Brian Lara, How Good Was He?

[The Cryptkeeper]

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.

 

[Doss]

20 of 34 centuries over 150. That is an insane 'daddy hundred' conversion rate.

 

[STFU Donnie]

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.

 

[Pippen94]

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

 

[Doss]

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.

 

[Pippen94]

?

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

 

[STFU Donnie]

As I said, ad nauseam.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

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.

 

[Pippen94]

As I said, ad nauseam.

You did use runs per innings to rate Lara over rest

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

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.

 

[The Passenger]

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.

 

[PhatBoy]

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

 

[Kyptastic]

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.

 

[Electronic_Renaissance]

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.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

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.

 

[Electronic_Renaissance]

Today is 22 years to the day of Lara's 153* against Australia in Barbados. Ranked by Wisden in 2001 as the second best test innings of all time. #1 was The Don's 270 against England in Melbourne.

I wonder where Stokes innings would now rank on the list, got to be up there.

 

[PhatBoy]

Today is 22 years to the day of Lara's 153* against Australia in Barbados. Ranked by Wisden in 2001 as the second best test innings of all time. #1 was The Don's 270 against England in Melbourne.

I wonder where Stokes innings would now rank on the list, got to be up there.

Stokes, Perera and Mayers all put themselves in the top 10-15 discussion in recent years

 

[corbies]

Today is 22 years to the day of Lara's 153* against Australia in Barbados. Ranked by Wisden in 2001 as the second best test innings of all time. #1 was The Don's 270 against England in Melbourne.

I wonder where Stokes innings would now rank on the list, got to be up there.

The 2nd best of 2019 alone.