Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Slifer]

So even with the so called mid career slump, Lara still somehow managed to end with a record very similar to Sachin. Why is that when Sachin was so much greater and has a higher proportion of not outs?? Because Lara also hit higher highs than Sachin could ever dream of. Even considering his ownage by McGrath in 1997, Lara more than returned the favor in 1999 and somewhat in 2003 and 2005.

Subs, I'd like you to tell me one great atg fast bowler (who both Sachin and Lara faced) that Sachin dominate for an entire series? You can't. How many 700 runs series does Sachin have? 600? Fine 500? Zero. Has Sachin ever scored twin 100s in a test? Any triples? And quadruples? No, no and no. These are also things other greats have achieved some haven't and some have but Lara did all of the above. Let's see did any of Viv, Sachin, Sobers, Hobbs ? Now i don't consider Lara the 2nd best nor is he better than the likes of Hobbs, Sachin, Smith etc but this notion that he isn't great or isn't in the same rung as the Vivs and Sachins is nonsense.

 

[subshakerz]

So even with the so called mid career slump, Lara still somehow managed to end with a record very similar to Sachin. Why is that when Sachin was so much greater and has a higher proportion of not outs?? Because Lara also hit higher highs than Sachin could ever dream of. Even considering his ownage by McGrath in 1997, Lara more than returned the favor in 1999 and somewhat in 2003 and 2005.

Subs, I'd like you to tell me one great atg fast bowler (who both Sachin and Lara faced) that Sachin dominate for an entire series? You can't. How many 700 runs series does Sachin have? 600? Fine 500? Zero. Has Sachin ever scored twin 100s in a test? Any triples? And quadruples? No, no and no. These are also things other greats have achieved some haven't and some have but Lara did all of the above. Let's see did any of Viv, Sachin, Sobers, Hobbs ? Now i don't consider Lara the 2nd best nor is he better than the likes of Hobbs, Sachin, Smith etc but this notion that he isn't great or isn't in the same rung as the Vivs and Sachins is nonsense.

My friend, I put Tendulkar in the top five and Lara in the top ten. I never said he isn't great so I don't know why you are triggered.

I think we all acknowledge that Tendulkar and Lara are close. That Lara's side is based on his magnificent career highs of domination and skill against spin whereas Tendulkar it's with general consistency and longevity and all-round technique. We don't need to rehash this.

My only new point is that Lara doesn't belong in the top tier of best ever, best 5 or so after Bradman, since he unlike those he had an unusually bad slump based on his own unprofessionalism where his entire status as an ATG was at risk, whereas with the others their all-time greatness once established was never in question.

 

[Slifer]

There are no hypotheticals.

I just said that Lara had a worse career low than the other top tiers and it put his ATG status at risk. Do you deny that? His average had dropped 12 points, he was getting owned everywhere he toured, etc.

We still count Tendulkar's slump but it was objectively not as bad as Lara and was induced by injuries, not a bad attitude.

Btw, Lara is a top tenner for me. I loved watching him bat but I am not biased against him.

Umm we don't count injuries around here otherwise you may as well ignore the entirety of 2002 for Lara. And yes, after the RSA tour we were concerned about Lara but then he went and smote the crap out of McWarne so I knew he still had it. He followed that up with crap series away to Oz and Eng but most of us knew he was carrying injuries and was getting in his own way and sooner or later he'd sort it out. And sort it out he did starting in SL in 2001,
after Gary Sobers suggested he play more straight.

Bit think about it, even with a so called unprecedented slump, him and Sachin still ended up with similar records. If I'm not mistaken, they both crossed 10k runs in the exact same number of innings and Sachin crossed Lara’s run total in more innings. Why is that? Care to explain....

 

[ankitj]

Highs carry more value than lows.

 

[subshakerz]

Umm we don't count injuries around here otherwise you may as well ignore the entirety of 2002 for Lara. And yes, after the RSA tour we were concerned about Lara but then he went and smote the crap out of McWarne so I knew he still had it. He followed that up with crap series away to Oz and Eng but most of us knew he was carrying injuries and was getting in his own way and sooner or later he'd sort it out. And sort it out he did starting in SL in 2001,
after Gary Sobers suggested he play more straight.

