KEY POINTS:
A New Zealand cricketer who knew the great West Indian lefthander pretty well during his pomp in the 1990s reckoned there were two Brian Laras.
One was the unfailingly polite, smiling, courteous chap you saw during interviews. The other was the bloke seen only in the dressing rooms and best described by that catch-all phrase "difficult".
Lara's announcement that tomorrow's World Cup match against England will be his last international puts a full stop on a great career.
"Great" is perhaps the most overused word in sport. But how should greatness be judged?
There are a couple of relevant criteria. Take your pick.
One is statistics. Sheer weight of numbers can put up a decent argument.
For example, Don Bradman's test average of 99.94 needs no embellishment. Next best, among batsmen who played more than 20 tests, is South African Graeme Pollock with 60.97. That's a 39-run difference per innings. Case closed.
Then there are those who combined numbers with sheer strength of personality. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs, mostly for the New York Yankees, mostly in the Roaring Twenties. To this day, only two men have hit more.
Kids loved him, for he was one of them, only bigger. He ate, drank and womanised in huge quantities and Yankee Stadium in the Bronx is not known as The House That Ruth Built for nothing.
Or Michael Jordan, who dominated the NBA and made the sinking of staggering baskets seem easy.
Another criterion for the G word is the ability to win contests and dominate a sport. Take Roger Federer.
Despite a couple of recent hiccups against the relatively unknown Argentine Guillermo Canas, the Swiss ace is streets ahead of the opposition.
Old timers who disdain modern technology and the all-consuming power game purr when they watch a player who reminds them of the game's shot-making possibilities and the way it used to be played. Just ask Ken Rosewall.
Then there are those who do great deeds on the biggest stages, even though there have been more gifted players in their positions.
Grant Fox is in that class. He was not the finest No 10 in rugby history, but there are few on whom you'd be more willing to put your shirt to kick a clutch goal.
Or Martin Johnson, a hulking bruiser with a tendency to veer towards the dark side of rugby's laws, who led England to the 2003 World Cup. There have been better locks - albeit not many - but by huge force of personality he carried England home that year.
Jonny Wilkinson kicked the goals, but I'd venture that without Johnson it would not have been roger, Wilko for England that year.
So what of Lara? In the numbers, he measures up. Only Sachin Tendulkar, with 35, has scored more test hundreds than Lara's 34. No one has scored more than his 11,953 runs.
He holds the world records for highest test (achieved twice) and first-class scores, 400 not out and 501 not out respectively.
He batted with style, grace and flashing inspiration. When in the mood, he had the thirst for runs the greatest possess.
But he could be a difficult man, who didn't always endear himself to his administrators, or his teammates.
He was a poor captain, with selfish and vindictive streaks that made life difficult for those with whom he fell out.
That shouldn't matter in this assessment. He fits the bill. You don't need to be a good bloke to be great.
