Who was the better batsmen, Viv Richards or Brian Lara?

Question

2 legends of the game!!

Answer 1

LARA

Answer 2

sir viv the arrogant is the best

Answer 3

Viv Richards

Answer 4

Richards

Answer 5

probably on balance Lara as he scored at a faster rate, but both were great to watch.

Answer 6

Brian Lara was a shade better in technique and temperament. Brian could focus and  play long innings, Viv lacked the temperament.

Answer 7

May be not better than one another, just very different. Sir Viv is still today the hardest hitter of a ball I have seen - live I mean. (this includes having seen Gilly) Remember that bat technology was not as good as it is now, so you 'had' to middle it.

Lara on the other hand is far more technical and not as calypso. I probably choose him if between the two to bat for my life!

I still say Sir Viv though as 'better' because of his on field presence. He had an aura that followed him on the field!

EDIT: Oh, and you don't become a Sir for diddily squat

Answer 8

I would say this is actually pretty easy.

Viv Richards was the better one day player

Brian Lara was the superior test player.

Answer 9

While Lara might have the stats you cant go past sir Viv, the guy just oozes style and commanded respect and struck fear into the hearts of bowlers as he casually strolled out to the crease chewing his gum like always.

Answer 10

Vive Richards cos when he played, it  was a mans game, there was no protection for the batsman with helmets and restricted head shots ie the "bouncer rule "  and yet he would rip apart a fast bowling attack with sixes the guy had no fear

.

Answer 11

I think Sir Viv was better. I saw him play many games, & he appeals to me more than Lara, although he was very talented as well

Answer 12

Viv Richards.

Bowlers were SCARED of him. Bowlers RESPECTED Lara.

Answer 13

My personal choice would be Brian Lara coz I have seen more of him and he looked very elegant in his batting.

Also being a World record holder, I feel Lara is much superior.

Answer 14

Richards fro me. He was much more exciting to watch, even when he was thumping the Aussie bowlers all round the park.

I believe he still holds the record for the fastest test century, which Adam Gilchrist narrowly missed out on beating against England a few years ago.

Answer 15

Brian Lara got: a better average, more runs, more 50's, more hundreds, a better highest score.

Viv Richards is a great player but Lara is slightly better.

Answer 16

I love to watch both of them batting. both have different style of batting. IF i have to choose one out of them then Viv Richards

Answer 17

haa brian lara was good to 2 then viv richards yea prbaly brian lara better  but i liked both but i haded to chose  one so i choses brian lara

Answer 18

Extremely difficult question to answer. I am 52 years' old and have followed the careers of both these great batsmen and would like to say the following:

As a test match batsman, Lara is certainly the better batsman. My automated rating system assigns a value of 67.3 marks to Lara and 57.7 marks to Vivian Richards. This scale gives Don Bradman 100 marks. For a major part of his career, Lara played in miserable teams but excelled himself whereas Viv played in the all time best team of West Indies.

But as a ODI batsman, Vivian Richards was far more attacking than Lara. My system has assigned 88.6 marks to Viv and 79.4 marks to Lara. Viv's greatness stems from the fact that he not only batted but he bowled also. As a combined package of batsman, bowler, fielder and player, ODI cricket has not seen a greater cricketer than Viv. In fact, my system gives him 100 marks as a player. The second best is Kallis with 99.9 marks.

Answer 19

Though both were legends, I consider Brian Lara better than Vivian Richards as a batsman as he has scored more runs per test and better average in test than Vivian Richards..

Answer 20

Viv Richards

Whenever WI was in trouble and needed him he always gave his best to the team. Poor start by the team meant a good innings by Richards