Although not as technically sound as Sachin Tendulkar nor as dominant against the short ball as Ricky Ponting, Brian Charles Lara was an outlier even to this league of extraordinary gentlemen.
A glance his cricinfo profile page will reveal a flattering account of his career in numbers, a viewing of one of his many centuries will engender an appreciation of his once in a lifetime value.
Recognisable by his extravagant, guillotine like backlift and a pronounced crouch in his otherwise impeccable batting stance, Lara wasn’t just a brilliant player but a pleasure to watch.
He was every bit of an entertainer as a sportsman, and a man who would undeviatingly dictate when you would conveniently tell your boss you had glandular fever or explain to your girlfriend it was strictly a gathering for those with y chromosomes.
A maverick among mavericks, Lara knew his game like James Bond knows females.
Armed with a ferocious square drive and scintillating cut shot, Lara dealt severely with any width and left many a point and cover fieldsman terrified.
His extraordinary backlift allowed him to strike the ball with extreme velocity, yet he possessed the deft touch of a French painter to compliment it.
There is no adjective in the English language that could adequately describe the ease in which he accounted for spinners. Perhaps Robin Petersen could enlighten us.
But all these details are common knowledge, the enormity of his achievements are either ignorantly disregarded or simply not realised.
The Prince began his international career in 1990 and by the time he loosened his jockstrap for the final time in 2007, he had the record for the highest Test score, the second most double centuries of all time and three of the greatest innings ever complied, according to Wisden.
Coupled with a Test average of over 50 and over 50 international centuries on the resume, his figures are outstanding in themselves.
His true greatness however, lay in the overwhelming responsibility he held for the nearly the entire duration of his career.
Peruse through every scorecard of his 131 Test matches and 299 one-day internationals and his name almost jumps out at you in bold and underlined font, as the vast majority of his fellow island dwelling acolytes possessed the skill set of a Sunday Moore Park league hacker.
Yes there were exceptions, Richie Richardson, Carl Hooper, Jimmy Adams and Shivnarine Chanderpaul were all very good players, but of this group only Chanderpaul has scored consistent runs for a significant period of time.
Chanderpaul was also a far inferior player away from home, never having registered a century in Australia and having a difference in average of over 16 runs in countries where his passport was required.
Conversely, Lara relished the opportunities abroad, scoring big hundreds in South Africa, England, Australia and the subcontinent.
The West Indies were an ordinary team for much of Lara’s career, he began with a lethal pace battery of Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh to support his self-inflicted totals but as we entered the new millennium not only did The Prince have very few capable batting partners but he had bowlers who would make John Howard look like a reasonable grade cricketer.
His name then became etched in gold, size 52 font on the West Indian team sheet.
For 17 years, Lara was the West Indies cricket team; opposition sides knew if he were to be removed early it was literally game, set, and match.
He held the unflattering record for a time of being a member of a losing side on the most occasions, all the while churning out brilliant performances at the tip of a hat and keeping his team competitive.
The West Indies, after all, had such a proud history in the game that it crushed patriotic cricket lovers to acknowledge the volatile demise they were suffering.
Lara was the glimmer of hope, the one man who could restore respectability and keep the sport alive in the Caribbean.
He did it all with such panache and bravado, one marvels at how he was never really effected by the pressure he bore.
Ponting had dogged determination and aggression, embodying the ‘blood, sweat and tears’ mentality Australians worship.
While his achievements as a batsman should not be trivialised, he benefited largely from the strength of his unit.
Tendulkar has poise, grace, and the closest thing to a perfect temperament and technique one could envisage.
He, like Lara, carried his nation’s hopes as though he was negotiating their way out of a nuclear war. But the latter did it alone and with such audacity.
You could have forgiven Lara for withering away at the hands of expectation or going into his shell out of desperation to survive. But he didn’t shirk.
He encapsulated flamboyance; he was the definition of flair. As the floodlights dimmed at Kensington oval in Bridgetown for what was to be Lara’s final international appearance, he asked the remaining fans, “did I entertain?”
Yes Brian, we weren’t for a moment occupying the full capacity of our seats. You were, as Tina Turner once famously put it, simply the best.
somnath Gore
Guest
oh really..... so why are you calling his records unbreakable..... friend you're very right in your point regarding Brian...love him a lot...but fact remains forever....Plz check out Brian's laras opinion about who is the best batsman?
somnath Gore
Guest
Thanks Lara for the great entertainment..... a true genius, class apart. But mind chuckles calling him no.1 because Tendulkar is there forever....
steven
Guest
There are only two eras in cricket. Bradman era and Sachin Tendulkar era. All the other batsmen are foot prints in this two eras. Don't degrade your self by comparing the greatest batsman with some good players like Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting.
Bearfax
Guest
Good points Oxy, though for me it was Clive Lloyd who was primarily responsible for building the West Indies into such a powerhouse in the late 70s and 80s. I remembered how Clive had been so embarrassed even humiliated by some of the thrashings they received in the mid to late 60s/early 70s. It was his behind the scenes efforts and the good fortune to have rising stars like Richards, Greenwich, Fredricks, Marshall, Roberts, Holding and later Ambrose that gave him the player mix to start to dominate by the mid 70s. Though Clive's test average was only about 47, it was his resolve and astuteness as captain, that raised West Indies to such prominence. For me Clive was one of the most influential cricketers in history.
Oxymoron
Guest
And Tendulkar did this on his own without any bowlers or other great Indian batsman? It'd be like saying that Viv Richards transformed the West Indies team of the 70's & 80's without mentioning Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Richie Richardson, Clive Lloyd, Jeffrey Dujon, Malcolm Marshall, Michael Holding, Colin Croft, Joel Garner or Courtney Walsh. That's why it's a 'team' sport. Tendulkar never played under the pressure that Lara had to, knowing that if he got out that was basically it for the rest of the West Indies batting. Instead, Tendulkar was surrounded by other good Indian batsmen for most of his cricketing career, as well as having his average inflated by playing so many test matches in India. As for cricket lover, you incredibly leave out Viv Richards, as well as Malcolm Marshall and Curtly Ambrose both of whom had better bowling averages than any of those bowlers who are in your side....I'd leave out McGrath and Muri to put in Ambrose and Marshall. Agree with Wasim as he gets in on his all rounder status, but Waugh would go to make way for Viv.
Spencer
Guest
What's staggering is that Lara's big centuries and big double centuries came against big teams and big bowling attacks. He didnt play vs Bangladesh or Zimbabwe to inflate his average. Certainly the best of his era.
Dem
Guest
"Tendulkar first , daylight second, then the rest" - Shane Warne. I couldn't agree more. Tendulkar has gone about his business to his team with a minimum of fuss. But during his watch he has transformed it from essentially a minnow to a force and No.1 a while back. Just about the opposite of Lara. Lara and others will forever remain footnotes in the Tendulkar era.Only much later will we truly appreciate the magnificence and never-to-be-equalled achievements of this remarkable man.
Prar
Guest
Similarly the Lara fans seem to be pleading on primarily his backlift and that Lara was in a poor batting unit. The difference as mentioned several times -is some stats are used to distinguish reality from sentiment. And sentiment is what the Lara fan club primarily relies on. (Not that the Tendulkar fan club lacks it) Your over the top sentimental "argument" is again witnessed by your over the top ,hyperbolic comment which is quite clearly removed from any rational reality. Cheers...
Bearfax
Guest
If we were going to add Gary Sobers to the 'Modern' batsmen, then that adds another dimension. I think Sobers got lost in the 'all rounder' stakes because his batting was probably the best of his time. I suspect Sobers was even superior to both Lara and Tendulkar. His average of near 58 and a 365 not out highest score says a lot for this masterful cricketer.
SM
Guest
As the saying goes "the proof is in pudding" Despite Sachins unbreakable records his fans are still pleading with stats on why he should be no:1 sums up everything. We may see another Sachin in this lifetime but we will never see another Brian Lara, he was once a lifetime player. As much as I like Sachin but he has to be reborn many many times to be even half close to Lara. Sorry Sachin fans you have to live with this fact and have to have those stats handy for quick copy paste :)
Keith Connell
Guest
It has been said that the measure of a man is how he responses to adversity, how his presence affects the emotions of other, his ability To plan implement and execute under any citcumstance such plans, despite his own faults, Hence BC LARA being anything other that at number 1 is well unlikely, for batsmen and a matter of course for SOBERS in any discuss about the greatest of all times any era in any sport. Nuff said
Bearfax
Guest
Very impressive side. A little light on for fast bowlers and would probably have a Malcolm Marshall type player instead of Waugh but otherwise I like it.
Cricket Lover
Guest
My Test Team ***************** Position Name 1 Sunil Gavaskar 2 Mathew Hayden 3 Brian Lara 4 Sachin Tendulkar 5 KC Sangakkara + 6 Jacque Kallis 7 SR Waugh * 8 Wasim Akram 9 Shane Warne 10 Mutthaiah Muralidharan 11 Glenn McGrath Extra CEL Ambrose, Dale Steyn, Viv Richards, Rahul Dravid Kallis or Ambrose in 11 - based on the pitch :-)
Troy
Guest
Tendulkar #1 for me - more consistent, and greater longevity. I'd be more confident in Tendulkar making a decent score in any given innings than I would be with Lara.
Prar
Guest
1) Frankly I don't know how having most doubles and other big scores classifies as being the best. There are numerous other facets to consider - which I have posted in previous comments. What it does mean that when Lara got in he made it count. The 500 was in FC cricket not international cricket. The triples were purely a function of Lara again filling his boots as much as possible on the smallest ,deadest pitch on earth. At no point till the record was achieved , or Lara was out, was a consideration made to declare. Using your particular line of thought - Sehwag should trump Lara on most measures. Sehwag was Lara on steroids. Big scores , fast. Infact much faster than Lara. 2) Re. ODIs again sentiment trumps reality. Averages can adequately be compared when the ratio of matches in different positions is similar - similar stages of a career, bowlers, pitches etc. An opening batsman has some advantages but also faces the new white ball - completely different proposition to the old white ball. Most of Lara's better stats in opening came in the early part of his career pre 1994. Since then he has played only 8 inn as an opener avg. 25. Prior this he played 44 inn. in one very narrow window of 1992/93 where he avg. 50. Tendulkar has several such periods where he avg. 60,70 or even more. Hardly basis for judgement. For eg. most of Tendulkars career the batsmen who opened for an extended period -say 100 inn or more over a long time period as well to account for purple patches - only 5 have a 40+ avg. ( With Tendulkar as the highest avg 48 over 344 matches). Batsmen in the middle order who avg. 40+ are far more numerous. Lara may have avg. a bit more had he continued as an opener , but this is not certain. Also, the bit about Lara "deliberately to give younger players a chance to mature" rings hollow. He should have been playing for the best results. If he did the above close to retirement - it may have made sense. But since 1992/93 Lara has hardly opened - i.e he when he himself was a youngster. So - that is pure sentiment and emotion talking. In terms of impact till at least the mid 2000s noone but Viv has had the kind of ODI impact. Sure , Tendulkar failed in both WC finals but it may be convincingly argued that without Tendulkar India would never have got to 2 WC finals and a WC semi in the first place. The same can hardly be said about Lara.
CoreySingh
Guest
I'm Indian and don't hesitate to place Lara well above any other batsman of his era. He has more double centuries (against big teams and big bowling attacks) than anyone in his era (Sangakkara, who openly states that he models his career on Lara's, is getting close, but again, some vs minnows), together with 300s, 400s and 500s. Of course he is also wonderfully stylish, but what sets Lara apart is the aura he creates; you really felt like he could do anything. I would also argue that Lara was a better ODI player than Tendulkar. Tendy opened, and had many balls to face, whilst Lara, for most of his career, batted low, sometimes 4 and 5, deliberately to give younger players a chance to mature. His average when opening was very high.
Prar
Guest
Looked up the stats again sans Ban and ZIm: From 2000-2011 Tendulkar avg 51.2 as compared to Lara's 53.4 from 2000 to 2006. (This period included Tendulkar's worst consecutive injury patch till then coinciding with Lara's best consecutive year patch 2003-07) From my prior comment the consective year avg. stretches for Tendulkar sans Ban and Zim become: Jan 1992-Jan 2005- 57.5 Jan 2007 -2 Jan 2011 - 58.8 The approx 60+ consecutive years sans Ban and Zim: Jan 1992- Jan 2002 : 61.3 ( 10 yrs) 1 aug 2007 - 2 Jan 2011: 61.1 ( 3 1/2 yrs) Approx 14 yrs. The periods between 2003-07 were years when Tendulkar only basically scored against Ban and Zim. This exact period was when Lara,Kallis,Ponting,Dravid etc etc all had their absolute best years in terms of matches played, volume of runs scored and average. In this span they suddenly "caught up" with Tendulkar who was considerably ahead of them till then. From 2011 Tendulkar has been in terminal decline. The longer he continues - the worse his overall stats are going to be. Effectively a well chosen retirement seems to have a bigger impact than a lot of other factors as far as stats are concerned. Lara, by contrast, seems to have got his retirement spot on.
Prar
Guest
dasilva, 1) The team aggregate for the most part simply points to a weaker batting unit. In the 2000s WI were far weaker a batting unit than India - this is agreed. Re. lack of batting support - I truly think the facts are counterintuitive. Clearly Tendulkar does better in the 1990s with a much weaker team and Lara does better in the mid 2000s with a weaker team. If you look at the other end of the spectrum - I think Viv would have had much better stats had he played in a similarly weak batting unit . Look at his stats at No.3. At No.4 or later in a strong batting team with a good total on the board there is lesser incentive to dig in and make it count. Viv being the man would for the most part swagger in, chewing gum - and swing it. To my mind had Viv been in a weaker batting unit with less spread out responsibility - his stats would have been far better. I mention the decade of the 1990s because a decade is a pretty long stretch. And the 1990s were a far tougher period for batsmen than the 2000s onwards . Not just with pitches but with bowlers. 2) Also your overall stats include Tendulkar's last couple of horror years. The longer Tendulkar continues now - the worse his overall stats are going to get. For eg. since his last 100 on 2 Jan 2011 to date he averages just 35. From Jan 2000 - 2 jan 2011 he averages - 57. Huge difference. So- inspite of the mid 2000s slump his performance from 2000 is ok. The fade to the final terminal end is distorting the stats. This will surely only get worse if he continues. Other snippets: If you see Tendulkar's " consecutive year stretch" averages over 60 + ( approx) From Jan 1992- Jan 2005 : Avg. 60.78 (13 yrs) Jan 2007 - Nan 2011 : Avg 63.1 ( 5 yrs) So - For periods longer than 18 yrs Tendulkar has avg. 60+ .( Longer than the entire careers of most modern day batsmen) Point is that over an almost 25 yr career including Hundreds of ODIs the performance is difficult to sustain due to numerous reasons including injuries. The way I see it - Lara (Sehwag,Richards etc) when in explosive mode and things clicking were more destructive. Otherwise it is truly difficult to look beyond Tendulkar. And as others have mentioned this is even without bringing ODIs into the picture.
fishes
Guest
Good post, my vote goes to Sachin. Tendulkar... (a bit of) daylight.... then Lara and Ponting about the same. Obviously Lara's best innings were better but you never knew what you were going to get. Ponting was more reliable and more of a team player.
dasilva
Guest
1) It's not so much that lack of batting support leads to inferior performance. That's not true for every player but I will say that most players would find it difficult to score when everyone is failing. It's the rare batsman who rise when their opponents are failing The idea is that performing when everyone else is failing is more difficult and should be valued higher. Lara played more great innings. Not all of his great innings were due to lack of support, some just due to high scores and some due to technical masterclass. I don't see it as double dipping Also add that the aggregate average is more likely due to the pitch. in the 90's the aggregate average of matches involving Tendulkar was still 32.45 whilst Brian lara was 27.45. In the 00's Brian Lara was involved in matches with the aggregate averages of 31.32 whilst Tendulkar was 35.16. However Brian Lara had stronger support in the 90's whilst Tendulkar had stronger support in the 00's but Brian Lara consistently had a lower aggregate averages in matches involving him irrespective of the differences in support. Global batting averages increase in every country in the world from the 00's onwards. 2) My point is that by concentrating on the sustained dominance in the 90's you also ignore the 00's onwards where Tendulkar wasn't even the top 20 batsman in the world in terms of averages and he didn't even average 50 (if you take away zimbabwe and bangladesh) over the last 13 years. If Tendulkar retired in the 90's he probably would have had a better case of being the next best since Bradman but he played long after his peak. Lara maintained his performance in the 90's and 00's