Mr Mxyzptlk said:Say what? Because he has to score runs before he runs out of partners. He is human. He can not dispatch the ball to the boundary at will. Oh, and he's also not Kallis. Lara is not one to stand around and preserve his wicket when he's running out of partners.
Common sense dictates that a man whose team gets bowled out in less than 90 overs does not have a whole lot of time to score big runs. Common sense...
The rest of your post is entirely irrelevant to any of my points. I was never attacking not outs.
I didnt accuse him of hanging around and preserving his wicket at the expense of the team- but remaining not out doesnt mean you put yourself above your team. You can still score away and not be dismissed. Infact, you'd see that Tendulkar does this - he scores with the same fluency as Lara when set.
Common sense dictates that if you routinely get to chase 300s and 400s as the target or bat till ya drop coz there is no remote possibility of declaration,you dont miss out on awesome pitches (like how tendulkar missed out batting in the first test ind-pak), etc. you are gonna score more runs per innings. Simply because you are getting the opportunity to bat till you drop. Transplant Lara's career into the 80s team and you'd watch his runs/innings go down and his not outs balloon up. Transplant Tendulkar's career in the current WI team and you'd see his runs/innings go up and his not outs whittle down.
Simply because you got more opportunity to bat till ya drop.
When your team has other accomplished batsmen, you are gonna come in more often when the team needs 40-50 runs for victory or draw is looming. When you are the lone ranger, you bat,bat, bat and bat till ya get out.
Its simple really and it is evidenced in the cricket archives.
Analyse the careers of batsmen - you'd see that when the batting lineup is strong, the same batsman has more not outs than before.
Before Dravid and Laxman came to the scene, Tendulkar had 9 not outs. Since then he's had 12 more in the last 6 years...Therefore, runs/innings is absolutely irrelevant in determining how good or bad a batsman is - for runs/innings primarily depends on how often you get to bat with no timeframe in mind.
PS: You didnt answer my Taylor-Tugga or Deano-Border comments...going by your 'runs/innings' barometer, there is a hair's breadth difference between those two pairs..