Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 81 to 103 of 103
  1. #81
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    Toronto
    Runs
    2,222
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I consider Brian Lara as the greatest left-handed batsman of all time. He is a living legend without any doubt.


    BANGLADESH FAN
    RAPTORS FAN
    LIVERPOOL FAN

  2. #82
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    320
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harsh Thakor View Post
    Why Viv above Sachin or even Sobers?Also was not Lara the greater champion in a crisis i,have a better strike rate and more impactful than Sobers?In test cricket did he not overshadow Sachin and Viv?
    test cricket is not all about compiling longer inns in general when all things favour you. You have to be consistant also. Not 500+, 600+ team totals alone win test matches, more often 'very low totals + average totals wins' matches for a fact which in turn proves as to why consistancy is important as well.

    I once did an exercise to compare Sachin & Lara w.r.t 'dominance' & 'consistancy'. Firstly I avoided home record because they are the least important.For a fact, if home records has the same weightage, then Sehwag would have been the best test match batsman ever.

    I took the abroad 100s of both Sachin & Lara vs non minnows for the exercise.I had to make 2 assumptions 1.since Sachin had lot more not outs when compared to Lara, I adjusted 'number of not outs' as the same by providing 30 more runs to each not out score of Sachin . 2. I assumed that Sachin would have maintained the same str: if he went on to score 30 more runs in each of these not out inns. To assume 30 more runs on the average per each inns by maintaining the same str: is highly practical for a batsman who has already scored a 100,isn't it??

    Then i categorsied Sachin's 100s into 2, (a) those same number of 100s as that of Lara having the most str: (b) remaining 100s

    A second categorisation was (a) those same number of 100s as that of Lara having the most numerical value (b) remaining 100s

    For filtering out the difference in level of dominance, I preferred the first categorisation. In those 100s, Lara had only 2.31 runs/inns more by facing 26 balls lesser per inns.

    Then I mixed the remaining 100s of Sachin with other normal scores to measure the difference in consistancy. Here Sachin differed Lara by a huge 9.58 in the vast majority of other inns.

    That's the prime reason as to why Sachin for me is the better test batsman to Lara.

  3. #83
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    26,231
    Mentioned
    856 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    I think Laraís career suffered a bit because he got the two huge milestones early - passing Sobers with 375 in tests, and getting the 501 for Warwks. Like Alexander there were no new worlds left to conquer.

    After that he looked a bit unmotivated at times. In 2000 in England he was a shadow of the player of 1995. Maybe he got a bit worn down by carrying a weak batting line. On the other hand he wasnít a great skipper and arguably demotivated his players, putting more pressure on himself to score.

  4. #84
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by satheesh View Post
    test cricket is not all about compiling longer inns in general when all things favour you. You have to be consistant also. Not 500+, 600+ team totals alone win test matches, more often 'very low totals + average totals wins' matches for a fact which in turn proves as to why consistancy is important as well.

    I once did an exercise to compare Sachin & Lara w.r.t 'dominance' & 'consistancy'. Firstly I avoided home record because they are the least important.For a fact, if home records has the same weightage, then Sehwag would have been the best test match batsman ever.

    I took the abroad 100s of both Sachin & Lara vs non minnows for the exercise.I had to make 2 assumptions 1.since Sachin had lot more not outs when compared to Lara, I adjusted 'number of not outs' as the same by providing 30 more runs to each not out score of Sachin . 2. I assumed that Sachin would have maintained the same str: if he went on to score 30 more runs in each of these not out inns. To assume 30 more runs on the average per each inns by maintaining the same str: is highly practical for a batsman who has already scored a 100,isn't it??

    Then i categorsied Sachin's 100s into 2, (a) those same number of 100s as that of Lara having the most str: (b) remaining 100s

    A second categorisation was (a) those same number of 100s as that of Lara having the most numerical value (b) remaining 100s

    For filtering out the difference in level of dominance, I preferred the first categorisation. In those 100s, Lara had only 2.31 runs/inns more by facing 26 balls lesser per inns.

