tooextracool said:
wow so his average dropped from 60 odd to 30 odd at the start of his career, really i mean that must be inconsistent!
viv richards wasnt the most consistent player, no he was not, but there were very few people questioning his greatness at any point of his career, as well almost everyone was for lara from 96-00.
As I said, Richards' greatness was never questioned because he was part of an era of dominance.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean Lara from 96 to early 99, as he averaged 71.30 between March of 1999 and March of 2000. That doesn't help your argument much. Granted that in the period of 1996 to 1999, he did average a bit under 38, which is hardly great.
Let's compare them on another basis. Since his milestone of 291, Viv Richards averaged 46.52 in his last 99 Tests. In Lara's last 95 matches, ie those since his 375, he averages 51.85. You may say that it's inflated by 400*, though that should not be taken away from him. However, for the sake of it all, the average is 49.39 in the last 95 matches, not including 400*.
Both batsmen have undoubtedly had their high points and some would argue Lara's to be higher. Also, both have had their low points. Your argument seems to be that Lara's low point was lower than anything Viv Richards every expressed. You'd be right too... by 3.25 runs.
Lara's March 1996 to February 1999 stretch of poor form was 28 matches in length over which he scored 1812 runs at 37.75. Similarly Viv Richards had a stretch of 29 Tests from 1981 to 1985 during which he scored 1610 runs in 7 less innings than Lara at an average of 40.25. Still better than many players, but a trough just about comparable with Lara's. Once can also consider that in Viv Richards' period, he had individual scores of 178 and 208, which do add to the suggestion of inconsistency.