Professional Documents
Culture Documents
three guys who I thought were great. There were a lot of names on that list but for me it was the look and out of this lot it's Tendulkar and Lara. SM: And which one of the two? JW: No, I don't see it that way, I really don't. SM: I mean, in this lot, Tendulkar and Lara, if you had to pick one? JW: Well, am not going to. SM: Ian, I know for you also it's the look; a Mark Waugh will always be better than a Steve Waugh for you. IC: Obviously, it gets down to people you like watching. As John said, you don't get a player who looks like a champion and then find out that he averages 10. SM: Ok, then tell us what you look for. First the 'look', then the big matches and the players who perform in them? IC: Guys who can take control of the game and then change the game in a short period of time. As a captain, the guys who kept me awake at night were guys like Sobers, Graeme Pollock and Viv Richards--a guy who could get a big score and get it quickly. Guys like Geoffrey Boycott couldn't keep me awake at night, in fact he put me to sleep during the day. I figured that if he got 150 he took so long that it made our chances of saving the game much better. Another reason why I don't classify Geoffrey Boycott as great was that he was a selfish bastard; he never played for the team, he always played for himself. I heard Bill Lawry call him a great batsman one day, and I said to Bill as he came off the field, "that's rubbish Bill, he wasn't a great player". He hemmed and hawed and I said, "Bill, Gary Sobers averaged bloody 58 and he played every second for the game of cricket and not for himself. Boycott played every single second of his career as a batsman for himself and he averaged only 47. What are you talking?" SM: He's a completely different person now, totally selfless! But Ian, from this lot, Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh, Dravid, Ponting, Inzamam and Jaques Kallis, who would you pick? IC: Out of that lot I would put Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting in that category. SM: Will you also not pick amongst them? IC: I will. The point I want to make is that Tendulkar and Lara started quite a lot time before Ponting and it does take a long time to establish yourself as a great player. And whilst I think that Ponting has now surpassed Tendulkar and Lara, that has got a bit to do with age. While I do think that Ponting has entered that category since he hasn't been around for that long, I'll pick from the other two. And if you pointed a gun to my head and said pick one, I'd pick Brian Lara with the proviso that his brain is in gear, because when his brain is in gear I love watching him. SM: That's an anagram isn't it, Brian and brain? IC: I mean, he has had his brain in gear a lot, it's just for that short period when he went a bit crazy. SM: Tony, you're a global cricket follower, you've been so for the last 25-30 years. Your thoughts? TG: Well, Ian's pretty much said it all, I mean Sobers and Graeme Pollock were the two that pretty much stood out for me. They were pretty much unbelievable and it's pretty hard for me to separate the two but I would go with Sobers because he was pretty much the all-round cricketer. But if it came down to these guys I would go with Lara as well, again with a proviso. SM: Your definition of greatness? TG: For me, it's sort of, just the natural thing. It's like a fielder, when you see him run across the turf and pick up the ball, it ends up in the middle of his hand. He doesn't fumble it. I mean guys like Clive Lloyd, Colin Bland, when they chased the ball, for some reason it went into their hands, and out like a rocket. It's just a natural thing for me. Lara, well for me Murali said it all, he reckons he is so far above others in his ability to play spin that it doesn't really matter; that pretty much says it all for me. SM: Ravi, your definition of greatness? RS: You mentioned technique, natural skills, ability to handle pressure and ability to score in different conditions meaning adaptability. I would add two more things; consistency and your career, the span of your career. You can't do it just for one or two years. To be rated it should be a decade, a little more than a decade. And one key word that's missing -- the ability to dominate attacks. Ian mentioned Geoffrey Boycott and like he said, he could score a lot of runs but could never dominate the attack. From this list I would pick Tendulkar and Lara. Ponting too has definitely come in there now but he still has a long way to go, maybe another 5-6 years of cricket. But between Tendulkar and Lara, you would have to give it to Lara because he's dominated more often than not over a span of time. Tendulkar has had his years of brilliance, 96-97 against Australia. Now that is the Tendulkar you would remember; not only did he score hundreds but it was dominating. SM: He dominated the attacks when the attacks were better. RS: Yes, when the attacks were better and it had an impact on the series. India won that series against Australia. Now Lara, playing in a weak West Indian side, I mean this is the weakest West Indian attack in along time; yet he has still gone out and dominated strong sides like Australia or any other country. Now like Tony mentioned about Murali, I mean to bat that way with such consistency. He batted for long periods to get those runs and he was looking to attack Murali. So that ability to dominate is perhaps the reason why Viv Richards will be the greatest ever. SM: Is that why there is still perhaps a little question mark over Ponting, his ability to dominate a Murali, or say have a very good series in India on turning tracks? RS: Yes, if he has to reach that level, he has to play better in the subcontinent in test matches on turning tracks. SM: That's it on this discussion on Cricinfo Round Table. Hope you enjoyed it, see you next time. Thank you gentlemen for your time. Cricinfo