    Then I mixed the remaining 100s of Sachin with other normal scores to measure the difference in consistancy. Here Sachin differed Lara by a huge 9.58 in the vast majority of other inns.

    That's the prime reason as to why Sachin for me is the better test batsman to Lara.
    I agree with you. I rate Sachin higher than Lara because he was more consistent. The 375 and 400 were world records but did they help West Indies win those test matches?

    75 runs in a victory is better than 150 in a draw or loss. The two weaknesses of Tendulkar were he never made a hundred in a World Cup semi-final or final. He also could not make a hundred against Ambrose, Bishop, Patterson, or Marshall. He also only made one hundred against Walsh in the Nagpur test, in the 1997 test series.

    Viv Richards won many matches for West Indies, Glamorgan, Somerset, and Leeward Islands by scoring fifties and hundreds.

    Also, Lara and Tendulkar faced less quick bowlers than Viv Richards. First-class cricket was much more intense in Viv Richards era.

    Gavaskar has a good record against the West Indian quicks but that is mainly on Indian pitches. He averaged 21 in the 21 innings in which Lillee played against him with no hundreds and 3 fifties.

    I would always rate Viv Richards the second best batsman of all-time after Bradman.


    1. Bradman.
    2. Viv Richards.
    3. Sobers.
    4. Tendulkar.
    5. Lara.

    Hobbs needs to be also considered.

  5. #85
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cricket follower View Post
    I agree with you. I rate Sachin higher than Lara because he was more consistent. The 375 and 400 were world records but did they help West Indies win those test matches?

    75 runs in a victory is better than 150 in a draw or loss. The two weaknesses of Tendulkar were he never made a hundred in a World Cup semi-final or final. He also could not make a hundred against Ambrose, Bishop, Patterson, or Marshall. He also only made one hundred against Walsh in the Nagpur test, in the 1997 test series.

    Viv Richards won many matches for West Indies, Glamorgan, Somerset, and Leeward Islands by scoring fifties and hundreds.

    Also, Lara and Tendulkar faced less quick bowlers than Viv Richards. First-class cricket was much more intense in Viv Richards era.

    Gavaskar has a good record against the West Indian quicks but that is mainly on Indian pitches. He averaged 21 in the 21 innings in which Lillee played against him with no hundreds and 3 fifties.

    I would always rate Viv Richards the second best batsman of all-time after Bradman.


    1. Bradman.
    2. Viv Richards.
    3. Sobers.
    4. Tendulkar.
    5. Lara.

    Hobbs needs to be also considered.
    Correction. Tendulkar made a hundred against Walsh in the 1994/95 test, in Nagpur.

  6. #86
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do not think Bradman would have averaged 99 in tests if he had to face the bowling attacks of the 1970s and 1980s. He might of averaged in the 50s or 60s.

  7. #87
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    26,231
    Mentioned
    856 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cricket follower View Post
    I do not think Bradman would have averaged 99 in tests if he had to face the bowling attacks of the 1970s and 1980s. He might of averaged in the 50s or 60s.
    So why didn’t everyone average 99 in the thirties?

  8. #88
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    So why didn’t everyone average 99 in the thirties?
    I do not think Bradman would have averaged 99 in the 1970s and 1980s. He averaged 56.57 in the 1932/33 test series v England. That is a big dip from 99.

  9. #89
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bradman made 0 against Gilbert playing for Queensland in a Sheffield Shield match, in 1931.
    Ball one from Gilbert Bradman defended.
    Ball two a short lifting delivery clipped the peak of Bradmans cap and he fell on the turf.
    Ball three another fast short one, flew over Bradmans through to the keeper.
    Ball four knocked the bat out of Bradman's hand as he attempted a hook shot.
    Ball five that Bradman faced he attempted another hook shot and succeeded in edging it behind to the keeper, and he was out.

    Article: On this Day: Gilbert floors Bradman.
    https://www.cricket.com.au/news/eddi...and/2014-11-06

    Hence, Bradman was not at ease with pace.

