Brian Lara, How Good Was He?

Remove this Banner Ad

Hard to say, and this is why these comparisons are so hard. Tendulkars highest test score was 248*, we all know Lara's. Tendulker had around 20 more hundreds but played around 70 more tests.

Another thing to take into account. The amount of pressure on Tendulker with around 1b people watching his every move. To handle that sort of pressure is unbelievable. Lara didn't have that pressure, but he did carry a less than average West Indies team for a long time.

Lara had 3 test scores that went well past Tendulkar’s best of 248.

400
375
277

20 of Lara’s 34 test tons were scores of over 150.

It may have looked like he could throw his wicket away with a loose shot but the reality is that those loose shots more often than not sent the ball flying into or over the fence at great velocity.

In my time I think I have only seen 3 batsmen who could instil a fear into an opposition such that they could turn a match on it’s head so rapidly that you wouldn’t know what happened. Lara, Richards and Gilchrist. Their destructive power at test level was immense.
 
Of the three players who form the major focus of this discussion, Lara's average most definitely benefited the least from not out innings. He had only 6 in a total of 232 innings. Tendulkar had 33 in 329 innings and Ponting 29 in 287.

Just looking at their raw runs per innings numbers we get:

Lara 51.52
Tendulkar 48.39
Ponting 46.61

I know we have debated ad nauseam the whole not outs/average thing. I just wanted to point out another factor that, IMO, puts Lara at the head of these three.

Oh, and to save anyone looking it up, Waugh's was 42.02.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Of the three players who form the major focus of this discussion, Lara's average most definitely benefited the least from not out innings. He had only 6 in a total of 232 innings. Tendulkar had 33 in 329 innings and Ponting 29 in 287.

Just looking at their raw runs per innings numbers we get:

Lara 51.52
Tendulkar 48.39
Ponting 46.61

I know we have debated ad nauseam the whole not outs/average thing. I just wanted to point out another factor that, IMO, puts Lara at the head of these three.

Oh, and to save anyone looking it up, Waugh's was 42.02.

Not outs hurt average
 
?

Not outs help your average.

If I’ve made 4000 runs and been dismissed 100 times, I average 40. But if I’ve only been dismissed 80 times, I average 50.

If you're not out means your innings ended prematurely. Steve Waugh scored 14 150's yet only one 200.
Top order batsman have less not outs but generally have higher top scores. The runs you potentially could score with more time at crease is actually greater than any advantage of not out
 
If you're not out means your innings ended prematurely. Steve Waugh scored 14 150's yet only one 200.
Top order batsman have less not outs but generally have higher top scores. The runs you potentially could score with more time at crease is actually greater than any advantage of not out

Michael Bevan likes this.
 
You did use runs per innings to rate Lara over rest

To be fair Lara didn’t have the luxury of having a heap of guys around him to take the pressure off.

Ponting and Tendulkar both had at least 3 or 4 other world-class batsmen to help ease the burden.

Lara had a late model Richardson and Chanderpaul. Otherwise he was largely the Lone Ranger.
 
And the Shiv that supported Lara wasn't as resolute as the Shiv that finished his career.

His average was 44 at the time of Lara's retirement, and in the post-Lara era he averaged 64, scoring 16 tons in 63 tests compared to 14 in 101 to the point of Lara's retirement.
 
An easy albeit speculative way to think about it is to transplant each batsman into the other teams and establish how they’d have fared. Ponting and Tendulkar would have made runs batting anywhere for anyone but it’s doubtful they would have succeeded near as much playing for that West Indies team. I think it goes without saying things would have been easier for BCL in the Indian or Australian teams
 
In my time I think I have only seen 3 batsmen who could instil a fear into an opposition such that they could turn a match on it’s head so rapidly that you wouldn’t know what happened. Lara, Richards and Gilchrist. Their destructive power at test level was immense.

If Rishabh Pant keeps producing like he has this past few months he might join this list.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lara had 3 test scores that went well past Tendulkar’s best of 248.

400
375
277

20 of Lara’s 34 test tons were scores of over 150.

It may have looked like he could throw his wicket away with a loose shot but the reality is that those loose shots more often than not sent the ball flying into or over the fence at great velocity.

In my time I think I have only seen 3 batsmen who could instil a fear into an opposition such that they could turn a match on it’s head so rapidly that you wouldn’t know what happened. Lara, Richards and Gilchrist. Their destructive power at test level was immense.

Totally agree. Maybe my post didn't show it but I'm Lara all the way. 20 of 34 100's over 150 is crazy good. A flashy player does not equal a loose player.
 
