Is Lara the second best of all time?

[sohum]

Well, Warne is more or less just another leg-spinner against India.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Bradman-Greatest Batsman, Greatest Cricketer. Anyone who disputes that really knows nothing about the game.

I certainly don't dispute that Bradman was the greatest batsmen ever. But Sobers is in the top 5 batsmen ever, is probably amongst the greatest fielders ever, was a great pace bowler as both an opener and change bowler, was a great finger spinner, and a great wrist spinner.

I'd put a player like that down on my all-time World XI team sheet before someone who, though the best at his job, is essentially only a batsman.

 

[James219]

I certainly don't dispute that Bradman was the greatest batsmen ever. But Sobers is in the top 5 batsmen ever, is probably amongst the greatest fielders ever, was a great pace bowler as both an opener and change bowler, was a great finger spinner, and a great wrist spinner.

I'd put a player like that down on my all-time World XI team sheet before someone who, though the best at his job, is essentially only a batsman.

Completely agreed, that's what I was trying to get across, the term 'greatest cricketer' refers to all-round performance not just one aspect of the game. It's clear that Sobers was the best cricketer of all time because of his ability to cover all areas of the game so brilliantly.

 

[angryangy]

Well, Warne is more or less just another leg-spinner against India.

The point is, that 241 n.o. turned his averaged in Australia from humble to impressive.

 

[ronny_kingsley]

I certainly don't dispute that Bradman was the greatest batsmen ever. But Sobers is in the top 5 batsmen ever, is probably amongst the greatest fielders ever, was a great pace bowler as both an opener and change bowler, was a great finger spinner, and a great wrist spinner.

I'd put a player like that down on my all-time World XI team sheet before someone who, though the best at his job, is essentially only a batsman.

It also helps that Bradman was an Aussie ??????? SObers or anyone for that matter dont stand upto "THE DON".

The point is, that 241 n.o. turned his averaged in Australia from humble to impressive.

Sachin has been part of a team that has lost to Australia just 3 times out of 7 series. Cant be said about Lara though.

 

[LomWoss]

Awahahahaha

I love it when people talk about this sort of thing, it is so subjective. But all you ever hear is Bardman this and Bradman that. The question you have to ask is this, with the amount of cricket that most test players play today, would Bradman have had a 99 average? I think that he is a really talented batsman, but then so are Lara and Tendulker. I know that they come from different era's and that is probably why people have these arguments about them. Would he have really been that good if he had played as much cricket? It seems to be well known and probably documented that because of all the cricket that players play today, they are not always at their peek. Based on this, would Lara have been as good as Bradman back in his day? Again this is just an opinion so don't go flaming now. I just wanted to ask the question as i think that there are a lot of great cricketers in the world today and from past era's and that to compare them directly and on stats is not the right way. Bradman may have been the man of his time, but I think that at the moment Lara and Tendulker are definitely fighting for that right in our era.

 

[cricket_lover]

Fair point. It is hard for us to estimate the kind of attack Bradman played, the pressure for him to perform, and overall...how different, cricket was during those days.
Can we compare that to today's standards? May be not.
Statistically, Bradman is the greatest.
From other POV's, we can say Tendulkar and to an extent Lara has huge pressure on them to perform and have done so successfully for a long time. That will certainly put them among the top batsmen ever, but statistically, they cannot get anywhere close to Don.

You will need to consider other great batsmen..like G. Pollock, Viv Richards, Sunny, Greenidge, Barry Richards etc.

 

[puddleduck]

Sachin has been part of a team that has lost to Australia just 3 times out of 7 series. Cant be said about Lara though.

Sorry but that's just rubbish, Sachins had players of the calibre of Dravid, Sehwag, Kumble, and on and on...

All Laras ever had is a crab (read Chanderpaul) The very fact that Lara manages to score so highly despite having a team that firstly doesn't support him with their batting, and follows it up by not having the ability to take 10 wickets, is mighty impressive that he even scores any runs.

I'm not saying Lara is better than Sachin, nor Sachin is better than Lara, it is an impossible question to answer, as it is entirely subjective. What I find hilarious though, regards to "Warne being an average leg-spinner" and general discussions like this, is that no matter what it always turns into people just saying so and so is rubbish, or can't do this. End of the day, they are the two special batsman of their generation, both have earned their place on the pantheon of sporting greats, and in my humble opinion, when the dust settles and they have retired, it will be Lara's world record scores and calypso batting style that see him remembered first by the majority.. certainly me.