    I do not think he would have averaged 99 in tests facing Jeffrey Thomson, Dennis Lillee, Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, and Andy Roberts on a fast pitch like Perth in the 1970s and 1980s. Possibly could have averaged 50s or 60s against such bowlers.

    Bradmans average dipped from an overall 99 to 56 against just Larwood in the 1932 test series.

  10. #90
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    26,231
    Mentioned
    856 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cricket follower View Post
    I do not think Bradman would have averaged 99 in the 1970s and 1980s. He averaged 56.57 in the 1932/33 test series v England. That is a big dip from 99.
    That series he averaged 56 in featured a fielding formation which was later outlawed. Nobody could cope with it.

    Why didnít more players average 99 in the thirties?

  11. #91
    Debut
    Feb 2005
    Runs
    2,749
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    That series he averaged 56 in featured a fielding formation which was later outlawed. Nobody could cope with it.

    Why didnít more players average 99 in the thirties?
    This is an interesting point and something Iíve mentioned in another discussion about comparing players from different eras - how do we know for sure that the standard of cricket played in 30s/40s/50s is comparable to the standard of cricket played in later decades ?

    A simple point , we have all seen how from 1988 to 1998 to 2008 - in under two decades the West Indies team declined and standard of their cricket went from extraordinary world beaters to ordinary to embarrassingly poor.

    And many followers of the game would agree that the overall standard of international test cricket and calibre of batsmen and fast bowlers was higher in 80s/90s era then today.

    There was a time where the West Indies or Australian first class cricket teams played a higher standard of cricket then arguably majority of the test teams of that era and today.

    And this is hypothetical as a question, but given the above facts who can rule out that there may have been an earlier era where the standard of test cricket was no better then the standard of first class cricket in Zimbabwe today ? And if a majestic batsman like Mohammed Hafeez was born in that era he too could have averaged 70 or 80 (ala Bradman).

    The point is that no doubt Bradman was a great batsman but maybe he was just head and shoulders above in terms of talent then the players of that era? And not necessarily head and shoulders above everyone else in history.

  12. #92
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    26,231
    Mentioned
    856 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Majid Khan View Post
    This is an interesting point and something Iíve mentioned in another discussion about comparing players from different eras - how do we know for sure that the standard of cricket played in 30s/40s/50s is comparable to the standard of cricket played in later decades ?

    A simple point , we have all seen how from 1988 to 1998 to 2008 - in under two decades the West Indies team declined and standard of their cricket went from extraordinary world beaters to ordinary to embarrassingly poor.

    And many followers of the game would agree that the overall standard of international test cricket and calibre of batsmen and fast bowlers was higher in 80s/90s era then today.

    There was a time where the West Indies or Australian first class cricket teams played a higher standard of cricket then arguably majority of the test teams of that era and today.

    And this is hypothetical as a question, but given the above facts who can rule out that there may have been an earlier era where the standard of test cricket was no better then the standard of first class cricket in Zimbabwe today ? And if a majestic batsman like Mohammed Hafeez was born in that era he too could have averaged 70 or 80 (ala Bradman).

    The point is that no doubt Bradman was a great batsman but maybe he was just head and shoulders above in terms of talent then the players of that era? And not necessarily head and shoulders above everyone else in history.
    Well, I would argue that in Shield Cricket Bradman averaged 100 against Lindwall and Miller and the best England batters averaged 50 against them. Their careers overlapped with May, Trueman, and so on whose careers overlapped with Boycott who did well against the seventies pace aces. So I do think there was a prodigious rise or drop in quality overall between 1930 and 1980.

  13. #93
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    26,231
    Mentioned
    856 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Bradman himself commented that he might only have averaged 75 in the 1980s game, because fielding standards improved massively since his playing days and a lot of his fours would have been cut off. While I donít believe seventies quicks would have proved harder for him than Larwood (bowling to a legal field) and Farnes, Bradman would have been running a lot more ones and twos and would have got tired faster and made a mistake.

  14. #94
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    227
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For me Lara was deffo better than Tendulkar, Ponting etc but better than Sir Viv.

