Just a thought - answer without emotions !

[SJS]

I was just thinking today about Lara and his amazing innings (from a statistical perspective) of 400+ in a test innings, 501* in a first class innings, even 375 to beat a record of three decades ago !!

Just think for a moment that Lara had done everything else in his career but this.

That Sobers record of 365 still stood (or maybe Hayden's with 380)

That Hanif 499 remained that tantalising world record it had always been.

Would we have thought of Lara any differently ?

Would his legendry status been lowered ?

Is that sense of amazement that Lara's mention today brings to the cricket afficiando have been not quite the same ?

I suspect it just might have been the case but its difficult to be sure.

I have tried looking at it differently.

Had Steve Waugh, in addition to his great deeds, also scored a 375 and a 400 in tests (not to mention an unbeated 500 in FCC) how would the world have looked at him ?

 

[Pratters]

I think each achievment adds to the legend.

Each feat adds to the layers of stories surrounding the man.

The high scores, the match winning innings all add and make him what he is - a true cricketing legend.

For example had he not scored the 400, he would still be regarded as awesome for his 375 and his inning vs Australia and all the other stuff. The 400 adds more..

 

[Top_Cat]

"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*

 

[Dasa]

"What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

...and answering the question, I think many would see Lara differently (and maybe think less of him) had he not overtaken Sobers' 365* and Hanif Mohammad's 499.

 

[age_master]

interesting topic

i must agree that it adds to his legendary status, but if he still managed to average what he does without scoring those particular scores he would still be the best batsman of the last 15 years.

 

[BoyBrumby]

They are all eye-catching scores, no doubt. However it should be noted that all were made in drawn games, I think Lara's true worth has been shown in other innings where he has almost carried the Windies' batting single-handed. The big scores are window-dressing.

To draw an analogy, Wally Hammond beat The Don's 334 on the tour of NZ in 32/33. Does the fact Sir Donald (then in his prime & to play test cricket until 1948) failed to regain his record tarnish his achievements in anyone's eyes?

 

[marc71178]

It is an interesting scenario. I'd say that probably we wouldn't think of him as quite the same if he hadn't done that.

Correct me if I'm wrong but pre-375 he'd had a couple of top-notch knocks, but when Warwickshire announced they'd signed him as Prabhakar wasn't coming (not a bad exchange that!), I don't remember being that overwhelmed by it.

 

[Mister Wright]

If Lara had of got those World Records and not done much else then maybe he wouldn't be held in as high regard. Even now that he has those records he is not considered the best batsman of all time, nor is he considered the best batsman of his era. He is always being compared with the likes of Tendulkar, Waugh & Ul-Haq.

 

[honestbharani]

I think his status would still be the same in my eyes... I rate him high for carrying the Windies batting alone for such a long time and still playing pretty darn positive cricket and I don't the records have anything to do with it... To me, those are just the icing on the cake.

 

[SJS]

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.

 

[andyc]

"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*

*beige alert.. if anything happens, tell my wife i said hello*

 

[Richard]

They are all eye-catching scores, no doubt. However it should be noted that all were made in drawn games

It's hardly likely that any game where someone can score that many is going to be anything else, is it?

 

[marc71178]

In the 5 matches where one of the top 5 innings was made, 3 have been results.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I would still rate him as the best batsman of my time, certainly. I haven't seen any of his record knocks aside form the 400 on extended highlights, and I rate him highly more for some of his other amazing performances, such as the twin centuries against Australia in 1999, particularly the match-winning 153*.

 

[Richard]

In the 5 matches where one of the top 5 innings was made, 3 have been results.

And 1 of those was against a non-Test-class side, 1 was a six-dayer and the other was a timeless Test.
Especially in the case of the timeless Test, the fact that there was a result means nothing whatsoever.
Out of the 15 Test triple-centuries that have been made in time-limited games against Test-class opposition, 11 of those Tests have been drawn. 1 of those was the 6-dayer (Sobers) and 2 of the others were landslide victories (Gooch and Inzamam-Ul-Haq). The only one with any significance to the game was the Sehwag 309, and of course we all know about the 2 dropped catches in the 70s there.

 

[social]

The 501 is largely irrelevant.

400 and 375 are great achievements, of course, but do little to colour my judgement of him.

The glorious hundreds that he has scored against Aus, Sa, and SL in Sl in pressure situations are a better indicator of his quality.

 

[Top_Cat]

The only one with any significance to the game was the Sehwag 309, and of course we all know about the 2 dropped catches in the 70s there.

Indeed we do now. Thank you Richard for edumacating the poor, un-illuminated masses of Cricket Web.

 

[Top_Cat]

The 501 is largely irrelevant.

400 and 375 are great achievements, of course, but do little to colour my judgement of him.

The glorious hundreds that he has scored against Aus, Sa, and SL in Sl in pressure situations are a better indicator of his quality.

Yep, my thoughts too. Take away the 400, the 501* and the 375, I'd still think Lara was a cricketning God. Ever since I saw that 277, w-o-w........ Innings like that, his 153 and 213 in 2000, his 132 in 1996, etc., etc., etc........ you get the point. He's a great player no matter what else he does from here.

 

[Richard]

Indeed we do now. Thank you Richard for edumacating the poor, un-illuminated masses of Cricket Web.

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

 

[marc71178]

I think whether he knew about them or not, he didn't actually care about them.