It wasn't just the poor form, it was poor attitude as well in that period for which he got a lot of flak. Getting out needlessly taking risks or getting out to the same shots, etc. I mean, he had eight straight tests against Donald and the 2Ws in which he struggled. You can hand waive them away if you like but I haven't seen other top tiers look that bad.

Aside from the 99 series, he was clearly struggling with consistency and like Kohli, it caused a major dent to his reputation.

Bit think about it, even with a so called unprecedented slump, him and Sachin still ended up with similar records. If I'm not mistaken, they both crossed 10k runs in the exact same number of innings and Sachin crossed Lara’s run total in more innings. Why is that? Care to explain....

So Tendulkar and Lara are close overall as Tendulkar ended with a dip at the end due to age like most other ATGs whereas Lara finished with a flourish. Great, credit to Lara, but doesn't change that nadir.

Tendulkar got greedy and should have ended his career after the 2011 WC with his fat 56 average and then the Lara-Tendulkar debate would be closed forever.

 

[Slifer]

My friend, I put Tendulkar in the top five and Lara in the top ten. I never said he isn't great so I don't know why you are triggered.

I think we all acknowledge that Tendulkar and Lara are close. That Lara's side is based on his magnificent career highs of domination and skill against spin whereas Tendulkar it's with general consistency and longevity and all-round technique. We don't need to rehash this.

My only new point is that Lara doesn't belong in the top tier of best ever, best 5 or so after Bradman, since he unlike those he had an unusually bad slump based on his own unprofessionalism where his entire status as an ATG was at risk, whereas with the others their all-time greatness once established was never in question.

Likewise, there are some who'd put him in the top 5 because: A he's not the only one who has been through a slump and B he did some extraordinary things no other batman has.

Sachin, in his last 30 tests or so averaged 36 if I'm not mistaken and he was playing the likes of the WI, NZ, Eng with zero atg bowlers. Contrast that with Lara, who's slump came against the WWs and Donald and McGrath; all top tier attacks.

In a given series Sachin might give you consistency but Lara will give you some schitt scores but also a few mammoth innings. And at the end of the day, they'd both end up aggregating the same amount of runs in that series. I'm speaking in general btw.

 

[subshakerz]

Likewise, there are some who'd put him in the top 5 because: A he's not the only one who has been through a slump and B he did some extraordinary things no other batman has.

Sachin, in his last 30 tests or so averaged 36 if I'm not mistaken and he was playing the likes of the WI, NZ, Eng with zero atg bowlers. Contrast that with Lara, who's slump came against the WWs and Donald and McGrath; all top tier attacks.

In a given series Sachin might give you consistency but Lara will give you some schitt scores but also a few mammoth innings. And at the end of the day, they'd both end up aggregating the same amount of runs in that series. I'm speaking in general btw.

You are missing my point. Tendulkar's late career slump was 23 tests and again, mainly age induced. Nobody at that point had any doubt he was going to end up among the top batsmen ever regardless of not scoring because he was stretching his career.

Lara's mid career slump was 47 tests in his prime years. His average dropped 12 pts and before 2001 SL series he didn't look like a bonafide ATG. That sort of low is not shared by the other top tiers. They always maintained a higher stature.

In other words, none of the other top tiers became great and then played bad enough that their greatness came into question. That is a weakness exclusive to Lara.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Higher high means you have a more chances of winning.

 

[Slifer]

It wasn't just the poor form, it was poor attitude as well in that period for which he got a lot of flak. Getting out needlessly taking risks or getting out to the same shots, etc. I mean, he had eight straight tests against Donald and the 2Ws in which he struggled. You can hand waive them away if you like but I haven't seen other top tiers look that bad.

Aside from the 99 series, he was clearly struggling with consistency and like Kohli, it caused a major dent to his reputation.


So Tendulkar and Lara are close overall as Tendulkar ended with a dip at the end due to age like most other ATGs whereas Lara finished with a flourish. Great, credit to Lara, but doesn't change that nadir.