  15. #95
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    227
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I mean not better than Sir Viv.
    1. Viv
    2. Bradman
    3.Sobers
    4. Lara

    The rest are all lower.

  16. #96
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Venue
    Toronto (Dhaka)
    Runs
    26,088
    Mentioned
    2038 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harsh Thakor View Post
    Please come here @MMHS

    He is my very few AT favourite batsmen and I have watched most of his Test hundreds live. There great batsmen in every generation, but this guy was unique - batsmen like Gavaskar or Boycott could stay in middle for hours, sessions together while batsmen like Viv, Gilchrist, Sehwag could blast any attack; but this guy could bat for 12 hours and could play every exciting shots of the game.

    He is undoubtedly the best ever spin player game had seen, and one of the greatest big innings specialist - once set, he could bat for long and he would bat with style.

    Lara, lost track for few years in middle of his career hence his stats suffered but at his pick between 1991 to 1995, it's almost impossible to find a match. Being a Viv fan, I actually am not sure whom I'll pick for my AT Test team at prime - may be Viv at 3 (Or 5, if I had to accommodate Bradman at his favorite spot) and Brian at 4. Sobers at 6 makes my 4 middle order.

  17. #97
    Debut
    Oct 2007
    Venue
    Amsterdam / Faisalabad
    Runs
    11,271
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Unfortunately haven't seen much of Brian Lara, but from what I have seen he was one hell of an entertainer alongside R. Ponting. Both didn't just play long innings, but played some breathtaking shots.

    Cricket will always miss these legends.


    "You aren't a failure if you fail, you are a failure if you don't get up to try again" - Imran Khan.

  18. #98
    Debut
    Feb 2019
    Runs
    900
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Better than sachin

  19. #99
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Bradman himself commented that he might only have averaged 75 in the 1980s game, because fielding standards improved massively since his playing days and a lot of his fours would have been cut off. While I donít believe seventies quicks would have proved harder for him than Larwood (bowling to a legal field) and Farnes, Bradman would have been running a lot more ones and twos and would have got tired faster and made a mistake.
    You keep going on about why did not anyone else average 99 like Bradman in his era. I was stating in relation to the 1970s and 1980s. Bradman would never average 99 against Holding, Marshall, Roberts and Garner.

    He struggled against Larwood in 1932. He struggled against Gilbert in 1931 where he got out for 0. His bat was knocked out of his hands by one delivery and he was floored by another.

    Bradman against Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, Botham, Procter, Garth le Roux, Snow, Willis, Daniel, Clarke, etc of the 1970s. He would average maybe between 50s and 60s.

  20. #100
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cricket4all View Post
    I mean not better than Sir Viv.
    1. Viv
    2. Bradman
    3.Sobers
    4. Lara

    The rest are all lower.
    I agree with you. Bradman could not play extreme pace. He got floored by a delivery by Gilbert and his bat was knocked out of his hands by another in 1931. He is fortunate he did not have to face Gilbert in international cricket.

    Viv Richards made at least one hundred against all the best bowlers of his era.

