Is Lara the second best of all time?

[Shoaib87]

Oh really? Let me name some who don't belong in that list:
Garner
Croft
Donald
Nawaz
Imran Khan (Wasim and Waqar are better bowlers)
Ambrose
Holding

He did face better bowlers than those^
He also played on pitches if when used now would be called underprepared and deemed unproper for international level, had hardly any padding (So he was almost literally playing for his life), and at a time when Bodyline was the norm. Also, he had more strain on his body, travelling by ship to and forth is tiring enough. But he also didn't have any professional physicians around to help keep him in shape (And yet he played to his mid-forties).
Also, they weren't as tough on chucking as now, and the balls used to seam and swing more (not so sure about that). So he could be facing bowlers who chucked quicker than Akhtar without a helmet on a deadly pitch with the ball swinging like a bannana. And he averaged 99.94.
He also didn't have the comfort of minnows.

Imran Khan would easily get into any ranking of "top 10 bowlers of alltime".So,How can u say that he is not that great?

 

[nightprowler10]

Imran Khan (Wasim and Waqar are better bowlers)

What do you mean by that? Have you looked at Imran's average?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

What do you mean by that? Have you looked at Imran's average?

Yes, I have. But if you are going to consider Imran, then you have to consider Dev and Hadlee. Considering threating fast bowlers who would maybe slightly trouble Bradman, Imran does not make the list.

 

[Sureshot]

What do you mean by that? Have you looked at Imran's average?

But averages don't mean anything compared to ability.

Graeme Hick averaged 31 in Test Cricket, but is a much better player than that.

Flintoff averages 31 with the ball in Test Cricket but is alot better than that.

List goes on.

 

[sohum]

Generally speaking, the best way to gage a players performance after his career is over is his average. What is the point of being a great player if you can't perform consistently?

 

[jan]

No. The second best batsman of all time is Graeme Pollock.

The second best cricket player of all time is Bradman.

what do you mean 2 nd best bradman was first best cricketer player in the world and one is close to him

 

[andrew_nixon]

what do you mean 2 nd best bradman was first best cricketer player in the world and one is close to him

Was Bradman a great fast bowler, a great finger spinner, a great wrist spinner and a great fielder?

No. Sobers was all those, and he was a great batsman too, which puts him ahead of Bradman in a greatest cricketer list.

Bradman obviously tops the greatest batsman list.

 

[Shoaib87]

But averages don't mean anything compared to ability.

Graeme Hick averaged 31 in Test Cricket, but is a much better player than that.

Flintoff averages 31 with the ball in Test Cricket but is alot better than that.

List goes on.

Grame Hick was good in domestic cricket but crap at international level.

Flintoof has a bowling average of 31 because before mid 2004,he was a very poor bowler.He has just been in great form for year & a half but before that,he was crap.Imran Khan had an excellent average because he remained consistent performer for his team,all through his career & If u aren't consistent,U aren't a "good" or "great" player.

Yes, I have. But if you are going to consider Imran, then you have to consider Dev and Hadlee. Considering threating fast bowlers who would maybe slightly trouble Bradman, Imran does not make the list.

No one can deny that Richard Hadlee was a great fast bowler & but Kapil Dev was a fine but not a great bowler.Kapil Dev is considered to be a legend as an allrounder & not as a bowler while Imran Khan is a legend both as a bowler & as an allrounder.

A lot of people say that averages aren't of much significance then why the hell do u guys consider Bradman as the best batsman of alltime?The answer is

"Only because of his average"
Then why aren't u people ready to accept the greatness of a great player from another country?

 

[andrew_nixon]

Then why aren't u people ready to accept the greatness of a great player from another country?

We are.

Imran Khan is a great player, there is no doubt about that. He only misses out on my all-time World XI as there are already enough all-rounders in it.

But he certainly isn't the greatest of all time. Bradman, Sobers, Pollock, Botham, Hadlee and Grace all come ahead of him in the greatest of all-time list.

 

[Shoaib87]

We are.

Imran Khan is a great player, there is no doubt about that. He only misses out on my all-time World XI as there are already enough all-rounders in it.

But he certainly isn't the greatest of all time. Bradman, Sobers, Pollock, Botham, Hadlee and Grace all come ahead of him in the greatest of all-time list.

