*Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!

[garage flower]

what utter rubbish!

There is a debate as to if Lara should be reagarded in the top 5 batsmen of all time. If you are going to support it then you provide reasons and evidence to back yourself and vice versa. I have done that. The others have simply stated that he shouldn't be there.....on what basis??? Anti-WI sentiments??Anti-Lara Sentiments???

The point he's making, I think, is that any assessment of the top 5 all-time bats must include a subjective analysis of the players' abilities based on actually watching them play, rather than a purely statistical analysis.

 

[roseboy64]

None of us ever saw Bradman play so then he can't be in the top 5 of all time.Is that what you're saying?

 

[marc71178]

Could it be the fact that we just don't rate him in that category?

 

[roseboy64]

Then that's just wrong.Of course his average will dip when he misses a few years and then has to regain form along with injuries too.

 

[Tom Halsey]

SRT beside, I'd wager that nobody would seriously rank any of those in the top 5 of all time!

I'd never even rate SRT in the top 5!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Then that's just wrong.Of course his average will dip when he misses a few years and then has to regain form along with injuries too.

Yes, but he doesn't place enough value on his wicket for my liking. That's why he's not in my top 5 - Richard's didn't either, but he had more power to take a game away in minutes from the opposition than Lara.

 

[Tom Halsey]

u cant compare samaraweera to Lara ? samaraweera has played very little cricket compared to lara !

Yes, but Samaraweera still has better stats, which negates Rose's theory, which was the whole point of the post.

 

[garage flower]

None of us ever saw Bradman play so then he can't be in the top 5 of all time.Is that what you're saying?

Strange logic roseboy. No, I'd say that it's impossible to make a fully imformed comparison between 2 or more batsmen, unless you've seen them both/all play.

To come anywhere near an acceptable comparison using stats alone, you'd have to take into account a vast number of factors, rather than simply runs scored, milestones achieved, averages etc. For a start, you'd need to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the opposition faced and the playing conditions.

 

[Langeveldt]

If Lara can't make your all time 5 then that's a clear case of bias, and regardless of how biased you want to say i am i can say clearly that Lara must be there. What esle can you judge a batsman on but milestones???? Match Dravid or Tendulkar or Ponting or Hayden to EACH of these milestones, then find an extra one to beat Lara. Lara is the best of his generation by a long way and definitely in the top 5 of all time:

1. Debut Test Century: 277 v Austraila AWAY from home in 1993
2. World Test Record : 375 v England, breaking a 36 year old record in 1994. Rated by Wisden as the 10th Best innings in the history of Test cricket
3. World First Class Individual Record: 501* v Durham beating 36 year old record in 1994
4. 7 centuries in 8 First Class innings in 1994, beating many who had 6 from 7
5. Playing against the #1 team in the World in 1999, scored an epic 213 to level the Series 1-1. 213 rated as the 15th best innings in the History of Test Cricket by Wisden
6. In the same series, scored 153* to lead WI to an epic 1 wkt victory and a 2-1 series lead. 153* rated as the 2nd best innings of all time by Wisden.
7. In 2001, Lara had 3 of his innings rated in the top 100 of all time, SECOND ONLY TO BRADMAN, who had 5.
8. In 2001, scored 688 runs in a 3 match series against Sri Lanka, SECOND only to Graham Gooch for aggregate in a 3 match series.
9. In same series, became only the 5th MAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME to score a double century and a century in the same match.
10. In 2003, achieved the SECOND HIGHEST TEST average as CAPTAIN, SECOND TO DG BRADMAN.
11. In 2003, claimed the WI record for highest aggregate Test runs, BEATING VIV RICHARDS (whose name has been bandies about as one of the 5 all time greats) AT A HIGHER AVERAGE
12. In 2004, scored a WORLD TEST RECORD 400*, becoming only the SECOND MAN TO SCORE 2 TEST TRIPLES, THE ONLY MAN TO RECLAIM HIS LOST TEST RECORD, AGAIN BECAME ONLY THE SECOND MAN TO HOLD BOTH THE TEST AND FIRST CLASS RECORDS and is now SECOND only to DG BRADMAN in terms of TOTAL DOUBLE CENTURIES scored.
12. In 2004 after scoring 120 vs Bangladesh, became the 6th highest century maker in the HISTORY of the game and the joint WI record holder.
13. In 2004, named as one of the WI 5 CRICKETERS (batsmen, bowlers and wktkprs included) of ALL TIME

NOTICE HOW MANY FIRSTS AND SECONDS THERE ARE IN THIS ANALYSIS. LARA IS ONE OF THE GREATEST 5 BATSMEN OF ALL TIME AND THE BEST OF HIS GENERATION. I CAN'T SEE WHY MANY OF YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THIS

And if you look at the notion that maybe Lara isn't untouchable, you might see that Kallis (and maybe Dravid, Inzamam, Sachin etc.?) average more in test cricket..

1) They have done this wihout those humungous scores like 375 and 400.. This suggests that they consistantly make scores higher than Lara (apart from those tremendous two knocks) Two matchwinning 150's are more valuable than one matchwinning 300...