People talk about whether players like the Don would be able to cut it in todays time, in my opinion the answer is yes, for example Sachin would currently be a vegetable if he had the same protection that the Don had when Shoaib smashed him on the head. Different times mean different measures, and no matter what the time to essentially average 100 every innings, means that his levels of concentration as well as his ability to execute his talents has been unrivalled in history. Let's not forget that throughout the years it has been made more and more a batsmans game, so surely people should average more?

edit - Since I haven't answered the question yet, No Lara is not the second best cricketer of all time, but he is certainly in the top two of his generation in terms of batsman.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Its really just a matter of opinion. I can't really judge the batsmen I haven't watched bat like Bradman, Richards, Pollock, etc. But in our modern era, I would rate Lara above any batsman, including Sachin. But that's just because I like Lara's style better than anybody's.

Agreeded. Lara is a lot more fun to watch, although Sachin was breathtaking at times today!

 

[sohum]

Sorry but that's just rubbish, Sachins had players of the calibre of Dravid, Sehwag, Kumble, and on and on...

All Laras ever had is a crab (read Chanderpaul) The very fact that Lara manages to score so highly despite having a team that firstly doesn't support him with their batting, and follows it up by not having the ability to take 10 wickets, is mighty impressive that he even scores any runs.

Lara's had players of the calibre of Walsh and Ambrose, who could destroy any batting opposition in a couple of sessions, if they were in form. In my opinion, it does not make Lara a better batsmen if the rest of the batsmen in his team suck. Don't interpret this as me saying Sachin is better or Lara isn't awesome--relatively speaking, its illogical to claim that person X cannot score runs just because the rest of the players on his team aren't amazing.

I'm not saying Lara is better than Sachin, nor Sachin is better than Lara, it is an impossible question to answer, as it is entirely subjective. What I find hilarious though, regards to "Warne being an average leg-spinner" and general discussions like this, is that no matter what it always turns into people just saying so and so is rubbish, or can't do this. End of the day, they are the two special batsman of their generation, both have earned their place on the pantheon of sporting greats, and in my humble opinion, when the dust settles and they have retired, it will be Lara's world record scores and calypso batting style that see him remembered first by the majority.. certainly me.

People who have watched cricket, I don't think, would separate these two batsmen in their memories. If Lara has got world record scores, Sachin has got a world record of centuries. Apart from that, speaking in sheer numbers, Sachin will be remembered by the majority--he's got a healthy portion of the world's second most populous nation supporting him.

People talk about whether players like the Don would be able to cut it in todays time, in my opinion the answer is yes, for example Sachin would currently be a vegetable if he had the same protection that the Don had when Shoaib smashed him on the head. Different times mean different measures, and no matter what the time to essentially average 100 every innings, means that his levels of concentration as well as his ability to execute his talents has been unrivalled in history. Let's not forget that throughout the years it has been made more and more a batsmans game, so surely people should average more?

You've got too many variables changing--the game has changed, the players have changed. I don't think The Don really had the privilege of facing Shoaib Akhtar-esque bowlers in his time, and hence we cannot draw ANY conclusions as to how he would react to their bowling. Hence, you are wrong in claiming he would survive just as others are wrong in claiming he wouldn't survive. It's all up to hypotheticals...

edit - Since I haven't answered the question yet, No Lara is not the second best cricketer of all time, but he is certainly in the top two of his generation in terms of batsman.

I'd rate him highest in terms of sheer performances as a test cricketer. I believe that Lara's concentration in this generation of cricketers is unparalleled. When one factors that variable out, though, I see Sachin coming into close competition against him as being the best batsmen of our generation. Players like Ponting and Dravid cannot be compared simply because they started playing later--we can attest to their brilliance after looking at their post-Lara/Sachin performances.

 

[puddleduck]

Lara's had players of the calibre of Walsh and Ambrose, who could destroy any batting opposition in a couple of sessions, if they were in form. In my opinion, it does not make Lara a better batsmen if the rest of the batsmen in his team suck. Don't interpret this as me saying Sachin is better or Lara isn't awesome--relatively speaking, its illogical to claim that person X cannot score runs just because the rest of the players on his team aren't amazing.


