Someone had pointed out this earlier on this forum. I dunno if Lara can be called inconsistent. His case is unique. For first 5 years of his career, when he played some of the best attacks in the game, he was Smith-level in average (60+ average) and consistency. He had at least one 50+ score in 11 or 12 of his first 13 Test matches. If you ignore his debut match against Wasim-Waqar-Imran, where he missed scoring 50 by 6 runs, I think he scored at least one 50 or 100 in each and every Test match for the next dozen or so Test matches. This included Test matches against Australia, against Donald, against W & W at their absolute peak etc. That’s extraordinary consistency.
Very similar Smith-level consistency and performances (60+ average) also came in last 5 years of Lara’s career as well. Having 500+ run series against Australia, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka etc.
It’s the middle 5 years of Lara’s career - exactly 5 years from 1996 Aus series till 2001 Aus series - which become Lara’s bugbear. He was Hooperish level abysmal (stats-wise) during this time, averaging in mid-30s.
Most importantly It wasn’t like he was failing only against great attacks during this time, he failed against ALL attacks during this time. He averaged in low 30s against Sri Lanka & England too during this time, and neither had a really great attack at that time.
Of all the Test series he played during this time, only on a couple of occasions did he have a series average of 50+. That shows how pathetic he was during this time. It was mainly during these 5 years that McGrath got him a huge number of times.
From 2002 onwards, although Lara played 15 or 16 innings against McGrath, McGrath got him just once or twice.
Irony is - Lara’s greatest ever series - came slap-bang in the middle of his lowest 5 years of his career.
Basically Lara had 2 extraordinarily long peaks between an extraordinarily long valley. For whatever reason, most people judge Lara only by the middle part or the failed part of Lara’s career, a part which includes his extraordinary 98-99 Aus series and his several failures. Hence the tag of inconsistent, failure against quality fast bowling etc. Lara’s failure period also almost perfectly overlapped with Tendulkar’s most successful period (albeit against less than great attacks).
Look down deep enough, Lara wasn’t inconsistent. Not even when compared to Tendulkar.
It’s interesting that, at the end of the day, the frequency with which Lara scored 50+ runs in Test cricket was nearly the same as Tendulkar’s. It’s a good measure of how consistent Lara ended up being overall in his career. The frequency with which he got out to McGrath/Donald too in Test cricket is the same as the frequency with which Tendulkar got out to these great bowlers.
Last edited:
