Message Board Archives

Link Text

The one and only BC Lara. Who am I to doubt Bret Lee?

That's the real "who day come fi see"...Brian Charles Lara.

A I kallicaharran takes second place.

In reply to Courtesy

I would tend to agree with you on AI Kallicharran. Brilliant batsman & one of my favourites.

However, IVA Richards would hold that 2nd spot for me.

Saw Sobers very late in his career so can’t really say there.

In reply to imusic

Opinions like these don't need to be argued over...they are just what they are. Respect to your choices.

In reply to Courtesy

BTW, I’m not really able to discern the difference that Lee is talking about.

He says Tendy is way more technical than Lara and more challenging to bowl to. But Lara was “tougher”.

Then he gave the example of bowling 6 deliveries on off stump and Tendy would hit him down the ground each time, whereas bowl the same 6 deliveries to Lara and the ball would go in 6 different directions.

This suggests to me that it would be easier to set a field for Tendy than it would Lara. Maybe that’s the “tougher” part.

I don’t quite get the technical aspect with respect to the example he provided

In reply to imusic

It's all about containment for Bret Lee. Tendy with field placing could have been contained.

It's not so with BC Lara...so that made Lara more difficult to bowl to.

Tendy was more conservative (classical) in his stroke play...Lara more inventive.

In reply to imusic

that is actually the opinion of most of the quick men that bowled to both in the 90s and 2000s. Allan Donald always says that technically Sachin was better than lara, and that is true. But lara is on his all time xi; tendulkar is not. Technically sachin was perfect. but lara had the genius, match winning ability that only the greatest have. Viv was not as good technically as lara, but is viv was a better batsman than lara.

This is how i view it....SRT: A & BCL: A-

In reply to imusic

I have heard Mikey Holding talk very similarly to Brett Lee.He said for example that the most difficult batsman to get out was probably Geoffrey Boycott because he was so technically correct, you had to bowl a special ball to defeat him.However Mikey felt that Ian Chappell was far more difficult to bowl to because he could hit you all over the place even if it was a good ball but he would make many mistakes as well

In reply to Courtesy

that's the ting. the best batsmen you cannot blast out with pace or skill....so you have to make run scoring difficult, keep them on strike, get them frustrated. its why our pacers were so successful. Even if you weren't being dismissed, you were not scoring runs and eventually, that constriction eventually results in wickets.

In reply to Courtesy

Me too

In reply to Jumpstart

As you know Lara learnt to improvise (innovate) partly because the barrackpore boys like Dhanraj could be so good… you require technique to improvise….

Bolls form he own liad thread

Thank you Courtesy, Jumpy, Dukes.

Appreciate the input and clarity it provided

In reply to imusic

i think you answered your question earlier



which is a sharp reminder that being technically textbook correct don't always make you a more difficult batter to bowl to...

In reply to Barry


No-Bolls trying a ting.
I-Muse what Lee meant by more challenging is Tendy was harder to prize out.
He was more predictable in what he did but what he did more perfectly fitted the manual and thus harder to breach.
Dukes is correct as Holding also used the same anecdote to describe The Chappell Brothers and said he'd prefer bowling to Greg because Ian could embarrass you even if possibly giving you more possibilities to get him. Well we know BCL embarrassed many a bowler

In reply to imusic
Laff dat. Oily fool