By Decentric - 15 Sep 2019 10:39 AM
The is again similar to the bowling thread of all time wicket takers in Test cricket history.
Can someone post a table with the top 30 odd run scorers in Test cricket, please?
Cheers
|
By flyslip - 22 Jul 2020 3:16 PM
+x
Flyslip has shown he knows a fair bit about Australian cricket, but doesn't seem to know a great deal about performances outside Australian tests. His initial post about Brian Lara being the best ever and carried the West Indian team to wins is so incorrect.
1. For most of his career Lara played along side Sir Curtly Ambrose who retired at the beginning of 2001 and Courtney Walsh who retired in 2002, Lara started his career in 1990 alongside Greenidge (retired 1991), Haynes (retired 1994), Richardson (retired 1995), Hooper (retired 2002), Logie (retired 1991), Dujon (retired 1991), Marshall (retired 1991), Ian Bishop (retired 1998). He had a lot of talent around him in the initial period. In 1991 the West Indies lost a fair bit of talent but the still had the core of a great bowling attack and it wasn't till the retirement of Ambrose that West indies went down hill. But the West Indies still saw Sarwan, Chanderpaul, in the side they just had no bowlers that's why they lost so much from 2001 onwards.
2 Of Brian Lara's highest scores (his 34 centuries) the West Indies rarely won tests. These are the tests 1 against Bangladesh (2004), 1 against Pakistan (2005), 1 against New Zealand (1995), 1 against Zimbabwe (2003) 1 against England (1994) but you guessed it 3 times against Australia (1997 and 2nd and 3rd tests 1999), thus the appearance that Lara was a "match winner". Talk about minnow bashing, Bangladesh very early in their career as a test nation, Zimbabwe, 1995 New Zealand team who had nothing, 2005 Pakistan team who had nothing. 1994 England team bowling attack of CC Lewis, Igglesden (who?) Fraser, Salisbury (av 76 with the ball). But the 3 test wins against Australia made him a match winner.........only in an Australian supporters eyes. The West Indies did win quite a few tests in the 90's but it wasn't on the back of Lara, it was on the back of Ambrose and to a lesser extent Walsh and Bishop. They also had Jimmy Adams, Chanderpaul, Carl Hooper who also played significant roles in their careers.
Right, so Lara didn't actually completely outclass bowlers the calibre of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, McGill and co to save matches or guide his team to victory (without the benefit specialist dustbowl Indian conditions). No, because he had certain team mates at various times in his career, and also scored big in matches where his team lost, his greatest personal achievements simply didn't happen. Cricket logic 101. Lolol.
This highlights the problem in discussing cricket opinions that are derived from statsguru rather than from the cricket itself.
The complete opposite can be said about Tendulkar, of his top 20 scores India won 9 tests, most of the rest resulted in draws, so he did win matches for India.
If we're going to cherry pick stats why not go all the way and mention that three of those 9 victories were against Zimbabwe or the Banglas when they were basically an average club side. Where his best performances and 8 of his centuries derive (including his average bumping highest score of 248*). Still a great batsman though in a "run machine" sort of way, if not as great as many Indian fans believe (despite statsguru Gavaskar is still the best ever Indian batsman IMO, an argument could also be made to have Dravid next). Good batsmen should score heavily against the weaklings, it's more that he had far more opportunities to do this compared to some others.
His record in winning causes against the best attack of his era (undoubtedly the MacGrath/Warne led Aussies) around the same time as Lara aren't that good. A quick look seems to amount to one century in a winning cause against a MacGrath/Warne led Aussies, although on a specialist Indian wicket designed to nullify our attack and more thanks to a 15 wicket hall by Harbhajan than anything else (and interestingly with M Hadyen as MOM for a 203* lol).
While not directly comparable for obvious reasons, it's still also worth noting that he never scored a century to win a match against the Windies in the period pre Ambrose/Walsh retirements.
That this is put up as relevant in any way that might diminish Lara's achievements is bewildering, but anyway... It doesn't really matter as I'll stick to what was observed, rather than what is on statsguru. Stats don't show that Viv was clearly better than either of them for example, yet I have little doubt that he was.
|
|