The reality is that scoring a hundred in the 4th innings of any test match is a significant feat which increases in value by each of these:
1. when its a matchwinning or matchsaving scenario
2. when its against a good or great bowling team
3. when it is on a difficult pitch
4. when its away from home
5. when its to win a series
6. when it consumes a higher % of team score
7. when it consumes a higher % of team strike
Considering those factors, let's compare Lara's 153* to Smith's 154*. Both were equal on 1, Lara ahead on 2, equal on 3, Smith ahead on 4, Smith ahead on 5 and Smith ahead on 6 and Smith ahead on 7 (51.25% to 35.45%).
Therefore, Smith is ahead on 4 factors while Lara is ahead on 1 factor. Using the benchmarks, Smith's knock is a better matchwinning knock.
Message Board Archives
Lara's 153* vs. Smith's 154*
In reply to thefan
Pray tell which idiot came up wid dese factors? And no other factors matter...like say strength of opposition...
Facting joke.
In reply to thefan
6. when it consumes a higher % of team score
7. when it consumes a higher % of team strike
Call it batting with tail nah! Isn't that enough?
In reply to Trinidave
Steeeeups ... does that really matter?
In reply to Trinidave
Read 2
In reply to thefan
number 5 is bullshit.......
Lara's 153 gave us a 2 - 1 lead.....Lara's 100 in Antigua caused us said lead but that is another story....
In reply to thefan
Lara ahead on #3. Day 5 track worse than day 4 track.
In reply to thefan
Lara's was better because of the opposition and the situation
SA had a lead in the first innings and dominated most of the match
Lara came from behind
In reply to Surya
Oh.
But how can dis "category" be quantified, as merely ah single factor? If for example, Smith played dat innings againts de CC.com team, den all de other stats wud be meaningless right.
And how de "expert" rate de pitches as equal?
In reply to thefan
Though Smith earns big points for (4) - Away from home...in hostile territory -, BCL is ahead by virtue of game situation - WI down to nine wickets (SA down to 5), AND by quality of opposition bowling (Sidebottom was not 100% fit).
Re (5), BCL did put Windies into the lead in the series.
Suh BCL 95 marks, Smith 82 marks.
Listen Lara was playing with a bunch of joker batsmen in the side, SA were ahead of England right throughout the game.....Lara was batting against McGrath,Gillespie,Warne while Smith was batting against Sidebatty,Panesar...Lara played a better innings by far especially because it was on a harder pitch to bat on....
Lara's knock was 10 times better
In reply to Trinidave
Jus laugh. Nothing diclueless one writes will change di views of di cognoscenti.
In reply to OVAL291
So put simply Lara was di only player on di team?
only 2 test b4 WI had been bowled out for 52 i think. so lara's 153 was gold
In reply to thefan
How do you judge your own subjective factors?
Even a regression equation can't help here
And whay these seven factors
Do the seven factors have the same weight
2. when its against a good or great bowling team
3. when it is on a difficult pitch
4. when its away from home
5. when its to win a series
6. when it consumes a higher % of team score
7. when it consumes a higher % of team strike
Here are some questions I want to ask
Are all African guyanese like you and Larr Pullo pseudo-intelligent?
Why waste your limited brains trying to prove whether or not a African titty was the best or the worse
Why not put your little brains into solving some significant problems, like global warming or the Guyanese national debt?
No wonder Guyanese capital flight continues-every man jack just brain dead
In reply to Samwells
Thank you Sammy, this was McGrath at his best-bowling over after over
Gillepsie at his fastest too
In reply to Chrissy
The only player on top of their game.........
This board has extremes
Lara was not the only player
Neither was his performance less than Smith
Ambrose had the correct attitude-He said-I go bat with you skipper
if it were not for Ambrose, yes, the dottie revolution
In reply to jaydee
Yes..but Walsh brought it home..
In reply to thefan
Lara batted alot with the tail, and Australia's attack had Warne, Macgill, McGrath, and Gillespie.
In reply to bcl277
Smith scored a higher % of his team's runs and faced a higher % of its deliveries. He batted 10 deliveries less than Lara and scored 1 run more than Lara at a higher %. And he did it all away from home, which negates the difference in opposition argument significantly.
Lara did not win the series with that game. Australia still had a chance to draw the series which they did.
In reply to CricketLuva4
So freaking what? Smith couldn't bat with the tail if he had to?
McGill and Warne at Kensington - how many of those weak WI wickets did they take again?
In reply to thefan
Why don't you focus on what has been accomplished? Why do you want to speculate and extrapolate?
In reply to thefan
The keywords you stated was weak, the Windies had a fairly weak team against Australia's stellar Bowling attack. And batting with the tail makes the innings a whole lot more hard worked. And I hope you know what those two spinners were capable of ANYDAY
This kind of thinking is akin to single factor analysis, where the outcome is predetermined and a single criterion, often hidden, determines the predetermined outcome. Here the dishonest intent is masked by a plethora of criteria in an effort to mask prejudiced views. The author would respond that he's not using, engaging in single factor analysis, but is employing a wide array of standards. The number of factors is not so relevant as their merit. This is nothing more than a facade, a clever ruse to hide true intent, while promoting a dishonest, and, possibly, malicious agenda.
In reply to thefan
This is so ridiculous that all I can say is that you are an arse!
Simply no one in that english attack is better than McGrath, Gillespie, Warne or MacGill so whose knock was better is a no brainer, whether home or away, still doesn't matter. And England was home and their attack wasn't at it's best either. Lara anyday!
In reply to thefan
Wat fackeries is dis? You saying dat Smith cud have batted wid de tail like Lara did against dat Oz team wid dem Oz bowlers? How de fact do you know dat? What we do know is dat Lara did, and what we do know is dat dat was some superhuman batting. De anguish on Waugh's face told de story every time he set de field to prevent Lara from maintaining de strike, and yet Lara broke de code, threaded needle.
Maaaaaaaan. Gwaaaaaan wid your bullshit.
In reply to Trinidave
okay you proved my point
In reply to Trinidave
Couldn't Lara have scored all 280 runs against England? Yes, he could have..He has already demonstrated that by scoring 400..
theassfan and his extrapolation are fall down funny
In reply to BallOil
Do you remember it was the bravado of Amrbose that encouraged Lara-Why not ask him?
And yes even Walsh tried a bit
In reply to watchman
Post of the century
In reply to jaydee
Luckily I was there for that final day ... 
But, yeah Ambi did his part... That is one of the best darn inning from Di Boss!
In reply to Surya
Fact is, Smith farmed 51% of the strike batting with the top and middle order compared to Lara farming 35% of the strike with teh entire team, wtf would he have done with teh tail? Smith was shielding his top order 
Smith did it right from the top whereas Lara came in at No 5, you do know that?
Big post dat Watchman.
Smith did it right from the start. He controlled it throughout. Lara came to the crease with 40.40 overs completed while Smith faced teh fire from the start to the end.
In reply to watchman
Man, finally got to a machine it was painful reading this shite from thefan and not able to respond. Thanks man, that response was tops.
In reply to watchman
Yes Watchie! All this to say that he is an arse.
In reply to Trinidave
So Butcher's 173* is a better innings than Lara given the above criteria, right?
...peep this...this should close the door on this 'question'
Brian Lara, 153 not out v Australia, Barbados, 1999
The greatest innings of its kind from one of the greatest batsmen ever to play. This was a Test that had everything. West Indies were dead and buried midway through the third day, falling to 98 for 6 in reply to Australia's 490. However, they fought back with Sherwin Campbell and Ridley Jacobs, and then dismissed Australia for 146. Still, 308 was a tough target, and almost out of reach at 105 for 5. But Lara found an able ally in Jimmy Adams, and the pair added 133. However, with six runs required, Curtly Ambrose edged to slip, leaving last-man Courtney Walsh five balls to survive. Lara then took strike against Jason Gillespie and a nation held its breath until Gillespie sent down a wide half volley, which Lara sent rocketing through the covers. The ball had barely reached the boundary when the invasion began. Lara was a hero and the Caribbean partied.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/363876.html
In reply to thefan
yo what are u smoking.. can u tell me that... ur on a high... man get real...
153 is the greatest ever test knock.. get it in ur thick skull and get lost....
In reply to thefan
Lara was the only consistent bat on his team the entire series and most of his career save Chanderpaul. Smith has a team full of guys who can step up and bat. Aus and all other teams playin WI knew if they got Lara out they would more than likely win the game. Getting Smiths wicket doesn't mean a whole lot because he's backed up by McKenzie, Kallis, Amla, DeVilliers, Prince, Boucher and even the tail enders, save Ntini know how to play with responsibility. Lara out means game over and thats why he's the greatest of modern era bastmen because he was ALWAYS under so much pressure.
In reply to thefan
Lara 153 by a mile.