.

Cheers,

Mike

Top_Cat said:

"Answer without emotion"

Anyone else get the Neutrals from Futurama in their head reading that?

"I HAVE NO STRONG FEELINGS EITHER WAY ON THE MATTER."

*applause*

Click to expand...

Richard said:

caring about tiny little irrelevant things.

Click to expand...

My eyes almost popped out of my head at that little number.

Oh the irony, my friend.

badgerhair said:

It wasn't exactly a misunderstanding, because I didn't quite think you were saying the exact opposite. I admit to rhapsodizing, but I wasn't actually trying to disagree with *you*, but those who think it unfair that one *should* take the record-breaking into account even though the actual record-breaking innings were in meaningless draws - and it didn't seem to me that you were siding with those given that you too were recalling the wonderment with which you learned of his feats.

I don't always manage it, but I try not to get into a one-to-one dialog in a public forum. I may well "reply" to a post with which I mostly agree in order to amplify one or two points, and the person I'm most often arguing with is an imaginary fellow whose chief characteristic is a joyless approach to cricket in which analysis of numbers can solve any question.

Cheers,

Mike

Click to expand...

Fair enough

PY said:

My eyes almost popped out of my head at that little number.

Oh the irony, my friend.

Click to expand...

Really, well if you can explain to me how I care about tiny little irrelevant things I'll be most impressed.

marc71178 said:

The stuff that is the most important is how many runs were scored - in this case, 309.

Click to expand...

As far as the outcome of the game is concerned, yes it is.
As far as how well the batsman played - no, it's not.

Richard said:

There's a surprise, you make a habit out of not caring about stuff that's amongst the most important and caring about tiny little irrelevant things.

Click to expand...

Coming from you, that's pretty funny.

If you can tell me how doing something that will normally result in dismissal is little and irrelevant I'd like to hear it.

Because he's still there?

It may not be little, but it definitely is irrelevant in terms of the game.

In terms of the game - not quite irrelevant, it's still relevant as to how one side failed to do something and how another side got something done.
As far as how well the batsman played, it's everything.

The recent innings of Lara only accentuates my feelings. I haven't seen anyone handle Kaneria with so much ease, not even the Indians (maybe except Sehwag). He truly is gifted and irrespective of the world records, would still have been an all time great. Maybe the question should be, whether his greatness as a batsman is accentuated because of the mediocrity of his team mates?

honestbharani said:

The recent innings of Lara only accentuates my feelings. I haven't seen anyone handle Kaneria with so much ease, not even the Indians (maybe except Sehwag). He truly is gifted and irrespective of the world records, would still have been an all time great. Maybe the question should be, whether his greatness as a batsman is accentuated because of the mediocrity of his team mates?

Click to expand...

I was watching him during his 130 against Pakistan this test and i was once again amazed by his footwork.

To balls that are pitched wide outside the off stump, he moves wide outside the offstump !!. It is superb. Then he lets them go without a worry in the world. they NEVER hit him on the pads and never take him by surprise. He drives balls three stumps or more outside the off stump, off the backfoot, with a straightbat and he is able to do it by moving so much back and across.

There is NO batsman in world cricket today, who moves as much close to the ball as Lara does and this is why he is able to play so many strokes and gets beaten so rarely.

This particular innings was a long time after my last live watching of a complete Lara innings and I had almost forgoten how good he was. !!

SJS said:

I was watching him during his 130 against Pakistan this test and i was once again amazed by his footwork.

To balls that are pitched wide outside the off stump, he moves wide outside the offstump !!. It is superb. Then he lets them go without a worry in the world. they NEVER hit him on the pads and never take him by surprise. He drives balls three stumps or more outside the off stump, off the backfoot, with a straightbat and he is able to do it by moving so much back and across.

There is NO batsman in world cricket today, who moves as much close to the ball as Lara does and this is why he is able to play so many strokes and gets beaten so rarely.

This particular innings was a long time after my last live watching of a complete Lara innings and I had almost forgoten how good he was. !!

Click to expand...

A couple of the innings he played vs SA a few weeks back had the same effect on me. Even if I didnt know about all he had done in his career,I would have known just from watching those innings thats he is a class above pretty much anyone playing at the moment

yeah, that is what I mean. HIs records were just the icing on the cake. But, I am still mad that we may probably never get to see Sachin and Lara bat side by side.

Why? Why is it so important for them to bat in the same team?
What would we gain by seeing them bat in the same team that we haven't gained already?