Lara's best innings (Tests)

[sledger]

By all accounts, yesterday's innings was even better than his 196 in the second test.

it was better, in fact that was one of laras finest innings for a very long time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Brian Lara was completely chanceless yesterday. I do feel sorry for those who missed that innings, as it was something truly special. His placement was unbelievable and some of the deliveries he hit for four were good balls. I remember distinctly two boundaries in an Ntini over. He just stood on the back foot and straight drove slightly full deliveries for four. Utter disdain.

 

[SJS]

Brian Lara was completely chanceless yesterday. I do feel sorry for those who missed that innings, as it was something truly special. .

Thanks for the sympathy

 

[SpeedKing]

This guy doesn't like me, every time i watch himand expect him to show his brilliance, he never does. As a result, i have hardly seen a shot in any of these innings listed. Of course, the fact that i have only been following cricket for 2 yeays doesn't help either

 

[pskov]

Brian Lara was completely chanceless yesterday. I do feel sorry for those who missed that innings, as it was something truly special. His placement was unbelievable and some of the deliveries he hit for four were good balls. I remember distinctly two boundaries in an Ntini over. He just stood on the back foot and straight drove slightly full deliveries for four. Utter disdain.

Yeah, the innings yesterday was better than the one in the 2nd test.

I just remember when SA took the second new ball and they were building up how WI would have to batton down and play out the last 10 overs, just try to survive until tomorrow. Andre Nel comes in first delivery of the new ball, a perfectly good delivery just back of a length pitching inline and BANG, Lara effortlessley smashes through cover at a million miles an hour. At that point I was just agog in disbelief.

 

[Slifer]

Wel seeing that the hapless/shameless WI were bundled out for 296 and lara being at the crease when it was 12/3 i guess ill have to revise my rankings a bit. 176 @ # 3

 

[Slifer]

1. 153* vs Aust. '98-'99 @ Kensington Oval, Barbados
2. 213 vs Aust. '98-'99 @ Sabina Park, Jamaica
3. 196 vs RSA. '05 @ Queen's PArk Oval + Trinidad/ 176 vs RSA. '05 @ Kensington Oval, B'dos
4. 277 vs Aust. '92-'93 @ Sydney Cricket grounds
5. 179 vs Eng. '95 @ Kennington Oval, London
6. 132 vs Aust '96-'97 @ Perth
7. 221 vs SL '01 @ Sinhalese, Colombo
8. 400* vs Eng '04 @ ARG, Antigua
9. 202 vs RSA '03 @ Wanderers
10. 375 vs Eng. '94 @ARG, Antigua

 

[Slifer]

Oh yes and in terms of my favorite Lara innings that 277 which i Had on video (GOD help me i lost it!!!)

 

[honestbharani]

I wonder if we will such a brilliant performer for such a mediocre side ever again!

 

[Adamc]

I wonder if we will such a brilliant performer for such a mediocre side ever again!

From the tour thread:

I just had a look at all the matches in which Lara scored 150+, and compared Lara's score against the team score. In those innings (16 of them, including this match), Lara scored a total of 3471 runs, against a team total of 7593: 45.71% of the total team score.
The 'best' score as a percentage of team total was his 375 out of a total of 5/593 (63.24%), though that was an incomplete innings so the results are a bit skewed. The highest percentage in a completed innings was 56.67%, when he scored 221 out of 390 in Sri Lanka. Moreover, the average percentage of team runs in innings of 150+ was 46.60%.

Compare that to Tendulkar for example, who has a similar number of 150+ scores (15). In those 15 innings he has scored 2822 out of a team total of 7974: 35.39%. His highest percentage in a completed innings was 47.15% (248* out of 526 v Bangladesh), and the average percentage of team runs in an innings was 36.14%, again substantially less than Lara.

Not trying to start a Lara v Tendulkar again, just reiterating the alarming extent to which Lara dominates his batting lineup.

The comparison with S. Waugh, who played in a genuinely consistent batting lineup that did not rely on him for most of his career, is even more remarkable. Waugh had 14 150+ scores (with one against all 9 test nations, the only player to do that). In those 14 innings, he scored 2301 runs out of a team total of 7394 - 31.12%. His highest percentage of a team score when scoring 150+ is just 40.61%, against the West Indies in 1999.

The average 150+ score and the average team total in those games:
Lara/West Indies: 216.94/474.96
Tendulkar/India: 188.13/531.6
Waugh/Australia: 164.36/528.14

Some interesting stats.

 

[Richard]

As a West Indian and as a big fan of lara, having just witnessed yet another gem by the prince here are my top ten Lara innings:

1. 153* vs Aust. '98-'99 @ Kensington Oval, Barbados
2. 213 vs Aust. '98-'99 @ Sabina Park, Jamaica
3. 196 vs RSA. '05 @ Queen's PArk Oval, Trinidad
4. 277 vs Aust. '92-'93 @ Sydney Cricket grounds
5. 179 vs Eng. '95 @ Kennington Oval, London
6. 132 vs Aust '96-'97 @ Perth
7. 221 vs SL '01 @ Sinhalese, Colombo
8. 400* vs Eng '04 @ ARG, Antigua
9. 202 vs RSA '03 @ Wanderers
10. 375 vs Eng. '94 @ARG, Antigua

I could be wrong about some of my rankings and i may have missed some innings by the great man. Awaiting responses!!!!

The 375 was unspeakably better than the 400*; an attack of Hoggard, Harmison, Jones, Flintoff and Batty on that pitch was aching to give-up runs.
And how highly would the 153* have been rated had Healy taken the catch? Still a fantastic innings, but given that it would all have been in vain would it be considered as good? I can't help thinking not. As for the Sabina Park innings before - sorry? How is 44 such a good innings. Mark Waugh's uncharecteristic butter-fingers can give some misleading impressions, y'know.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How is 44 such a good innings. Mark Waugh's uncharecteristic butter-fingers can give some misleading impressions, y'know.

Last I checked, the innings was 213, and quite magnificent.

 

[Richard]

Last I checked it was 44 before he did what would normally - especially given that it was Mark Waugh - result in dismissal.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Last I checked it was 44 before he did what would normally - especially given that it was Mark Waugh - result in dismissal.

Yet it didn't, and it was dropped, hence the fielding side did not do enough to get Lara out, hence he wasn't out, hence it has no impact whatsoever on his innings. That's like saying that he didn't deserve any random amount of runs because he scored them off bad balls. Big deal. There are bad balls, fielding errors and so on in every single innings ever seen.

 

[C_C]

Last I checked it was 44 before he did what would normally - especially given that it was Mark Waugh - result in dismissal.

irrelevant.
A spotless innings is a perk but overall negotiation of the bowling, dominance/solidity, etc. can more than makeup for a chance.
And since you go by what is the FINAL score of the batsman, its 213. Not 44.
If you, as a fielder, cannot do your job, then i, as a batsman, should not be held responsible for that.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yet it didn't, and it was dropped, hence the fielding side did not do enough to get Lara out, hence he wasn't out, hence it has no impact whatsoever on his innings. That's like saying that he didn't deserve any random amount of runs because he scored them off bad balls. Big deal. There are bad balls, fielding errors and so on in every single innings ever seen.

Take it from one of many who have tried - don't even try! Just ignore the post, like it deserves.

 

[Slifer]

The 375 was unspeakably better than the 400*; an attack of Hoggard, Harmison, Jones, Flintoff and Batty on that pitch was aching to give-up runs.
And how highly would the 153* have been rated had Healy taken the catch? Still a fantastic innings, but given that it would all have been in vain would it be considered as good? I can't help thinking not. As for the Sabina Park innings before - sorry? How is 44 such a good innings. Mark Waugh's uncharecteristic butter-fingers can give some misleading impressions, y'know.

If u can tell me a GREAT cricket innings where there wasnt a slice of luck or misfield then i should really like to see it. drop or no drop catch 153* and 213 two of the best innings ever .

 

[Richard]

Yet it didn't, and it was dropped, hence the fielding side did not do enough to get Lara out

Which reflects precisely nothing on Lara.

hence he wasn't out, hence it has no impact whatsoever on his innings.

Wrong, it had a massive impact ont he innings. Everyone knows it should have been out.

That's like saying that he didn't deserve any random amount of runs because he scored them off bad balls. Big deal. There are bad balls, fielding errors and so on in every single innings ever seen.

Yep, and none of them have anywhere near as much influence as a dropped catch. Total rubbish is what I'm saying like saying that.

 

[Richard]

irrelevant.
A spotless innings is a perk but overall negotiation of the bowling, dominance/solidity, etc. can more than makeup for a chance.

Rubbish - you'd get the chance to do none of these if you hadn't been dropped before doing it.

And since you go by what is the FINAL score of the batsman, its 213. Not 44.
If you, as a fielder, cannot do your job, then i, as a batsman, should not be held responsible for that.

Yet you should be held responsible for giving them a chance to do their job.
As a batsman, you deserve no credit for the fielders not doing their job.

 

[Richard]

If u can tell me a GREAT cricket innings where there wasnt a slice of luck or misfield then i should really like to see it. drop or no drop catch 153* and 213 two of the best innings ever .

A small slice of luck is totally different to a dropped catch or Umpiring reprieve.
Any innings will involve a few small slices of luck; no good innings involves dropped catches before what is good has been achieved.