Totally agree. Maybe my post didn't show it but I'm Lara all the way. 20 of 34 100's over 150 is crazy good. A flashy player does not equal a loose player.

Yeah mate, it was more a response to the post you were responding to from Gough

Difference between the two for mine was Tendulkar had a discipline that Lara never had. Even if he was on 250 you knew that there was still had an outside chance of Lara having a brain fade and chasing one he shouldn't, by then it was usually the only chance. Tendulkar rarely did that in my memory but it did make him the slightly less dashing batsman in comparison.

For comparison, Tendulkar passed 150 in 19 of his 51 tons. Lara, 20 in 34. So, whilst I can see where Gough is coming from it is actually a bit of a myth. Aesthetically Tendulkar may have looked more secure at the crease (to Gough's point) but if you were going to put money on either one to go large once they had gone past the hundred, the facts say that you'd put your money on Lara every time.
 
Lara is still one of the all time greats. I still have Lara just ahead of Tendulkar and Smith in my opinion. Such was Lara's big appetite to score big....he scored 34 Test centuries...55.8% of them were 150+ scores.
 
What hasn't been discussed is how these three ended their careers.

If we look at the final three calendar years of their careers we find the following numbers:
Lara (31 tests): 3037 runs @ 55.22;
Ponting (28 tests): 1828 runs @ 37.31;
Tendulkar (24 tests): 1389 runs @ 35.61.

I think the feeling was quite rife that Ponting and Tendulkar hung around a bit too long, but it seems Lara went out at this best. In fact, the year before this (ie his 4th last), Lara scored 1344 runs @ 74.67 to give a final four year total of 4381 runs @ 60.01! How many batsmen can claim their final four years to be their most productive?

Awesome numbers.
 
Easily the most exciting batsman of his generation, but of his peers the least reliable.

In saying that, of his peers the most reliable to score a big ton once reaching 100.

He still averaged a 50+ score every 2.8 innings. Pretty consistent.
 
IMHO, the greatest batsman over the past 30 years. I have always rated Barry Richards the best batsman I saw, Brian Lara comes second. I never understood why some people rated Tendulkar ahead of him, but I guess it's all based on what you see, and Lara was awesome. I know there's a lot more to it that statistics, but you had to love the way he broke Garfield Sobers' record that stood for over 30 years, and the moment someone passed him, he broke the record again, and these records were 10 years apart. Top it off with the phenomenal 501* as the highest 1st class score, and you can appreciate what an amazing player he was.

Is Lara still the best batsman of the last 30 years in your opinion?
 
It is very very hard to ignore Smith’s case as to how he stacks up against the likes of Lara and Tendulkar. His numbers really don’t allow for much of it.

If you’re going to delve deeply you can probably say he got off a bit lightly in that he didn’t have to play a lot of cricket against the best combination of his era - the Steyn/Morkel/Philander/Rabada group.

He did make exactly 100 in one match against Steyn, Morkel and Philander so he showed he can do it, so fair play to him. He was probably a little bit blessed in missing out on playing a stack of cricket against them as a group, though I guess.

I think what sticks out for Australian fans or me as a Windies fan who is Australian and so watched all his cricket against the Aussies, is the sheer volume of runs he scored against a cavalcade of gun attacks and generally with little if any support beyond the occasional cameo from Chanderpaul or Richardson early on, and a few others later. Off the top of my head, in series against the Aussies where Lara hit a century I can think of:
Keith Arthurton 92-93
Richardson 92-93
Sherwin Campbell 96-97
Sherwin Campbell 99
Carl Hooper 2001-02
Ramnaresh Sarwan 03
Chanderpaul 03x2
Ganga 03 x2
Darren Bravo at Adelaide in one of the tours where Lara hit a century there - 06-07 maybe?


that’s 11 that I can think of.

So in all the series Lara hit a century, the other top 5 batsmen managed to hit 11 centuries against those attacks, he hit 9. That’s the sort of lone hand he was generally fighting. That raised his stocks for a lot of people
 
For whatever reason I thought Sherwin Campbell was way better than he actually was, maybe I liked his cut shot.
 
For whatever reason I thought Sherwin Campbell was way better than he actually was, maybe I liked his cut shot.

He played a couple of really good innings against the Aussies as mentioned above and he put on that colossal opening partnership with Adrian Griffith against the Kiwis where they made 279(?) for the first wicket and the team were then shot out for something like 340 - Gough that would have to be the Bannerman of partnerships you would think


He did play with some of that typical West Indian ‘what are these things at the bottom of my legs for?’ flair where they just throw their hands at the fast bowlers but he was a nicker
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Brian Lara, How Good Was He?


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top