2) Lara stands out as such a good batsmen because he is in such a mediocre team (similar to Andy Flower).. I think this clouds people's judgements..

Im not debating Lara's greatness as a player, because he has so much on his plate as a captain and a batsman having to support a team. .. Im just challenging the way people tend to make him an "automatic choice" when it comes to batting....

 

[Swervy]

And if you look at the notion that maybe Lara isn't untouchable, you might see that Kallis (and maybe Dravid, Inzamam, Sachin etc.?) average more in test cricket..

1) They have done this wihout those humungous scores like 375 and 400.. This suggests that they consistantly make scores higher than Lara (apart from those tremendous two knocks) Two matchwinning 150's are more valuable than one matchwinning 300...

2) Lara stands out as such a good batsmen because he is in such a mediocre team (similar to Andy Flower).. I think this clouds people's judgements..

Im not debating Lara's greatness as a player, because he has so much on his plate as a captain and a batsman having to support a team. .. Im just challenging the way people tend to make him an "automatic choice" when it comes to batting....

for me, when he is in tip top form, forget the statistics and averages and records etc...he simple oozes class,and in that form i dont think anyone come near him in the batting stakes in the last 10 years, and that includes an in form Tendulkar

 

[viktor]

viktor, what a superbly uninformed comment

thanks, Revelation, one aims to please.
I do have a question; why is it uninformed? irrelevant, may be but uninformed???

 

[viktor]

the only world class player...you forget Richards,Greenidge,G Chappell,Miandad,Boycott etc

actually no.. neither do I forget others you left out, Lloyd, Kalicharan, Gower, Gooch and others...
ah! my bad, i just said Wclass performer, what I should have said was: "the only w. class performer in his test side"
his test side means the Indian Cricket Team, lest you misunderstand....
which he undoubtedly was, atleast where the batting is concerned.
now, coming back to Lara, he undoubtedly is one of the best batsmen in the world amongst current players but he wouldn't make my alltime top 5

 

[masterblaster]

for me, when he is in tip top form, forget the statistics and averages and records etc...he simple oozes class,and in that form i dont think anyone come near him in the batting stakes in the last 10 years, and that includes an in form Tendulkar

Oh how quickly people forget....

1998, Sharjah against Australia in the desert, amongst the sandstorm, Sachin's innings was one of the best ODI innings I have ever seen.

When in complete top form and that includes being in fifth gear, Sachin eclipses Lara so easily.

The beauty about Tendulkar's batting that not many people see is his adaptability towards a situation.

He's got such a good defensive arsenal despite having one of the best offensive array of shots in cricket.

Just because he's not that aggressive now doesn't mean he's not as good as he once was. It takes a lot of skill, guts and a lot of cunning and intelligence to change his game.

I think the fact that because Lara has made 400 and 375 and so on cloud people's judgement when rating him and Tendulkar. But as Langeveldt pointed out, guys like Tendulkar and Dravid and Hayden have been making more consistent scores and have better averages than Lara despite Lara's three or four 'monster' innings.

There is no disputing Lara's greatness, but if your looking at both Lara and Tendulkar on top form with not a care in the world, Tendulkar's batting has more of the genius factor about his batting.

Lara can look breathtaking but also with his high backlift can look very, very ordinary when he gets beaten. Tendulkar's batting technique, his stance, his backlift are all perfect. Its a work of art when Tendulkar bats, but its pure authority when Lara does.

So summing up, in complete top form, I'd have Tendulkar over Lara any time.

 

[viktor]

and here's one reason why:
It is common in dealing with data sets to come across xtremely large or xtremely small values within the data set. these data points, known as outliers, are generally neglected when calculating properties of the data set as they do not "show" the trend of the data.
with this premise, i conducted a "Richardian" exercise.
I neglected the highest two scores by 5 players i consider to be 5 of the best; Sachin, Dravid, Richards, Sobers and Lara (Bradman is another outlier, so out ). To save me a little trouble, I assumed both the innings closed (b'men out).Then for this modified data set, I calculated the avera ge and calculated the drop in average from the original data. the results are:
Player Ori avg Mod avg
Lara 53.43 49.27
Dravid 58.09 54.76
Richards 50.23 47.72
Sobers 57.78 54.31
Sachin 57.39 55.29

while Lara's avg drops by ~4 runs, that of Richards, Dravid and Sobers drops by 3-3.5 and Sachins by ~2. to me that indicates Lara is not as consistent as the others, not by a lot mind you but still enough for the level these guys are at.
I know stats don't always tell the true story but I was hoping thus analysis removes any discrepencies in such a basis for analysis.
Please do comment,
cheers

 

[Deja moo]

this goes back to a thread on here a while ago....

Gavaskar did do very well vs WI, but only rarely did well vs WI when they had a good bowling attack

I find it hard to believe that Gavaskar played a second string attack everytime he made a century vs the WI.

For goodness' sake , he made 13 100's vs them .

Assuming that he must have made as many 50's vs them as he made 100's , thats 26 good innings's vs the top team of the 70's and 80's .

And assuming that he played a good innings only every alternate innings , thats still 26 good tests he had vs them .

I find it hard to believe that he faced weak attacks for those 26 tests ,while the rest of the world faced the top WI bowlers.

( I know thats a lot of assumptions , but they are all within reason. )

 

[Deja moo]

Oh how quickly people forget....

1998, Sharjah against Australia in the desert, amongst the sandstorm, Sachin's innings was one of the best ODI innings I have ever seen.

When in complete top form and that includes being in fifth gear, Sachin eclipses Lara so easily. debatable

The beauty about Tendulkar's batting that not many people see is his adaptability towards a situation.

He's got such a good defensive arsenal despite having one of the best offensive array of shots in cricket.

Just because he's not that aggressive now doesn't mean he's not as good as he once was. It takes a lot of skill, guts and a lot of cunning and intelligence to change his game.

I think the fact that because Lara has made 400 and 375 and so on cloud people's judgement when rating him and Tendulkar. But as Langeveldt pointed out, guys like Tendulkar and Dravid and Hayden have been making more consistent scores and have better averages than Lara despite Lara's three or four 'monster' innings.

There is no disputing Lara's greatness, but if your looking at both Lara and Tendulkar on top form with not a care in the world, Tendulkar's batting has more of the genius factor about his batting.Disagree. Laras batting in top gear has the stamp of genius on it. Tendulkar on song has the stamp of a master on it.The difference is that , with the technique Lara has , he looks like he might still get out the next ball even if he is on 400*.But he doesnt , and thats genius.Genius is like the diamond that dazzles more even though it has a flaw in it .But when Tendulkar is on song , his immaculate technique ensures that he never looks like getting out.That is the class of a master .

Lara can look breathtaking but also with his high backlift can look very, very ordinary when he gets beaten. Tendulkar's batting technique, his stance, his backlift are all perfect. Its a work of art when Tendulkar bats, but its pure authority when Lara does.Exactly

So summing up, in complete top form, I'd have Tendulkar over Lara any time.personal preference. I cant decide who I would rather watch when they are on top.

 

[delkap]

Oh how quickly people forget....

1998, Sharjah against Australia in the desert, amongst the sandstorm, Sachin's innings was one of the best ODI innings I have ever seen.

When in complete top form and that includes being in fifth gear, Sachin eclipses Lara so easily.

The beauty about Tendulkar's batting that not many people see is his adaptability towards a situation.

He's got such a good defensive arsenal despite having one of the best offensive array of shots in cricket.

Just because he's not that aggressive now doesn't mean he's not as good as he once was. It takes a lot of skill, guts and a lot of cunning and intelligence to change his game.

I think the fact that because Lara has made 400 and 375 and so on cloud people's judgement when rating him and Tendulkar. But as Langeveldt pointed out, guys like Tendulkar and Dravid and Hayden have been making more consistent scores and have better averages than Lara despite Lara's three or four 'monster' innings.

There is no disputing Lara's greatness, but if your looking at both Lara and Tendulkar on top form with not a care in the world, Tendulkar's batting has more of the genius factor about his batting.

Lara can look breathtaking but also with his high backlift can look very, very ordinary when he gets beaten. Tendulkar's batting technique, his stance, his backlift are all perfect. Its a work of art when Tendulkar bats, but its pure authority when Lara does.

So summing up, in complete top form, I'd have Tendulkar over Lara any time.

I totally agree with you !!
Tendulkar is the best of modern era (if not all times, just IMO)

 

[delkap]

Whats gonna be interesting is, The "Brian Lara 10,000 Runs thread" will probably hv 100 posts even before Lara gets to 10,000 runs
I find that funny...

 

[Arrow]

that really is a stupid comment......look at laras record from 96-00 and you'll see why at the time he went from being a great to just another good player(his average fell from 60 to around 47). of course since then hes done a lot to pull that back but theres no way you can tell me that hes been 'great' for over a decade.
1990 24.50
1992 32.50
1993 58.60
1994 71.14
1995 67.89
1996 25.11
1997 40.90
1998 43.43
1999 59.43
2000 29.24
2001 63.94
2002 35.10
2003 74.67
2004 67.31

contrast that with someone like dravid, the only time his average in a year fell below 45 was in his debut year. as underrated as you can get IMO.

No,you reasoning is just stupid and slanted.
No player is devoid of form slumps and his FEW disappointing seasons are surely offset by his many phenomenal ones dont you think?
Lara soared to the heights of greatness a decade ago and hes still hitting those heights today.The longer your at the top of the castle the harder it is to stay there and guys like hayden and dravid have only just begun in this regard.

You also seem to be ignoring one day cricket which is the other "part" of the game,and which is an important barometer when judging a player.
Lara has proved to be a master in both forms of the game something which dravid hasnt been.Hes a very good one day player but not great.

As an overall player lara is clearly better.

 

[Deja moo]

You also seem to be ignoring one day cricket which is the other "part" of the game,and which is an important barometer when judging a player.
Lara has proved to be a master in both forms of the game something which dravid hasnt been.Hes a very good one day player but not great.

As an overall player lara is clearly better.

What ??

Dravid averages 39.9 in ODI cricket while Lara averages 42 or something .Whats the big difference ?