    V Lillee - 5 hundreds.
    V Thomson - 3 hundreds.
    V Imran - 4 hundreds.
    V Hadlee - 4 hundreds.
    V Kapil - 4 hundreds.
    V Holding - 3 hundreds.
    V Marshall - 2 hundreds.
    V Patterson - 2 hundreds.
    V Botham - 6 hundreds.
    V Willis - 5 hundreds.
    V Underwood - 8 hundreds.
    V Bedi - 4 hundreds.
    V Prasanna - 2 hundreds.
    V Chandrasekhar - 3 hundreds.
    V Sarfaraz - 2 hundreds.
    V Sylvester Clarke - 2 hundreds.
    V Procter - 3 hundreds.
    V Hogg - 3 hundreds.
    V Gilmour - 3 hundreds.
    V Lawson - 3 hundreds.
    V John Lever - 3 hundreds.
    V Chris Old - 5 hundreds.
    V Dilley - 5 hundreds.
    V Alderman - 2 hundreds.
    V Dodemaide - 2 hundreds.
    V Andy Roberts - 1 hundred but a daddy double hundred.
    V Colin Croft - 1 hundred.
    V Wayne Daniel - 1 hundred.
    V Garner - 1 hundred.
    V Bishop - 1 hundred.
    V Ambrose - 1 hundred.
    V Walsh - 1 hundred.
    V Tony Gray - 1 hundred.
    V Ezra Moseley - 1 hundred.
    V Winston Davis - 1 hundred.
    V Lance Gibbs - 1 hundred.
    V Sobers - 1 hundred.
    V Wasim Akram - 1 hundred.
    V Abdul Qadir - 1 hundred.
    V Danny Morrison - 1 hundred.
    V Alan Donald - 1 hundred.
    V Garth le Roux - 1 hundred.
    V VB John - 1 hundred.
    V Ashantha de Mel - 1 hundred.
    V Somachandra de Silva - 1 hundred.
    V Iqbal Qasim - 1 hundred.
    V Angus Fraser - 1 hundred.
    V Mallett - 1 hundred.
    V Merv Hughes - 1 hundred.
    V Rackemann - 1 hundred.
    V McDermott - 1 hundred.
    V Max Walker - 1 hundred.
    V Pascoe - 1 hundred.
    V Clive Rice - 1 hundred.

  21. #101
    Debut
    Jun 2011
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    11,288
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let me get a logic straight....

    Sobers has a poor record against NZ because he "couldnt be bothered".... So if a good batsman has poor record against an average team, it means he was less dedicated to the occasion.

    Now, from this logic, can we conclude that, Sobers wasn't the most professional cricketer around since he goes missing against an average team just because the team "wasn't upto his standards."?

  22. #102
    Debut
    Jan 2015
    Runs
    754
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I always liken Lara to Michael Jackson. He was massively talented, conquered all the records quickly (375, 501, most runs in a test over, fasted to 10,000 runs etc), was massively stylish, was at the top of the world, and then burned out. He even thought about quitting cricket in the mid 90s, not only because he'd lost interest, but because he got lost in partying and booze, came from poverty and had no father figure to help him handle the fame/money, and was constantly feuding with an increasingly authoritarian and inept cricket board. If it weren't for Jimmy Adams, he'd have walked out on the WICB's over team selection several times.

    But as Steve Waugh said, you enthralled by Lara because he seems to get bigger and more determined the tougher the challenge and opposition is. All the greats have different types of peaks, but Lara's were these strangely epic and heroic individual knocks that seemed to have a drama you didn't find elsewhere.

    Of all the greats, Lara's also the one who seems to have something tragic about him. You associate Lara with loss and heroic failure. There was something romantic about him being the team's lone fighter (Chanderpaul only learned to construct tons in the 2000s, Hooper only flourished when he got the captaincy, Sarwan and Gayle peaked after Lara retired, and Adams lost all his skill suddenly after a hit to the head).

  23. #103
    Debut
    May 2019
    Runs
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Itachi View Post
    Let me get a logic straight....

    Sobers has a poor record against NZ because he "couldnt be bothered".... So if a good batsman has poor record against an average team, it means he was less dedicated to the occasion.

    Now, from this logic, can we conclude that, Sobers wasn't the most professional cricketer around since he goes missing against an average team just because the team "wasn't upto his standards."?
    Great batsmen perform against all opposition. Sobers failed against New Zealand. 23.76 batting average in tests against New Zealand does not befit the best batsman of all-time. It is across 12 tests too which is a fair sample.

    Lara performed below par against India with 34.55 test batting average from 17 tests.

    The great batsmen perform against all teams, especially in tests. Bradman, Viv Richards and Tendulkar were consistent.

    My test rankings would be:

    1. Bradman.
    2. Viv Richards.
    3. Tendulkar.

    Then come in any order Sobers, Lara, Hobbs.

    If we consider test and odi cricket then my rankings would be:

    1. Viv Richards.
    2. Bradman.
    3. Tendulkar.
    Last edited by Cricket follower; 15th August 2019 at 10:38. Reason: completion


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •