I think so he is, behind Bradman, he has played great knocks like that 153 and 213, Lara has also got 8 200s 2 300s, and 1 400s, Lara has a consistancy of getting 40 runs more then any other batsmen.
Lara is ahead of Sachin in our modern era, The fact is, lara takes alot more risks than sachin, is more entertaining and devastating and has a much better strike rate in tests. If sachin and lara had equal stats in tests i would still put lara above sachin because he has such stats despite his aggressive stroke play. But isnt it amazing that of the two, it is the more flamboyant who makes the BIG scores alot more often? Not to mention has played alot more great knocks under alot mroe pressure... Every batsman fails and gets low scores, but lara consitently scores over 40, makes alot of 100's and is very likely to make huge scores as well!
In a totally unrelated fact, he has played some of the highest quality(not quantity) knocks in the history of test cricket. Lara is second only to bradman with those phenomenal gems of innings, sachin is way behind.
Im not saying count off ODI's completely, but the simplest way i can present my point is what ive already said, Tests are about 3 times as important as ODI's when judging batsmen. I say that because the WC is a very important event, and it also says a lot about batsmen. I only mentioned 20/20 to illustrate my point, as u put restrictions on the game its value degenerates. Tests are 10-15 times as valuabl as 20/20. Like u admitted urself AW, odi's were introduced purely for entertainment and revenues.
It would appear that lara has had alot of low scores to go with a 'few' big scores. But ____That-is-a-Myth____. Lara has 2 300's, one 400. Ok u can count that as his rare big scores. But 8 200's to go with 31 100's is no small matter. AND i have said this a million times now, YET you raise the question of lara performing in 1 out of 4 matches.... Lara SCORES OVER 40 RUNS MORE FREQUENTLY THAN ANY OF HIS PEERS. That stat has nothing to do with his huge scores, is there still any doubt?
400 is the only thing that makes lara great?? Does he not also have 31 100's and 8 200's? Does he not also have the most 'great knocks' of any batsman barring bradman (he does) Does he not also score over 40 runs more consistently than any contemporary batsman. Does he also not have the most test runs aggregate? this proves Lara is second best of all time.
Lara is ahead of Sachin in our modern era, The fact is, lara takes alot more risks than sachin, is more entertaining and devastating and has a much better strike rate in tests. If sachin and lara had equal stats in tests i would still put lara above sachin because he has such stats despite his aggressive stroke play. But isnt it amazing that of the two, it is the more flamboyant who makes the BIG scores alot more often? Not to mention has played alot more great knocks under alot mroe pressure... Every batsman fails and gets low scores, but lara consitently scores over 40, makes alot of 100's and is very likely to make huge scores as well!
In a totally unrelated fact, he has played some of the highest quality(not quantity) knocks in the history of test cricket. Lara is second only to bradman with those phenomenal gems of innings, sachin is way behind.
Im not saying count off ODI's completely, but the simplest way i can present my point is what ive already said, Tests are about 3 times as important as ODI's when judging batsmen. I say that because the WC is a very important event, and it also says a lot about batsmen. I only mentioned 20/20 to illustrate my point, as u put restrictions on the game its value degenerates. Tests are 10-15 times as valuabl as 20/20. Like u admitted urself AW, odi's were introduced purely for entertainment and revenues.
It would appear that lara has had alot of low scores to go with a 'few' big scores. But ____That-is-a-Myth____. Lara has 2 300's, one 400. Ok u can count that as his rare big scores. But 8 200's to go with 31 100's is no small matter. AND i have said this a million times now, YET you raise the question of lara performing in 1 out of 4 matches.... Lara SCORES OVER 40 RUNS MORE FREQUENTLY THAN ANY OF HIS PEERS. That stat has nothing to do with his huge scores, is there still any doubt?
400 is the only thing that makes lara great?? Does he not also have 31 100's and 8 200's? Does he not also have the most 'great knocks' of any batsman barring bradman (he does) Does he not also score over 40 runs more consistently than any contemporary batsman. Does he also not have the most test runs aggregate? this proves Lara is second best of all time.
Last edited:
