This is fucking dumb. Yes he has played more tests but he has also managed to keep a near 56 average during all that time. He has played across multiple generations of bowlers and has managed to remain consistently good. He had to face some of the greatest bowlers of all time as well (just look at some of the names he faced in the 90s). He has also had to deal with the immense pressure that comes from being the face of Indian cricket whilst also having to try.
Just saying "hurr durr he played more tests therefore he got more runs" is dumb.
Its just like saying, he has the most runs ever, therefore he is the best batsman ever. durr-durr!
Ok before you start spouting bullshit at least get your facts straight, lets go to cricinfo and have a little look at his averages.
His average in Australia is higher than his average in India despite having to play a lot against Warne and Mcgrath.
His home record is a 56 average in 82 games, his away record is 55.61 in 104 matches. Yep he totally just relied on his performances at home to boost his record.
In short get your head out of your arse.
Well i've seen them both live and thought they both looked great. Of course i will take the words of people who know far more than you when it comes to this (especially when you are demonstrating such a lack of knowledge and come off as incredibly biased).
Yeah we should get the opinion of someone who knows more about cricket than you or I. Someone like Murali, who you know, actually bowled at him:
http://www.cricketcountry.com/crick...ll-the-records-but-Lara-is-better-Murali/7069
So if you can't crack the top 5 players of all time (which is debatable anyway) that means you are just some random batsmen who averages over 50?
Also i find it hilarious that you refer to that list after going on a rampage about how much harder it is to find a good bowler. That list has 3 batsmen, 1 bowler and 1 all rounder. If you truly believe what you said above i don't see how you can refer to this list as though it is gospel.
no, its not the "Top" players of the century. These players were more than being just top players. In fact, there are not many statistics that any of these players "top", other than The Don's 99 of course.
Also just so you know 11 years of Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting and Kallis's careers came this century so you're right they probably don't belong on that list.
That wasnt what I said or implied.
None of Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting or Kallis have done someonthing to deserve displacing any of those top 5.
They are all very, very good players. But not great.
Nope. Greatness comes with being able to do what none of your contemporaries could possibly do.
That is why those five players are in the list.
In an indian's eyes you have had two of the best batsmen of all time for the last 20 odd years.
The reason their greatness gets bandied around so much is because India has had no one of real greatness, so Indians put those two names up there.
P.s. Clarkie just got to 300. If he betters Lara's 400, does that make Clark better than Lara?
retty much what AdventureRacing said
