| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| runsgetter |
Posted - 07/22/2005
Thought this story is worth sharing.
(A father and son team goes to bat in a three-part series on the great Lara vs. Richards debate).
Our arguments and disagreements carry us deep into the night. Sometimes we agree to disagree; most times we just fade away. Those close to us know that it is over cricket, of course. There is, however, one bruising battle that never ends, waged over a single question: Who is great and who is genius?
Let’s strip the argument of all its pretenses. What we are really asking is this: Was Vivian Richards a genius or a great player; is Brian Lara a great player or a genius?
We see the world divided. Perhaps it’s an ideological thing; perhaps it could be a generational thing. There are those of Richards’ time, who, awed by the ferocity of his batting assaults, and inspired by the single-mindedness of his politics, beheld Richards as their Shaka. And there are these of Lara’s time, driven by the sheer power of his numbers and the unmatchable aura that surrounds the shot making, for whom he is beyond mere princely status, but something engraved, Caesar like - B.C. LARA.
We scoured the material. From Cardus to Beckles; from Manley to Martin-Jenkins; from Hector to Roebuck; always being guided by the words of James, the prophet scribe. All shining authorities, these gentlemen. But we gleaned, through their works, the palpable flows of inner preferences. Cardus’ didn’t help; he was a Sobers man. In an unforgettable Wisden tribute, written in 1967, Cardus declared: “Garfield St. Auburn Sobers...the most renowned name of any cricketer since Bradman's high noon. He is, in fact, even more famous than Bradman ever was; for he is accomplished in every department of the game, and has exhibited his genius in all climes and conditions... We can safely agree that no player has proven versatility of skill as convincingly as Sobers has done, effortlessly, and after the manner born".
It is Beckles, purveyor of the third paradigm, who provides a troubling balance. In his ground-breaking work, The Development of West Indies Cricket Vol. 1, Beckles contends: “When I met Viv Richards…and we became comrades, little did he know that I had exorcized my desire to be a West Indies cricketer through the soothing therapy of observing close up his exploits in Test and county cricket. He was magnificent; the most destructive batsman I ever saw. Respectful of opposing argument, I concluded then in 1980 that he was the best batsman against all types of bowling; I still believe this”. Beckles, in adding the other dimension to the Richards persona, further asserts: “Richards, took into cricket much of what cricket had given to him. His cricket and his politics fused into an ideological force that shaped his genius and determined the principled positions adopted with respect to [the black consciousness movement]”.
But it is Lara that Beckles sees as leading the movement to the “third rising” – the new paradigm. Beckles declares of his new paradigm, “…the old ball game is dying and the new is struggling for space and recognition…globalizing transformations in the social order are refashioning the West Indies and a brand new ball game will be played.” In Beckles’ esteem, Lara is the undoubted hero and symbol of this new order. He represents to the younger generation, i.e. the post-Richards generation, the “triumphalist mentality” that is not intimidated by conservative authority.
Manley himself, devoted West Indies cricket supporter and articulate observer, was undecided. In his seminal work, The History of West Indies Cricket, Manley approaches the issue of greatness and genius by commenting on the futility of comparing Richards and Headley. Manley wrote, “it is impossible for Viv Richards to walk to the wicket in the presence of a West Indies audience without an argument starting as to whether he is the greatest West Indian batsman since the Second World War. Comparisons are never made with Headley, as this would involve a form of lèse-majesté too terrible to contemplate. Some people have put themselves beyond comparison not only because they are the best, but because the niche that they occupy has become profoundly symbolic of things that go beyond the boundaries of what they do.”
To Manley, Lara is the embodiment of supreme batsmanship. “Lara’s capacity for accumulation [has] evoked strong memories of Bradman and, at the same time, a new element surfacing that puts the historians in mind of both Bradman and George Headley…It is not only that he plays every shot in the book and some of his own creation, but that he [makes] batting look easy”.
Martin-Jenkins adds his voice to the debate. In his magnus opus entitled World Cricketers, Martin-Jenkins pens the following portrait of Richards: “Vivi Richards goes down in history as one of the greatest of all time. Proud, fit and dignified, with a fine physique and an aquiline nose, he never wore a helmet, never shirked a challenge, and was always confident of his ability to come out on top of the best bowlers when conditions were equal. He could be emotional, even volatile, when his own, or West Indian supremacy was challenged, but he earned everyone’s respect in a long and high profile career. He played always not just for himself but also for the prestige of his country and his people at a time when black sportsmen everywhere were asserting their prowess.”
It is for Lara that Martin-Jenkins reserves his most technically incisive commentary. To him, Lara’s sublime skills are underpinned by steely wrists and excellent footwork and that have established him as an icon to all those who appreciate the aesthetics of batsmanship. Martin-Jenkins sees in Lara a master of technique, whose placement all around the wicket is unerring, whose attacking shots are unfurled from a flamboyant high backlift, and whose trademark whip stroke is played with ease and élan off the front and back foot. Martin-Jenkins probes deep into the Lara mystique...“at the crease and off the field, a handsome, shy smile adds greatly to the charm of a cricketer whose most serious threat after 1994 was likely to be too demanding an exploitation of his commercial potential”.
The thinking reader may have by now asked the question: If there is a Third Paradigm what were the first and second paradigms?
Beckles interprets the period 1890 to 1950 as a time of colonial domination where cricket was used to bolster the near-apartheid policy of black separation and exclusion. The second paradigm covers the period 1950 to 1990. It is characterized by the rise and fulfillment of anti-colonial movements that culminated in nationalism and independence. On the cricket fields, the seeds of such changes were sown by Headley and Constantine; watered by the 3W’s; and nurtured and harvested by Richards.
Hector’s was the voice of Caribbean nationalism - the conscience of the second paradigm. Historian, teacher, activist, cricket fan, Hector’s works place his keen and lifelong appreciation of cricket within a political and social context. More than that, he brought the discourse to the level of the ordinary cricket fan, who watched from the Kensington Stand, the Mindoo Phillip Park and the Concrete Stand. Through his newspaper articles, speeches and street corner conversations, he was ultimately Antigua-to-the-bone, and naturally, Vivi was his man. His language unashamedly bordered on hyperbole, but for him, it was exactly where Richards had to be located within the historical framework.
Two years before his death in 2002, Hector wrote these words: “[Richards] was the most significant cricket person of the 20th century, coming from one of its peripheral colonial outposts to the very apogee of world civilization, by way of cricket… to represent the new stage. The demand for the black power stage. Reaching ‘down into his inner depths of his own being’ and with bat in hand, and through his ‘assertive manhood’ characterized by what was called his ‘swagger’ to the wicket, he signed his own emancipation proclamation in defiance of Lillee and Thompson, Chandrashekar and Bedi, Willis and Underwood, Imran Khan and Abdul Qadir, all ‘with a spirit straining toward self-esteem’".
Hector is somewhat circumspect on the subject of Lara: “It is not a question as to whether Lara is better than Richards. That is not at issue. Each in his own time. Each masters the problems of his time. In Richards’ time, it was Lillee. Thompson and Pascoe, or Willis or Old, or Bedi, Chandrashekar and Prasanna. In Lara's time it is McGrath and Gillipsie, Donald and Pollock, Warne and McGill. Each in his own time, I repeat. And comparison, however exacting and exact, ignore the necessities of each time. So much for that. Richards was the premier batsman of his time. Lara is the premier batsman of this time”.
Roebuck’s personal problems with Richards, almost disqualified him. For many seasons he stood in the Somerset slips alongside Richards, Botham and Garner as their captain. But the fallout has rendered him uncharitable in his assessment of Richards. His is the journalist’s eye, however, his is the eloquent, acidly critical viewpoint. Where Hector can be accused of flirting with hyperbole, Roebuck is unflattering. “[Richards’] game embraced a contempt for his fate, a foaming fury, because to him cricket was a game of kill or be killed, a street fighter in which it was left to the umpires to keep peace”.
In Lara, Roebuck like Manley, sees invocations of Bradman: “Lara has always been capable of extraordinary feats. Not even Bradman [could] have batted better through a series than did Lara in Sri Lanka and against Australia in the Caribbean. Yet there has been a fragility about him, a willfulness that can produce magnificence upon the field and foolishness off it. Lara will go into the books as one of the greatest batsmen the game has known. As far as epitaphs go it is fine but insufficient. More is needed from him and in his moment of triumph Lara confronted that truth.”
It is here that we pause to ponder the route we have taken on this great debate. The single conclusion derived from the minds of the experts is a ‘no-decision’. We are therefore compelled to recast the debate: Just who is/was the better batsman? The collaboration almost crashed upon this point. But disaster was averted. We did three things: first, we turned to James, the prophet scribe; secondly, we put the question to the men and women sitting on the cricket pastures, and in the stands and mounds around the Caribbean; finally, we leaned on the pillar of statistics.
To be continued…
OG
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| gseethar |
Posted - 04/29/2007
some interesting perspective on Lara's technique I got from some forum..
Indeed, the very first thing you notice about Lara is his backlift - its cavalier audacity. Conventional wisdom has it that a backlift should take the bat to roughly parallel with the surface of the pitch before bringing it down in a crisp quarter arc to meet the ball. But Lara and his backlift make a mockery of conventional wisdom: his backlift is so exaggerated - so mannerist - that it virtually rests on his left shoulder. (Remember, Lara is a left-hander.) Adding further insult to the custodians of correctness is the fact that in Lara's case, his hands twist the bat to such an extent that it is not the blade of his bat that is parallel to the surface of the pitch when it is at its highest point, but its left edge. From such technically suspect beginnings come shots of confidence and beauty, but the game Lara is playing is dangerous. In one sublimely deft, self-correcting motion, the handle rolling in his wrists as the ball speeds towards him, Lara needs to present the bat's full face to the delivery. An angled bat will present outside edges to slips and gully, leading edges to positions in front of the wicket. With such rococo glory for a backlift, errors of timing are ever-present; in Lara's case they are rare.
Lara's backlift is interesting for other reasons: it puts him squarely in a tradition of fearless Caribbean strokemakers, the most obvious of which is Garfield Sobers. Sobers had a similarly high backlift, something all the easier from which to launch himself at bowlers. Like Sobers, Lara's backlift is also a statement of intent. It says: "I'm not here to stockpile singles, to smuggle twos and threes without you noticing. No, I'm here to hit the ball decisively and confidently through the line and over the top if necessary."
There are others fans that are convinced that Tendulkar has the better technique of the two. They opine that Lara with his high back lift and penchant for on-driving straighter deliveries, square driving wide deliveries outside off and aerial pulls is more prone to get out than the Indian maestro because of his "flawed" technique. This would appear to be a supercilious argument, since a close examination by video of the two in full cry reveals a very interesting story.
Brian Lara:
Watching the little Trinidadian bat, no one except the philistines among us can deny the natural talent Brian Lara possesses. In many respects, Lara is not simply the best batsman of our era, he could stake claim to be the best batsman of all time. At the very least, one could say that he's the most technically skilled batsman since Bradman, videos of whom are often misleading because of the lack of good video technology during the Don's era. Lara commands almost all the shots in the cricket book with unparalleled brilliance. His cut shot is both breathtaking and flexible-like most of the best back foot players he can play it with equal felicity both in front of and behind square. His on drive, probably his pet shot, is ferocious-particularly when played down the wicket against slow bowlers. If it isn't the most feared stroke in world cricket, it should be.
These are two of Lara's favorite aggressive strokes. He also pulls well, but occasionally lifts his right leg when he plays the stroke. Dramatic, yes, but it causes him to lose control of the shot frequently. This probably explains Lara's propensity to pull in the air so often. But the flaw is only occasional (although on the increase in recent years). However, the brutal, thuggish Brian Lara is far less intimidating than Brian Lara the technician. Lara loves to cover drive-the deliberate movement forward, foot pointing towards extra cover, fast bat speed, front foot to the pitch of the delivery and execute with such inch-perfect timing that it makes the ball go rocketing away. Lara's traditional drives, however, are merely good. Lara plays fuller length straight balls incorrectly, preferring to on drive and play it through midwicket.
The most important part of any batsman's repertoire is always the defensive technique. Lara's is better at defense than perhaps any ever in the game. Make no mistake; Lara has all the weapons to play any game he chooses. He could play a game solely off the back foot and lead the world in that respect. He could play a purely defensive game in the Dravid mould and he can play a purely front foot game. In fact, Lara is simultaneously three of the best players at three of the most important traditional aspects of batting: front foot, back foot and defensive technique.
Against spinners, Lara typically tries to step down the track. He rarely sweeps (Lara probably doesn't sweep because he sees this as a kind of lazy shortcut to play slow bowlers-one of Lara's major weaknesses is his fluctuating cricket IQ), defensive spurts are rare and he only plays off the back foot when absolutely necessary. Having eliminated the three alternative methods of playing slow bowling, Lara is left with the most dramatic and challenging method-to advance-almost all the time. To get an idea of this, watch footage of Lara playing Warne in the West Indies in 1999. It's scintillating cricket, where Lara advances and on drives all the time. However, at 33, Lara's age is slowly catching up with him. From a slow bowling perspective, his feet aren't fast enough to now genuinely challenge the Muralis and Harbhajans in that respect, so Lara showed uncharacteristic maturity in playing Murali almost exclusively off the back foot.
Generally speaking, Lara appears to be spoilt with his talent. His shots are so far ahead of other batsmen, and because they are so technically brilliant, he can use them in ways that most batsman simply cannot. However that only takes a batsman so far. Lara, in my opinion, doesn't use his defensive technique nearly enough. He cuts at balls that are too close to his body. He pulls bowlers that are too slow to do so. He overdoes the charge. He unnecessarily lofts his cover drive. He chooses square drives over cover drives simply for the sake of expanding his innings wagon wheel. All this has to do with shot selection: one of the foundations of good batsmanship.
Another important aspect of modern batting, the art of pinching the single, appears to have bypassed Lara's cricketing education. To call Lara a relic or a dinosaur would be exceedingly harsh, but he is not armed with the single-stealing ability that gives many of today's stars their flexibility. Lara is not a modern batsman, like Steve Waugh, Yousuf Youhana, Kumara Sangakkara and especially Sachin Tendulkar. Lara is one of the old guard, the stroke maker, the sharp shooting cowboy who just arms himself with several weapons, all of which have their origins in the early 20th century, and takes on the bowler. There's something decidedly romantic about that vision, and any witness to Lara's 375, 277, 153 not out and various other mammoth scores can only attest to that. Tendulkar, for all his wizardry and versatility, will never be able to truly win over fans like Lara. Warts and all, with his questionable mental abilities over his own game, with his flat out poor shot selection, with his tantrums and with his inconsistency, Lara, in terms of pure skill and technique, still is just better at batting than anyone else in the game.
end quote/
One of the things that need reminding is that the backlift of Sobers and Lara (and also bradman if you guys want to compare his batting stance in some of the old photos) presents the least amount of stress on your wrists..
just try this at home...hold the bat parallel to the ground with the blade facing the pitch and the end of the blade pointing in the arc somewhere between the keeper and the third slip (all these positions are OK)...hold it for two minutes(5 minutes if you can)...
now hold the bat with the end of the grip (or bats handle) pointing down , with the bat vertically held in your hand , the face of the blade pointing towards third slip to gully (and the tip of the blade pointing to the sky)...
the gravity is acting on a bigger surface area in the first case forcing your hand(s) to hold the bat 'in position' against the gravity...but in the second case , only the tip of the handle is the surface area on which gravity 'acts'....at that position (typically in the top of the back swing) when your hands are so relaxed(since it does not really have to support the bat) it allows your hand to accelerate the blade from its 'neutral' position to come down on the ball resulting in supreme bat speed..like a golfer teeing off on a ball , this position is 'technically' a better position to be in....infact , if you watch Ponting , he strives to get to that position himself..
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/image/290187.html
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/image/287075.html
tendulkar's problem...the 'inside out' closed position cover drive and the not so vertical back lift...putting strain on the forearm and elbow...the fact that he carries a heavier bat than usual only exacerbates the problem.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/image/274284.html
Ganesh (Stanford A) |
| gseethar |
Posted - 04/28/2007
this guy seems to ask the same questions...
http://i3j3cricket.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/what%E2%80%99s-happening-to-tendulkar/
Ganesh (Stanford A) |
| gseethar |
Posted - 04/28/2007
I have always said that Tendulkar (94-99) is a very formidable player comparable to only a handful of the greatest batsmen in the last 50 years...but since that period his batting is not the same...
for instance , check out this interesting article...
http://sify.com/khel/wc_fullstory.php?id=14434773#more
the back foot moving towards leg stump is a big flaw that has rendered several batsmen strokeless between cover point and midoff....Tendulkar shunning the cover drive is to cover up this flaw...also notice that this movement towards legstump makes him more side on and forces him to move NOT IN THE DIRECTION(or towards and forward to meet the ball) of the ball but on a plane that is nearly horizontal instead. The flick to midwicket is easier but the drive to covers is not..
A batsman who played deliberately this way was the SA opener Andrew Hudson. Now Hudson moved his back leg to the leg stump but his left leg crossed to the off/middle and his left elbow pointed to mid off and the back lift came from fine leg....Hudson was a prolific puller and also played the square cut and cover drive exceptionally well DESPITE his right leg moving towards leg stump BUT his back lift and elbow and everything else was very different to how VVS and Tendulkar play after making that move to leg stump.
Also remember , a good technician evolves and learns...when Nasir Hussain had Giles bowl in the rough to tendulkar , did Sachin open up his stance to counter that line or simply offered his thigh pad ? Did he not get out stumped when he stepped out to hit ?
Moving to the legstump forces him to play inside out to play in the covers where the bat face is more open...he excels in shots where the bat face needs closing ...such as the shots to square leg and mid wicket...movement to off stump or middle instead of leg will allow him to play the shot to covers with a straighter bat...you don't bobby simpson to point that out to a batsman with 10000 test runs...
Tendulkar (94-99) is certainly a great batsman...Tendulkar (00-07) will do well if he watches himself bat during that period..
Ganesh (Stanford A) |
| stanfordzain |
Posted - 04/28/2007
Ganu:
An article written by Glen McGrath about his retirment agrees with your conclusion about Lara and spin but McGrath thinks Tendu is the better batsman technically...
Not sure why I remembered this thread from the NCCA forum - useless information in my head about nothing
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21636767-5012554,00.html
McGrath's final fling
Glenn McGrath
April 29, 2007 I HAVE been invited for a beer at Mudgee by people I have never met - and I had one Test selector tell me he was disappointed he didn't get the chance to axe me.
It was all part of the fun of the last week of my cricket career.
In truth, leaving the game has not yet hit me. It may not be until Australia plays again, in the Twenty20 World Cup in South Africa in September, that it will finally hit home that I will never wear my country's colours again.
Physically and mentally I feel I could play for another two years. But it's time. There are other priorities in my life.
Test selector Merv Hughes, always the prankster, has a unique take on my retirement.
He told me that, as I effectively replaced him in the Test side in 1994, he was looking forward to getting square by sticking the knife in and ending my Test career.
He said he was disappointed I announced my retirement before he had the chance to swoop.
Merv, of course, was only joking, but I am pleased to be bowing out on my terms.
The first thing I want to do is get away from it for a while, unwind and see what options come up and what I want to do.
I do feel I have a role to play in the game, but I want to have six to 12 months away from it first.
Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper encouraged people to fax the team hotel to wish me all the best and I received some nice telegrams, including a couple from people I knew from my days growing up in Narromine. Another came from a cricket fan in Mudgee, who finished it by saying if I am ever calling through, please give him a bell and he will take me for a beer.
I might just get there.
It was terrific to get those sorts of messages because some time we are so focused on what we are doing, we forget that people outside our bubble are watching us closely and getting a lot of enjoyment from the game of cricket.
I feel pleased that I am leaving the game in good shape because there are a lot of young fast bowlers coming through.
My approach has always been simple. The less complex you make things, the less things can go wrong.
I always tell youngsters if you can bowl 99 balls out of 100 that can hit the top of off-stump, you will take wickets. They always seem disappointed by the simplicity of the advice, but it's the truth.
Finally, I've been privileged to have competed against some fine players in my career.
Here is my toughest XI to play against:
Mike Atherton (England): I respected him and he was one of themost successful opening batsmen of our era, even though Curtly Ambrose and myself had great records against him because he seemed to struggle with our extra bounce.
Sanath Jayasuriya (Sri Lanka): Others may have had better records but few were more dangerous. It is always a massive compliment to someone to say they changed the game, and his storming innings in the 1996 World Cup changed everyone's thinking about how to start one-day innings. Great natural flair.
Brian Lara (West Indies): I felt he was just in front of Sachin Tendulkar when at his peak. He was just a naturally gifted player with so much ability. Against spin, he was in a league of his own. No spinner ever had it over him and Muttiah Muralitharan always said he was the toughest he bowled to.
Sachin Tendulkar (India): More technically correct than Lara and on his day could really destroy attacks, but probably did not have as much natural flair as Lara. But who does?
Mentally strong enough to carry the hopes of a billion Indian cricket fans whenever he batted.
Aravinda de Silva (Sri Lanka): When he got a start on home soil in Sri Lanka you just felt you were never going to get him out. Was excellent for Sri Lanka in a tough era when they did not have the array of talent or experience that they have today.
Andrew Flintoff (England): Just pips Jacques Kallis, Shaun Pollock and Chris Cairns as an all-rounder because of his heroics against us on the 2005 Ashes tour. To swing the ball both ways at 145kmh throughout lengthy spells was pace bowling at its absolute best.
Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka): Averages in the high 40s with the bat in Test cricket and has also done some great work keeping to Muralitharan. If you have Murali in the team you would go for Kumar as keeper. He is an under-rated player with a great record. He pipped South Africa's Mark Boucher, a solid player for a long time.
Curtly Ambrose (West Indies): With his height, he could really get great bounce and he was one of those special bowlers who always had an extra gear. He barely had a bad day and he enhanced his aura by keeping his distance from opponents, including me.
Wasim Akram (Pakistan): Just a champion for what he could do with the ball. He could swing it at will both ways and the way he powered through the crease made him something to behold. He was on you before you knew it. He wasamazing.
Allan Donald (South Africa): Had great pace and a fine record for South Africa. I always got along well with him and for a long time our records were very similar.
Muttiah Muralitharan (Sri Lanka): Simply because of his incredible statistics, he has to go in here. But there were other spinners who I admired, Saqlain Mushtaq, Anil Kumble and Dan Vettori among them.
Ganesh wrote:
Agree with Rohan on two things...
Ganguly on that list or any list that has 'batsmen' or 'batsman' in the same sentence...great shotmaking alone does not make someone a great batsmen...Ganguly played some incredible shots but has too many weaknesses for him to be included in any elite list of batters...
Tendulkar or Lara....The tendulkar of 98-99 and a few years(3-4) preceding it is just a notch lower than Viv circa (76-80)...He was a better batsmen than Lara during that period...The tendulkar of 95-99 is still a modern benchmark of batting in the post Viv era.
That said , Lara is simply a greater batsman when inspired. No feat , no score , no opponent and no condition is beyond him. I don't think I can say the same about any batsmen in the last 20 years. He also happens to be the only batsmen to have dominated Murali in Sri Lanka! Not even tendulkar has done that. Tendulkar's average in Sri Lanka is mighty high but he has also lost a few personal battles with murali.
Ganesh (Stanford A) |
| runsgetter |
Posted - 10/26/2005
K'ru,
wen yuh finish readin d steve waugh book len mi.
Having now read the article I should say that his views of Lara are keen and interesting. Lara is indifferent.
OG |
| runsgetter |
Posted - 10/26/2005
So much turmoil in WI in recent time that it's hard to get space for Sons of the Sun #3, K'ru. It's eagerly awaited by many.....stay tuned to www.caribbeancricket.com.
Cheers
OG |
| Khushru |
Posted - 10/26/2005
Owen, still waiting to read the rest.
But in the mean time this from Waugh on Lara:
No one has yet claimed to have been able to accurately assess the character of the contemporary game's most celebrated, complex and controversial cricketer. And the opponent who has played against him most has been similarly perplexed by the many sides of Brian Lara.
"He is charming, vulnerable, endearing, moody and impossible to work out at times and endlessly fascinating," is the way Steve Waugh, the former Australian captain, describes him in his weighty autobiography, Out of My Comfort Zone. Waugh says he always got on well with Lara, from the time the richly-gifted Trinidadian was the young twelfth man throughout Australia's 1991 Test series in the Caribbean to their most recent tour in 2003 when, according to Waugh, Lara, then his opposing captain, "felt ostracised by the fans".
Even after a face-to-face confrontation on the field during the last Test in Antigua in 2003, Waugh notes that there was no lingering animosity between them. "By the time a smooth Cockspur and Coke slid down our parched throats, Brian and I were hugging each other, exchanging shirts and telling each other how good we were."
Waugh was in opposition for all of Lara's eight hundreds in his 28 Tests against Australia. Among them were two of his finest, his first, 277, at the Sydney Cricket Ground in the 1992-93 series and his unbeaten 153 at Kensington Oval in Barbados that led the West Indies to a one-wicket victory in the 1999 series, described by Waugh as "one of the all-time great matches". "Lara is a good player against average bowling sides and a great one against formidable attacks but when harassed into a corner by his own brinksmanship or if he's targeted, he elevates himself into a genius."
Citing more than one instance, he adds: "Often he would initiate a conversation by being assertive and confrontational to give himself a cause. I sometimes did the same thing." Waugh's 800-page, 400,000-word tome, all authored by himself without the help of a 'ghost' writer and attracting an advance fee of Aus$1.1 million (US$730,000) from publishers Penguin, covers an international career that lasted from 1985 to 2003 in which he played 168 Tests, 57 as captain, and 325 One-day Internationals. His 10,927 runs make him second to fellow Australian Allan Border's 11,174 as Test cricket's highest scorer, but only 68 ahead of Lara. |
| runsgetter |
Posted - 08/18/2005
K'ru,
It will be out next week. The writers travels around the Caribbean soliciting input. They'll choose Sir Isaac due the fact the his runs produced more victories.
OG |
| Khushru |
Posted - 08/18/2005
Owen, when are you posting the final part? |
| runsgetter |
Posted - 08/09/2005
The golden era/ages of cricket is long gone. Personally, I think only a handful of players over the past 15 years can be called great. Again, great players win games/series single handingly and we should not confuse ourselves with players with great padded stats. A hundred is a milestone but can be of academics interest only if you batted for 2 days like Boycott with no result or if you're a selfish player with only stats on your mind....
Cricket peaked during the helmet-less, no technology decades of 1970-1990. Most teams then had a few great players and there were strong competitions. These were men of passion, pride, heart and courage who accepted cricket as modern days war. In recent times cricket is about style and money. |
| vsvaidya |
Posted - 08/09/2005
I would not call Bradman as the greatest "cricketer" of all time. The greatest cricketer, in my opinion has to be Sir Garfield Sobers--there hasn't been a more complete cricketer yet who comes close to Sobers in terms of batting, bowling and fielding all put together.
We can debate all day and night about the greatest batsman and the greatest bowler, but the mantle of the greatest cricketer has to be bestowed on Sobers.
|
| Tigerdesert |
Posted - 08/08/2005
Anil Kumble took 10 wickets against Pakistan. |
| gregwidd |
Posted - 08/08/2005
A couple other things to remember about Bradman's era:
- Uncovered pitches
- Legside theory
We'll never see another performance like Jim Laker's - I wonder how well Viv or Clive or Greg or Sachin would have done on some of the gluepots of 80 years ago ... |
| rohan |
Posted - 08/08/2005
Sutcliffe, Bradman, Paynter, Headley, Hammond --- I'd say that was a pretty darn good era. Those 5 are all in the top 10 averages of all time for sure, Sutcliffe and Headley were 60+ and Hammond and Paynter were not far off it. Hobbs as well, not far behind.
If you go to the 50s/60s - Pollock, Barrington, Sobers, Weekes, Walcott
80s - Gavaskar, Border, Miandad, Viv - that's a hard quartet to top.
Still a tough comparison to make though - pitches, equipment, fitness, fielding standards - everything is so different.
Rohan. |
| Khushru |
Posted - 08/08/2005
Rohan, Ganesh ... I retract. I take Ganguly off the list ... but the list is is not important, as in who's in and who's not ... the question I'm wondering about is 'where does the post Richards era of batting (say the last 15 years) rank in terms of other eras of batting'? Just as you could say that 1975 to 1990 was the golden age of fast bowling with Thompson, Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, and all the West Indian greats (with Walsh and Ambrose to follow).
Has there been another time in cricket where the batting around the cricketing world has included the quality, caliber, greatness of the last 15 years with Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh, Inzamam, Dravid, etc?
|
|
|
All Forums
Sons of the Sun (Pt 1)