U can't deny the fact that he was much better than Botham & Hadlee (both as bowler & an allrounder).

 

[andrew_nixon]

U can't deny the fact that he was much better than Botham & Hadlee (both as bowler & an allrounder).

It's a fact is it?

No it isn't it is your OPINION. My OPINION is that Sobers, WG Grace, Ian Botham and Richard Hadlee are all better all-rounders than Imran Khan.

Imran Khan is probably the better bowler of the 5, but definitely not the best all-rounder.

Is Imran Khan one of the greatest batsman of all time? Sobers is.
Is Imran Khan a world class finger spin bowler? Sobers is.
Is Imran Khan a world class wrist spin bowler? Sobers is.
Is Imran Khan regarded as one of the best close to the wicket fielders in history? Sobers is.

Imran Khan is a great all-rounder, no doubt about it. But the best? Anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that title goes to Garfield Sobers.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

A lot of people say that averages aren't of much significance then why the hell do u guys consider Bradman as the best batsman of alltime?The answer is

"Only because of his average"

Wrong. Its because of his talent, his mastery over other bowlers, his constant high scoring, his ability to hit out and bat under pressure, his amazing stamina and concentration, all this make him a great batsman.
Averages wise, Micheal Clarke is 4 times the bowler Imran Khan ever was...

U can't deny the fact that he was much better than Botham & Hadlee (both as bowler & an allrounder).

Actually, I can. Botham was clearly the better batsman and fielder and Hadlee is a much better bowler.

 

[Shoaib87]

It's a fact is it?

No it isn't it is your OPINION. My OPINION is that Sobers, WG Grace, Ian Botham and Richard Hadlee are all better all-rounders than Imran Khan.

Yeah,u have your opinion &Ihave mine as U consider the other 4 players better than him while in my opinion,he is better player & greatest allrounder of them all.

Wrong. Its because of his talent, his mastery over other bowlers, his constant high scoring, his ability to hit out and bat under pressure, his amazing stamina and concentration, all this make him a great batsman.

Then what makes u to have such opinions about hiim when U haven't watched a single match in which he played.Its definitely his records & average which tells u all about this.

Averages wise, Micheal Clarke is 4 times the bowler Imran Khan ever was...

The "average" theory applies on regular bowlers only & not those on make-shift ones & its accepted world over.

Actually, I can. Botham was clearly the better batsman and fielder and Hadlee is a much better bowler.

In my opinion,Imran was a better batsman than Botham because Imran not only has better stats than him but also because beefy was a "hit & miss" sort of batsman(without denying that he is one of the gratest allrounders of alltime) while Imran was definitley a better bowler tha Hadlee.

 

[zreh]

Forget Bradman being the greatest. He's 3rd on my list.
No disrespect to Sir Bradman, but he played agaisnt bowlers who my grandma could hit a century off. There was less swing, way less talent, no reverse swing, no new technology's we have today to find out where to bowl, and how to bowl properly. Plus Bradman never played an ODI.

Sachin has scored way more overseas 100's and 50's than Lara, he has single handedly rescued India from disastour countless of times, and has near perfect footwork, and every shot there is. Lara can be very inconsistent. His knock of 400 was outstanding, but it was selfish and in no way did it put the west indies in a chance of winning the match

like warne said.... Sachin first, daylight second, Lara third

 

[puddleduck]

I don't think you can call Lara's knock selfish, and by doing so have looked at the innings in completely the wrong context. In a series they had already lost, and were on the verge of losing by their first ever home whitewash (might not have been their first, just first in a long time, or to England) he came up with one of the greatest knocks of all time, and a World Record. If you look at the state of West Indian cricket there was little to no chance of them bowling out England, or for that matter anyone twice in a test match.

Yet Lara went on to hit 400, and with it restored pride and a sense of acheivement to the West Indies cricket fans.

Also the bowlers you claim your gran could have hit a century against were talented enough to execute the infamous "bodyline" series, at pace as well, without protection for the batsman on difficult tracks. By the same token of the lack of technology, Bradman would not have been able to study videos and find out where he was lacking technically, he had to figure it all out for himself.

And finally, of course Warne says that, he has struggled most against Sachin, does Murali not rank Lara highest? Horses for courses