-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Carl Hooper was more talented than Brian Lara
- Thread starter Lillian Thomson
- Start date
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Limited amount of characters allowed. I just used what I believe to be the top 4 teams.
It is better to read the full book rather than take one single statement totally out of context. Ambrose's point was more about how Hooper wasted his enormous talent, rather than slighting Lara. On the same page (45), Ambrose also mentions that Chanders was not half as talented as Lara or Hooper. I wonder how aggrieved Chanders (or his fans) must feel.
Although he criticizes Lara several times in his book (mostly Lara the team-man rather than Lara the batsman), Curtly does recognize Lara as a genuine batting genius several times in his book. He prides himself as a talent spotter, and mentions that right from the first Test match of Lara when he batted against Waqar & Wasim, he could see that Lara would go a long way.
Ambrose also puts Lara as the second name he would pen down in his ATG WI XI after Marshall (from the WI players that Ambrose had directly seen or played with). That is a very rich praise.
Although he criticizes Lara several times in his book (mostly Lara the team-man rather than Lara the batsman), Curtly does recognize Lara as a genuine batting genius several times in his book. He prides himself as a talent spotter, and mentions that right from the first Test match of Lara when he batted against Waqar & Wasim, he could see that Lara would go a long way.
Ambrose also puts Lara as the second name he would pen down in his ATG WI XI after Marshall (from the WI players that Ambrose had directly seen or played with). That is a very rich praise.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Perhaps you could explain it to the numpty who's just posted. I've given up.It cracks me up how everyone keeps trying to explain to Lillian Thompson what Ambrose meant by his statement, and he has to keep responding saying "yeah I understand what he is saying".
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
- Lillian Thompson (LT) doesn't think Ambrose slighted Lara
- LT understands what Ambrose meant by "more talented"
- LT just thinks not only was Lara a better and more accomplished batsman than Hooper, he was also more "talented". It is not a case of Steve Waugh accomplishing more but being less naturally gifted to Mark Waugh, as he thinks Lara was also more naturally gifted and more talented (by every definition of that word) than Hooper.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
The interesting question was never going to be whether Hooper was more talented than Lara because nearly everyone knows the answer to that - no.
Rather, it was more interesting to speculate why a close team mate like Ambrose might have a differing opinion to most other people and come down on the side of Hooper. That's the confusing aspect, and therefore the more thought provoking.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I just think it is a case of over-rating a team mate's talent... If I had a team mate A who is super talented and also super successful, and a team mate B who is only slightly less talented but absolutely wasted his gifts, I might end up saying that B was more naturally talented than A. These things kinda grow on you when the person in question does not have the kind of success he should have had. It is the very same reason why just about every teammate of Afridi talks about how "talented" he was compared to other Pakistan players of that generation.
Going by that logic, the dumbwit should have gone berserk over Ambrose's statement (in the very same paragraph) that Chanders wasn't half as talented as Hooper.
A far more blasphemous statement, if you will, considering the gulf in their accomplishments.
Since you have taken the pain to be explicit, let me do the same here:
1. Ambrose defines his meaning of Hooper's talent as making batting even against great bowling look "oh so easy". He just says that to his eyes Hooper made batting look more simple/easy than Brian did.
As someone else said earlier in this thread, as great or talented as Lara was, his unorthodox technique probably made him look more vulnerable. Hooper had a more classical style, and when in full flow had a lot
of time to play his shots, and like Lara was a phenomenal timer of the ball.
2. In any media, when the focus is on a certain player, there is a tendency to exaggerate the player's capability or deeds, either positive or negative. No big deal. When Pete Roebuck talked about Viv Richard's
magnificent 150 for Somerset against Worcestershire on a dangerous pitch with uneven bounce, when none of Viv's teammates crossed 50, you'd think Viv was second only to Bradman. Later when Roebuck
described Tendulkar's mastery over Warne, or Lara's 1999 Aus series, you'd come to the same conclusion about them too.
On the highlighted page, Ambrose was focussing on Hooper, and ruing the fact that he did not do justice to his apparent talent. On several other pages (like on page 160), Ambrose does say Lara had far more
to offer (whatever that phrase means) than rest of the West Indian batsmen, including Hooper.
Interestingly, Ambrose also severely chastises Hooper for being a coward in RSA, and being genuinely frightened of Allan Donald's hostile pace during their disastrous 98/99 RSA tour.
There were far more controversial statements made by Ambrose in his book including his stinging criticism of Clive Lloyd's management (he accuses Lloyd of intentionally forcing
the WI team to leave for RSA while himself & Walsh were still in the team hotel in London). He just about stops short of calling Lloyd a WICB agent, who never intended to help the
WI players during the RSA tour.
Unless one is genuinely dumb & short-sighted, it would be difficult to claim that Ambrose has lost his head just because of his "Hooper is more talented than Lara" statement.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
You seem to have waited a long time to post after registering and you truly shouldn't have bothered.
All you've done is dump in another example of someone who made more of less talent in Chanderpaul and Hooper. The rest of it is nothing to do with anything.
Posted for several years, but hadn't posted here since last 3-4 years. Forgot my old login, so had to register again.
Is it your insecurity or your habit to get personal each time you get your nuts in a vice?
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Neither. It's not my fault you can't post something that makes sense, nor does it bother me.
Agree. Not really your fault for being born dumb.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Apology accepted. If you do happen to contribute anything worthwhile to the thread topic I'll be sure to let you know.
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Interesting statement from someone who's been banned twice in the last month for persistent trolling, baiting and harassment of other members.
I don't do enemies. I just point out when someone posts nonsense.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I've been banned once. I am aware that you might find this uncountable, but generally most people can cope with it.
Thanks weldone. I have been here for many years though. Never posted much. Forgot my old login name. Remember exchanging posts with Rob when he made his first posts here (before he became a rage on youtube),
ikki-miagara's long drawn out war, DoG's lists. Enjoy this forum. Quite a few good posters. Sadly, don't recall this ****** LT though.