People who have watched cricket, I don't think, would separate these two batsmen in their memories. If Lara has got world record scores, Sachin has got a world record of centuries. Apart from that, speaking in sheer numbers, Sachin will be remembered by the majority--he's got a healthy portion of the world's second most populous nation supporting him.


You've got too many variables changing--the game has changed, the players have changed. I don't think The Don really had the privilege of facing Shoaib Akhtar-esque bowlers in his time, and hence we cannot draw ANY conclusions as to how he would react to their bowling. Hence, you are wrong in claiming he would survive just as others are wrong in claiming he wouldn't survive. It's all up to hypotheticals...


I'd rate him highest in terms of sheer performances as a test cricketer. I believe that Lara's concentration in this generation of cricketers is unparalleled. When one factors that variable out, though, I see Sachin coming into close competition against him as being the best batsmen of our generation. Players like Ponting and Dravid cannot be compared simply because they started playing later--we can attest to their brilliance after looking at their post-Lara/Sachin performances.

Did you even read my post? At least you made me laugh : It's like you read the first line of each of my paragraphs and either couldn't understand the rest or stopped reading, well whatever makes you happy

 

[James219]

Awahahahaha

I love it when people talk about this sort of thing, it is so subjective. But all you ever hear is Bardman this and Bradman that. The question you have to ask is this, with the amount of cricket that most test players play today, would Bradman have had a 99 average? I think that he is a really talented batsman, but then so are Lara and Tendulker. I know that they come from different era's and that is probably why people have these arguments about them. Would he have really been that good if he had played as much cricket? It seems to be well known and probably documented that because of all the cricket that players play today, they are not always at their peek. Based on this, would Lara have been as good as Bradman back in his day? Again this is just an opinion so don't go flaming now. I just wanted to ask the question as i think that there are a lot of great cricketers in the world today and from past era's and that to compare them directly and on stats is not the right way. Bradman may have been the man of his time, but I think that at the moment Lara and Tendulker are definitely fighting for that right in our era.

But the point is the other leading batsman in Bradman's era still averaged 50-60 at most, which puts him way ahead of them. The leading batsman in our era only average 50-60 at most also. So we still have those exceptional players but one way ahead in all the eras put together. Why couldn't the players of the 20's, 30's and 40's all average 99? Obviously then the variables come in and then the argument changes. It's like saying how would good players today re-act to bodyline, very hard to answer. Everyone in that Australian side averaged poorly, as did Bradman for his standards, but still on of 56.

 

[Sureshot]

Remember Bradman batted on uncovered pitches.

 

[sohum]

Did you even read my post? At least you made me laugh : It's like you read the first line of each of my paragraphs and either couldn't understand the rest or stopped reading, well whatever makes you happy

I just as obviously read your post as you have nothing else to add.

 

[puddleduck]

I do but didn't bother because If you couldn't read each of my paragraphs I saw little point in continuing so here goes

Lara had Ambrose and Walsh for a very small segment of his career, both reaching the end of their careers as he was in theory entering his prime. Besides if you had read the whole thing, you surely saw I was merely rubbishing a claim that because the Indians have been more competitive against the Aussies than the Windies that it makes Sachin a better bat.

Of course Sachin will be remembered most in India, as I have already said in a previous post in this topic, if you ask any West Indian or most Pakistanis they will say Lara, if you ask any/most Indians they will say Sachin. I am referring to the Cricketing World as a whole, not one country, especially the country of origin of one of the players involved... I think that would be common sense?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that Bradman didn't face Akhtar-esque bowling? Obviously averaging 55 through the bodyline series, on nasty wickets, without the added protection means he wouldn't have cut it (being sarcastic ). This being the attack that contained Larwood, a bowler who had both the pace and skill to execute such a plan. I also have claimed nothing, it is merely my opinion so how can I possibly be wrong? Are you "claiming" that it is not my opinion?

My hypotheticals are as follows. Bradmans one and only weakness, if it can be called that, was against flattish deceiving spinners, but then who hasn't mis-read a delivery once in a while?

His hand-eye co-ordination was almost unbelievable, he would spend hours just hitting a golf-ball against a wall with a cricket stump. Anyone with that kind of talent, (it is believed he would have been a success in any Sport he had chosen, that is hypothetical) would, if brought up in todays World would be a massive success, especially considering the dedication and concentration skills he possessed.

As for your last paragraph can't argue with that, it is afterall what I was trying to get across.

Well there you go