Tendulkar got greedy and should have ended his career after the 2011 WC with his fat 56 average and then the Lara-Tendulkar debate would be closed forever.

It wouldn't. Nice try. Lara could've retired with a 55+ average if he was selfish like Chanders. And secondly both Lara and Sachin crossed 10k runs in the exact same number of innings ie 195. Sachin crossed at an average of 57 and Lara 53. That just goes to show that averages doesn't always equate to more production.

 

[Slifer]

You are missing my point. Tendulkar's late career slump was 23 tests and again, mainly age induced. Nobody at that point had any doubt he was going to end up among the top batsmen ever regardless of not scoring because he was stretching his career.

Lara's mid career slump was 47 tests in his prime years. His average dropped 12 pts and before 2001 SL series he didn't look like a bonafide ATG. That sort of low is not shared by the other top tiers. They always maintained a higher stature.

My friend Lara's slump came vs some of the best attacks ever. Attacks that Sachin also failed against. Sachin's slumps came against the likes of Siddle and Chris Martin.

And again, even in the midst of his slump, we all thought Lara was struggling but we never doubted his greatness or that he'd bounce back.

 

[subshakerz]

It wouldn't. Nice try. Lara could've retired with a 55+ average if he was selfish like Chanders.

Now who is doing hypotheticals?

 

[subshakerz]

My friend Lara's slump came vs some of the best attacks ever. Attacks that Sachin also failed against. Sachin's slumps came against the likes of Siddle and Chris Martin.

Lara failing against ATGs in his prime is not a point in his favor. Sachin failing in his final years is irrelevant since he already had accomplished what he needed to.

And again, even in the midst of his slump, we all thought Lara was struggling but we never doubted his greatness or that he'd bounce back.

We all thought Lara was struggling but 5 years and 47 tests is a hell of a long slump.

 

[Slifer]

Now who'se doing hypotheticals?

So you're just going to ignore the rest of what I wrote. And you're the one who opened up the can of worms with: " He just didn't give off the greatness vibes that Tendulkar ."

 

[subshakerz]

So you're just going to ignore the rest of what I wrote. And you're the one who opened up the can of worms with: " He just didn't give off the greatness vibes that Tendulkar ."

Yes because Tendulkar maintained his greatness minimum standards whereas Lara let them slip.

 

[Slifer]

Lara failing against ATGs in his prime is not a point in his favor. Sachin failing in his final years is irrelevant since he already had accomplished what he needed to.


We all thought Lara was struggling but 5 years and 47 tests is a hell of a long slump.

1997 to 2000. That's 4 years. And again, even with the so called slump him and SRT both crossed 10k in the exact same number of innings and Sachin crossed Lara's finally tally in more innings. What do you make of that since Lara wasn't close to being as great as Sachin according to you.

 

[subshakerz]

1997 to 2000. That's 4 years. And again, even with the so called slump him and SRT both crossed 10k in the exact same number of innings and Sachin crossed Lara's finally tally in more innings. What do you make of that since Lara wasn't close to being as great as Sachin according to you.

No the slump started with the Aus series in 96 and ended before the SL series in 2001. Around 5 years.

The rest I already explained that Lara and Tendulkar are close overall after Lara rebounded.

 

[Slifer]

Yes because Tendulkar maintained his greatness minimum standards whereas Lara let them slip.

Huh? Afaic, just a case of different trajectories. Sachin started off slow, steadily climbed hit a plateau and then slumped towards the end. Lara started off high, hit a slump and rebounded with another high. Sachin started off ordinary and became great and never let it slip. Lara started great, hit a ordinary patch then rebounded to greatness again. Different trajectories but both still ended up literally at the same (more or less) end goal.

 

[Coronis]

In other words, none of the other top tiers became great and then played bad enough that their greatness came into question. That is a weakness exclusive to Lara.

Oh yeah I totally remember everyone saying this about him…… in that alternate universe right?

 

[honestbharani]

Great then just stay silent then.

Nope.

Coz....




Lara > Sachin

 

[Adorable Asshole]

@subshakerz are you serious or just trolling for **** and giggles?