| Author |
 Topic  |
|
runsgetter
972 Posts |
 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
|
|
|
gseethar
141 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005
|
Manley and Hector nailed it when they said that Richards is the most important cricketer of the 20th century...Richards was to cricket what Ali was to Boxing...there may have been better boxers/cricketers , better being so subjective , but none were more important...
Sugar Ray Robinson was better , Jack Johnson more dominating , Joe Louis very dignified but Ali was a metaphor for lot of things larger than life...
Richards became important , more important than anyone else(even Sobers himself , the best cricketer ever , bradman included) when he humiliated Tony Greig led England after Tony remarked , true to his nature , that he would make the WI grovel.
Richards batting from 1976 to 80 could never be touched. No batsmen in no era would've decimated attacks like he did.I know Bradman did not. He could not have. To Richards it was more than just batting and scoring runs.It was a single minded pursuit to be respected..not mere social acceptance but to be respected.
He stands along with Althea gibson, Arthur Ashe , Ali , Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson..
Sure there was Worrell , Headley and Sobers but Richards was a first.In more ways than one.
Ganesh (Stanford A) |
 |
|
|
Khushru
139 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005
|
| Aaaah mouth watering stuff ... can't wait for parts 2 and 3 |
|
|
|
wicketkeeper
46 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005
|
Ganesh, you said it very well. Although I would venture to say that Ali was so much more outside the ring, Richards was definitely an Ali on the cricket field. They not only wanted respect, they wanted to dominate.
CLR James' writing makes me think of Worrell being more important a personality because of his influence not only on the cricket field but off it too. However, when it came to batting, Sir Gary and the rest of the mighty bats from the caribbean still were Gentlemen proving that they were equals. Richards to me was out to dominate and intimidate, not just get respect.
OG, can't wait to read parts 2 and 3....
Prasad
quote:
Originally posted by gseethar
Richards batting from 1976 to 80 could never be touched. No batsmen in no era would've decimated attacks like he did.I know Bradman did not. He could not have. To Richards it was more than just batting and scoring runs.It was a single minded pursuit to be respected..not mere social acceptance but to be respected.
Ganesh (Stanford A)
|
|
|
|
rohan
1120 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005
|
That's a pretty strong statement, Ganesh. Not an unworthy one, by any means, but it's dangerous to discount the importance of and impact made by Bradman on Australia and Australian society in the post-Depression and abdication-crisis era.
In a nation still seeking to define itself, unable to do so by means of conflict-driven nationalism of some sort (which is how the vast majority of nations have been defined), and struggling with religious conflict (which plagued the Australian team as well - Irish Catholicsm vs. English Protestantism), The Don emerged as an icon for everyone to look up to. The impact he left is evinced by the fact that even today, he is widely regarded as Australia's greatest. Not greatest cricketer, but greatest man (ahead of Ned Kelly, I'm sure :-) ).
Richards' impact came in a very different world. I'd find it hard to unequivocally state that either one was greater than the other - and therefore you just have to go with the guy who averaged 99.94 :-)
Rohan.
|
|
|
|
gseethar
141 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2005
|
I don't discount the impact Bradman had in the post depression Australia...Bradman was a super hero just when Australia needed someone like him to lift the morale of the entire nation...But there is no denying the fact Australia would've emerged from the depression a stronger nation with or without Bradman...he gave hope and inspiration to millions but human nature being what it is , we will invent a hero even if there is none...
When you are one of the many islands whose settlers are ethnically diverse and confused, when you are ruled by spanish, then dutch , then english who meddle with your precarious economy on a whim , one day you are a cotton and tobacco small farm country , the next you are a sugar plantation society with disproportionate land ownership, when you are part of a society that is anything but egalitarian , pride takes a long time and lot of effort and needs more than a hero.
Mandela , Gandhi , King...they are at a level where we can only hope to understand what they mean to their respective societies.
At the next level , several notches down , these societies need heroes ...a common man who goes on to achieve extraordinary things that puts self belief in these people...
Bradman's relevance to his society cannot certainly be more than the one who gives a new identity to his people...not just hope and inspiration.
Ganesh (Stanford A) |
|
|
|
runsgetter
972 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005
|
Sons of the Sun (Pt 2)
Tuesday, August 02, 2005 @ 12:23:00 EDT
(A father and son team goes to bat in a three-part series on the great Lara vs. Richards debate).
Ever since the gladiatorial days of Ancient Rome, men have posed the eternal question: Who is the best; who is the greatest?
The idea of contest has always been at the very heart of sport. From the blood-soaked arena of Rome's Coliseum; to the sweat-drenched canvas of Madison Square Garden; to the teenaged tears on Wimbledon's Center Court; to the tension of that first morning of a Sabina Test, the contest has always been about 'mano y mano' in combat.
The image of the cricketer as gladiator, be he bowler or batsman, is implanted in the human imagination. Who can forget the sight of Marshall with his fractured hand, laying waste the English; or the fearsome assault of Greenidge, hobbling, grimacing in pain; or Walsh, the Tireless One, returning for yet one more spell?
It is the warrior spirit of these gladiator sportsmen that ignites their desire to be the best; it is this desire that fuels their unwillingness to yield; and it is the performance within this unwillingness that excites us, spectators. Like Maximus Decimus, the gladiator sportsman needs his audience. To win his battle, he must win the crowd. It is here we meet the divided world; it is here, the crowd faces its challenge as spectator and as judge.
To judge the obvious is easy. Rowe was a superior batsman to Gibbs; no problem there. Ambrose was a better bowler than Gomes; no problem there. But what of two warriors of near equal capabilities and output? It is the difficult comparison that becomes the important comparison. The real thrill lies in separating the best from the best. We consider the exercise neither futile nor boring.
In the heart of every man there lies preferences. Notwithstanding our collaboration, we too, had our individual preferences. We suppressed these preferences in favor of analytical reasoning and popular opinion (Popular opinion is oftentimes downright dangerous; perhaps, it is an ideological thing, perhaps, it could be a generational thing, but we discovered a lot of volatile folks out there).
The comparison between Richards and Lara is best conducted along two parallel lines - quantitative factors and qualitative terms. Some quantitative facts are well known; others are not. We extracted from the huge pool of statistical data the significant batting indices of the two men. The selected indices are by no means exhaustive. We are aware that the informed reader may wish to include additional indicators. However, we wish to point out that these indicators must pass the test of measurability.
The deepest and most profound truths lie beneath the surface of the odd and difficult questions. Creatively reassembling the pattern of data left behind often results in new and surprising insights. The achievement of John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton is instructive. Before them, physicists had convinced the world that the atom was indivisible.
Cockcroth and Walton's invention of the particle separator, used to split to the atom, was the result of methodical and painstaking application of data. Knowing what to measure and how to measure reduces the complicatedness and seeming futility of separating the ?unseparable?.
The separation of Richards as the best, from Lara as the best, is therefore an exercise in the innovative manipulation of data, be it quantitative or qualitative. Indeed, we discovered that beyond the boundary of all those runs scored (quantitative); that there lay a body of elements (qualitative) that conventional statistical presentations did not highlight. (We were tempted to call the discovery the 'swimsuit effect?, in that what the traditional statistics revealed was important, but what they concealed was vital!).
A final note on rationalization. Ultimately, everything is measurable, and although the standard methods of performance assessment employ traditional statistical indices such as: number of matches, number of innings, number of runs scored, average per innings, centuries and half centuries scored, these traditional indices are insufficient in settling arguments of comparison, prompting the need for new 'separators? such as: the Reliability Factor, the Home-Away Ratio, the Contributory Factor, the Domination Effect, the Run-Spread Factor and the Captaincy Effect.
We applied a weighting factor to the qualitative elements. The adoption of a value-weighted approach to qualitative factors is not novel. Scientific analyses have, in the past, examined such performance elements as the Halo Effect; the Peer Rating; and Personality Characteristics Distinctions. From the body of data available to us, we assembled additional blocks of qualitative constructs. These included: the Presence/Aura Effect, the Turnstile Factor, Style Comparison, Media Perception, Home Appeal, International Appeal, Pressure Handling Rating.
Arriving at our data terminus, we encountered some well-trodden fundamental facts:
Table 1- Standard Comparison
Richards Lara Tests Innings Runs Hundreds Fifties Average
Richards 121 182 8540 24 45 50.24
Lara 117 206 10818 30 46 54.09
Proceeding to less familiar territory we found ourselves confronted by our own constructs.
The Reliability Factor
Table 2(a) - Year-by-Year Performance
RICHARDS
Year Matches Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Runs Average
1974 3 5 0 1 *192 261 65.25
1975 7 12 1 0 50 210 19.09
1976 11 19 5 7 291 1710 90.00
1977 5 9 2 0 92 257 28.56
1978 2 2 0 0 39 62 31.00
1979 2 2 1 1 140 236 118.00
1980 10 14 7 2 145 893 68.69
1981 5 7 0 2 *182 342 57.00
1982 2 4 1 0 50 158 39.50
1983 11 15 3 2 120 588 39.20
1984 15 21 3 3 208 862 45.37
1985 4 6 2 1 105 310 62.00
1986 8 11 3 1 *110 506 50.60
1987 6 8 1 1 *109 300 42.86
1988 11 17 6 2 146 867 51.00
1989 6 9 2 1 110 287 35.88
1990 3 5 1 0 70 141 28.20
1991 10 16 7 0 80 550 39.29
LARA
Year Matches Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Runs Average
1990 1 2 0 0 44 49 24.50
1992 3 6 3 0 64 195 32.50
1993 7 10 3 1 277 586 58.60
1994 8 14 4 2 375 996 71.14
1995 12 20 6 4 179 1222 67.89
1996 5 9 1 0 74 226 25.11
1997 12 21 3 3 132 859 40.90
1998 9 15 5 0 93 608 43.43
1999 8 15 4 3 213 832 59.43
2000 9 17 1 2 182 497 29.24
2001 9 18 4 3 221 1151 63.94
2002 7 10 3 0 73 351 35.10
2003 10 19 5 5 209 1344 74.67
2004 12 21 4 3 *400 1178 58.90
2005 5 9 0 4 196 724 80.44
Table 2(b) - Success-Failure Ratio
RICHARDS
Successes- Failures Innings (%) of Career Innings Not Outs Total Runs Scored Average (%) of Career total runs.
Scores of 100 or more 24 13.2% 5 3536 186.11 41.4%
Scores of 50-99 45 24.7% 3 3073 73.17 36%
Scores of Less than 50 113 62.1% 4 1931 17.76 22.6%
LARA
Successes- Failures Innings (%) of Career Innings Not Outs Total Runs Scored Average (%) of Career total runs.
Scores of 100 or more 30 14.6% 2 5205 185.89 48.1%
Scores of 50-99 46 22.3% 1 3268 72.62 30.2%
Score of less than 50 130 63.1% 3 2345 18.46 21.7%
Table 3 - The Convertibility Factor
RICHARDS Innings Scores of 50 or more Ratio (%)
182 69 37.91
LARA
Innings Scores of 50 or more Ratio (%)
206 76 36.89
Table 4 - Batting Contribution to Team Result
RICHARDS
Match/Series Result No. of Matches/Series Runs Highest Score Average 100s 50s (%)of Career total runs
Matches Won 63 4300 291 52.43 12 22 50.4%
Matches Drawn 39 3043 232 60.86 10 16 35.6%
Matches Lost 19 1197 177 31.50 2 7 14.0%
Series Won 21 6736 291 53.88 21 33 78.9%
Series Drawn 7 1378 123 40.52 2 10 16.1%
Series Lost 1 426 101 38.72 1 2 5%
LARA
Match/Series Result No. of Matches/Series Runs Highest Score Average 100s 50s (%)of Career total runs
Matches Won 32 2929 213 61.02 8 16 27.1%
Matches Drawn 31 3235 400* 73.52 10 9 37.9%
Matches Lost 54 4654 221 43.09 12 21 35%
Series Won 13 3683 375 58.46 9 18 34%
Series Drawn 6 1907 213 68.10 8 6 17.6%
Series Lost 25 5228 400* 47.96 13 22 48.4%
Table 5 - Series Domination Regularity
RICHARDS
Type of Test Series Number of series played (by matches) No. of Series Dominated (100 runs per test match) (%) of series dominated
2 Match Series 3 0 0%
3 Match Series 5 1 20%
4 Match Series 7 2 29%
5 Match Series* 12 0 0%
6 Match Series 2 0 0%
TOTAL 29 3 10.3%
LARA
Type of Test Series Number of series played (by matches) No. of Series Dominated (100 runs per test match) (%) of series dominated
2 Match Series 9 2 22%
3 Match Series 5 2 40%
4 Match Series* 6 4 67%
5 Match Series 9 1 11%
6 Match Series 2 1 50%
TOTAL 31 10 32.3%
Table 6 - The Adaptability Factor
RICHARDS
Position Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Runs Average
Opening 4 2 1 101 279 69.75
No. 3 59 14 12 291 3508 61.54
No. 4 41 9 4 *182 1566 41.21
No. 5 63 18 6 208 2720 47.72
No. 6 10 2 1 105 390 39.00
No. 7 2 0 0 23 35 17.50
No. 8 3 0 0 33 42 21.00
LARA
Position Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Runs Average
Opening 2 1 0 91 111 55.50
No. 3 59 12 7 *400 3244 58.98
No. 4 131 30 22 277 6927 53.28
No. 5 12 3 1 *153 514 46.73
No. 6 1 0 0 8 8 8.00
No. 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
No. 8 1 0 0 14 14 14.00
Table 7 - Run Spread Factor
RICHARDS
Opponent Matches Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Average Runs (%) of Total Career Innings Played (%) of Total Career Runs Scored
34 54 14 5 208 44.43 2266 29.7 26.5
36 50 15 8 291 62.37 2869 27.5 33.6
28 41 7 8 *192 50.71 1927 22.5 22.7
7 10 2 1 105 43.00 387 5.5 4.5
16 27 7 2 123 41.96 1091 14.8 12.7
LARA
Opponent Matches Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Average Runs (%) of Total Career Innings Played (%) of Total Career Runs Scored
27 50 11 8 277 51.46 2470 24.3 22.8
2 2 1 1 120 86.50 173 0.9 1.6
30 51 11 7 *400 62.15 2983 24.8 27.6
13 21 6 1 103 37.67 791 10.2 7.3
8 12 4 1 147 51.17 614 5.8 5.7
9 17 2 2 153 42.65 725 8.3 6.7
18 35 9 4 202 49.00 1715 17.0 15.9
8 14 2 5 221 86.54 1125 6.8 10.4
2 4 0 1 191 55.50 222 1.9 2.0
Table 8 - Away-Home Balance Ratio
RICHARDS
Venue Matches Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Runs Average Ratio Away- Home Balance
Away 73 115 31 13 291 5404 50.50 64% 1.78
Home 48 67 14 11 *182 3136 49.78 36%
LARA
Venue Matches Innings 50s 100s Highest Score Runs Average Ratio Away- Home Balance
Away 61 103 26 16 277 6006 61.29 44% 0.80
Home 56 103 20 14 *400 4812 47.18 56%
Table 9 - The Captaincy Effect
RICHARDS
Captain Not-Captain
Matches 50 71
Innings 74 112
Runs 3068 5472
Average 45.12 53.64
100s 6 18
50s 23 22
% of Team Total 12.9% 15.7%
LARA
Captain Not-Captain
Matches 40 77
Innings 72 134
Runs 4026 6792
Average 59.21 51.45
100s 11 19
50s 18 28
% of Team Total 20.4% 17.8%
Rationalization & Results
Table 2(a) - Reliability Factor - Year-by-Year Performance
We have used as our benchmark a minimum aggregate of 500 runs per year. Table 2(a) shows Lara achieving this standard 66% of the years he has played, whereas Richards achieves the minimum milestone 39% of the years he played. Further, Lara's performance troughs are not as deep as Richards?, suggesting a greater year-to-year reliability.
Table 2(b) - Reliability Factor - Success /Failure Ratio
Table 2(b) depicts the frequency of batting successes and failures. Elsewhere, we have shown the rate of successful innings conversions called the Convertibility Factor (Table 3). Table 2(b), however is intended to measure the frequency of batting failures on which the two batsmen are also being judged. In this respect, Richards? failure of (62.1%) is marginally less than Lara's (63.1%).
Table 3 - Convertibility Factor
Table 3 presents data that are used to determine the rate at which the two batsmen converted an innings into a score of 50 and over. This follows logically from the results of Table 2(b) that measured the rate of failure. The distinction however is not redundant, in that it is possible for one batsman to achieve a higher success aggregate by virtue of bigger scores. Lara's scores of 100 and over were larger and more consistent than Richards?, but Richards? intermediate scores of 50 to 99 were more frequent.
Table 4 - Batting Contribution to team
Table 4 highlights the relative contributions to the team's match and series results. The emphasis is on batting averages of course, in that aggregate runs is simply a reflection of total matches played, whether they be victories, draws or losses. While Richards would have played in nearly twice as many victorious matches and series than Lara, Lara averages more per innings than Richards in his matches and series with victorious results. By the same token Lara averages more per innings in match and series than Richards.
Table 5 - Series Domination Regularity
For the purposes of this comparison, a series is defined by the number of matches played by the two batsmen, e.g.: Richards in 1976 played *four out of the five tests in the tour to . Similarly, on 's 2005 tour to the , Lara played in *three of the four tests. The numbers indicate that Lara's domination of various series he has played, being heavier than Richards?.
Table 6 - Adaptability Factor
It would not be harmful to the comparison exercise if we were to select a cluster of those batting positions that the two batsmen occupied most often. These positions would naturally be 3, 4 and 5. Overall, Richards? performances in these positions demonstrate a somewhat higher degree of adaptability.
Table 7 - Run Spread Factor
The benchmark here is the attainment of a minimum career average of 50 against the opposing country. The numbers show Lara prevailing with a batting average of over 50 against six out of the nine test countries he has played against. Richards played against fewer countries- five- and achieved the minimum against two of those countries.
Table 8 - Away-Home Balance Ratio
Presents data on the away-home balance ratio. The away-home balance ratio is the percentage differential between the runs scored overseas (expressed as a percentage of overall career runs scored) and runs scored at home (also expressed as a percentage of overall career runs scored). A higher weighting is given to away performances. Richards, with a positive away differential of 28%, surpasses Lara's negative away differential (-) 12%.
Table 9 - The Captaincy Effect
The statistical level reveals a higher level of performance as captain by Lara: a higher percentage contribution to team; a higher batting average; and although he batted two innings less as captain than Richards, his batting aggregate is nearly a 1000 runs more.
Results
The foregone quantitative analysis places Lara ahead. In Part 3 we will examine, with judicious reference to James, the qualitative factors. Our findings with will be tempered by a sampling of popular opinion, before arriving at the final verdict.
(To be continued).
OG's note:
I just wanted to state my simply view before the finale..
I've been privileged to watch both players when they were both young, matured and thru-out.
Firstly, I look at the comparison as a warrior vs a prince, both attributes or characteristics are just simply adorable and loveable by spectators thus trapping or stimulating emotions.
Sir Viv in the eyes of most W/Indians is like lion when he bats..he's cunning, powerful, intimidating, strong, feared and brutal. Additionally, his cool and calm demeanor coupled with his unmatched confidence enhanced his prowess on the field. Off the field his presence in a room is felt as his charm comes shining thru his imposing size.
If stats are a significant factor in this comparison then I think one should mention Sir Viv's 1350 runs from 5 'Test' in the Kerry Packer series in 1979? when he was in his pinky. Sir Viv is a true warrior who's work also includes bringing about a greater awareness of Caribbean-ness to the world. Great men are felt.
The best player I've seen with a bat in his hand is B.C. Lara...he captivates fans with his princely style and extraordinary allround strokeplay to the extent that one feels unreal or mistified about the proceedings. Most spectators seems to edge their seats when he flourishes and gasps when he gets out as the reality of normalcy has dawn again. Lara is credited for bringing out the women spectators.
I've played cricket as a batsman for many moons and I've scored a few 100's which is not easy to do and for someone to score innings of 375, 501* and then 400* in one lifetime...thats just unreal.
OG
|
|
|
|
Khushru
139 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005
|
Owen, this is by far the best topic ever posted on this MB. So first, thank you. Ganesh's comments were wonderful too, so thanks Ganesh.
I have to agree with Ganesh in that Richards meant more to West Indian and Black people everywhere than Lara does or did at any time in his career. Richards was an incredible persona. He was much more than just his game. Lara doesn't come close in that regard.
There are very few who can come close to Richards in that way and I can think of only two: Worrell (who strangely does not find a mention in Part 1) and Hansie Cronje.
Worrell by all accounts was looked up to by an entire group of nations, in the WIs as well as around the world.
Cronje had that same status, especially in SA, but also in India. I remember feeling sick to my stomach when I heard Bacher's words on TV that morning, because he had that respect.
The Tendulkar-Lara debate is still unfinished and I wonder where that
will end up. A lot of this current Australian team thinks Tendulkar is a notch above Lara (Ponting and Warne have said that).
|
|
|
|
Tigerdesert
751 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005
|
OG, Great work. Very interesting.
Good Job.
|
|
|
|
rohan
1120 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005
|
Gotta agree with Khushru and Ganesh on this - Lara does not come close to Viv in terms of what he has done, his phenomenal individual feats notwithstanding. Ganesh - still not with you on the Richards-Bradman question though, but I'm not per se against you either :-)
The Tendulkar-Lara debate is an interesting one. I believe that Tendulkar is the better batsman (particularly the Tendulkar of 10-12 years ago), but that Lara is the greater batsman. His feats, as OG points out, are quite exceptional, and he has pulled off things for his team that Tendulkar simply has not. It's no good blaming a weak Indian side either - the WI side of the last few years has hardly been the best.
Keep it coming OG - this is nice stuff.
Rohan. |
|
|
|
runsgetter
972 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005
|
Rohan,
It's much more than his feats....Lara who I don't like as a person because I think he's done WI too much hard harm because of his puerility and selfishness is a small man with lightening quick eyes, hands and feet cordination. Once he's batting well it's difficult to control or contain him, no matter who bowls. He combine the terms ferocious, powerful, savage, delectable, elegant, thunderous, classy, magical and delicate in his innnigs as he hunts and make runs at will all around the wicket and in doing so most times he captures and take you away with his exhilaration (it's like you get cricket high). This is why women loves watching him. He's indeed a very different kind of a player and is certainly a great batsman. Sir Viv on the otherhand is a great cricketer, a man of great statue or simply a great man who probably has done more for the 'outer' cricket world than any other.
OG |
Edited by - runsgetter on 08/05/2005 |
|
|
|
Khushru
139 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005
|
Well said Owen. I like the phrase 'cricket high'. There are two cricket highs I remember, or rather that I cannot forget.
One was the partnership of Azhar and Tendulkar between lunch and tea in a Test match in South Africa. The two were in the zone like rarely seen at both ends. It was an incredible session of cricket.
The other was watching Tendulkar v/s Pakistan in this recent world cup. That was something else totally. And a 'cricket high' that was super special. And it has nothing to do with India beating Pakistan, but rather the quality of cricket, the tension in the air, the fallibility of human nature, the sheer drama of the moment. It was also about some superb batting from Tendulkar of course, but also from Kaif.
To be able to share that with my cricket mates made it all the more memorable. |
|
|
|
Khushru
139 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005
|
Gentlemen ...
Considering we're living at a time when Lara, Tendulkar, Inzamam, Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Sehwag, (and until recently Azhar and the Waughs), Ganguly, Dravid are all playing ... do you think we are in the Golden Age of Batting? Do you think it can get any better than this? Do you think that Lara and Tendulkar as historic contemporaries can ever be matched? |
|
|
|
rohan
1120 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005
|
Dangerous game to compare across eras in which the sport was very different in so many ways. There are just too many variables at play. Rose-tinted spectacles on the one hand, and ignorance on the other hand (face it, we've seen a lot less of Bradman than we have of Tendulkar - heck, we've seen less of even guys like Viv than we probably realise).
However, once you include Ganguly in that list, all bets are off as far as reasonable discussion goes :-)
Rohan. |
|
|
|
Buster
454 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by Khushru
Gentlemen ...
Considering we're living at a time when Lara, Tendulkar, Inzamam, Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Sehwag, (and until recently Azhar and the Waughs), Ganguly, Dravid are all playing ... do you think we are in the Golden Age of Batting? Do you think it can get any better than this? Do you think that Lara and Tendulkar as historic contemporaries can ever be matched?
This thread reminds me of an interview Bradman gave to Ray Martin (what a ****er) about 15 years ago. In a time when WI bowlers were ruling the world...
and I'm paraphrasing from my bad memory...
Martin: "So Mr. Bradman when you look at what the West Indian bowlers are doing today, how intimidating they, how fierce they are and their sheer pace, what do you think your average would be if you were playing cricket in today's world?
Sir Don: "I reckon I'd average between 40 or 50."
Martin: WOW, so you really rate today's bowlers as being pretty exceptional?"
Sir Don: "Well I'm 86 now you know"
Paul |
|
|
|
hoodbu
515 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005
|
Poor timing OG. Honestly, right the only comparisons people are making right now are Botham vs Flintoff. You could have waited...
-- Umair |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
All Forums
Sons of the Sun (Pt 1)
New Topic
Send Topic to a Friend
Printer Friendly
