VVS Laxman vs Mark Waugh

[masterblaster]

To continue on with the flavour of these comparison threads. Who would you have in your squad? Both were arguably the most elegant batsmen in their respective teams and both have played many match winning knocks. In addition, both are terrific slips fielders.

There's plenty of things common between both players. Who would you rate as better?

 

[Prince EWS]

Mark Waugh. Played a lot of his cricket during a harder time for batsmen, was better technically, was a better slipper and could bowl at the start of his career as well.

 

[Jono]

Mark Waugh was the better batsman (and overall package) IMO, but I think Laxman is better to watch and is the better bloke.

 

[iamdavid]

Yeah as much as I like Laxman....Waugh

 

[masterblaster]

It's definitely a tough choice for me. I'd probably rate Laxman ever so slightly ahead in test match batting, but Mark Waugh was the superior batsman in ODI cricket. Waugh was a fantastic athlete and fielder as well. I guess on pure batsmanship I'd go for Laxman, but as an overall cricketer and athlete Mark Waugh would be the better choice.

 

[haroon510]

Waugh easily

 

[gettingbetter]

Waugh is the better batsman, but he has never played innings like Laxman has. Even though I think Waugh is the better batsman, I think the overall factor which is the outcomes, Laxman succeeds.

 

[Craig]

Voted for Waugh, great ODI batsman, was good watching him bat in that form of the game. Would rather enjoy watching him bat then some boofhead like Andrew Symonds. That said Test wise he never played the sort of innings that VVS Laxman did against Australia in 2001 or really played a true great Test knock, I felt I got the impression of what could of been with Waugh.

 

[Isaac C]

I chose Waugh slightly over Laxman for the following reasons; Although Laxman might of just been the better test batsman Waugh was the better one day batsman capable of destroying attacks early on when he opened the batting. He was also a brilliant slip fielder and his bowling at the start of the his career was very handy. Laxman is technically brilliant and also a good slip fielder but for me Waugh just gets it.

 

[James90]

Mark Waugh was the better batsman (and overall package) IMO, but I think Laxman is better to watch and is the better bloke.

Disagree. Mark Waugh one of the prettiest batsmen to ever grace this planet.

 

[howardj]

Junior - very good batsman, master fielder and good tactitian. Moreover, apparently he had a very calming, solid influence on the squads that he was in.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hard to split IMO. Both underachieved. I'd be inclined to go for Laxman in tests, though it's a tough choice. Waugh very easily in ODIs of course.

I'll vote Laxman as I assume this is about test cricket. If it's about both, Waugh.

 

[silentstriker]

I think its very close in Tests...in ODI its obviously Waugh.

 

[ret]

Mark Waugh

 

[DaRick]

As a Test batsman, VVS Laxman>Mark Waugh, but only because of Waugh's decline towards the end. Both have inconsistent records with regards to countries - for a competent player of spin, Waugh's average against India and particularly Sri Lanka, seems unflattering. However, he was relatively consistent with regards to home and away average. He also averaged around 40-45 against most of the other countries, whilst profiting against England. This indicates his talent, which was countered by lapses in concentration and, apparently, temperament (he suffered more from a lack of confidence than most others, according to his twin). If those issues weren't such a factor, he could've scored more heavily in most places than he actually did.

VVS Laxman's record strikes one as being a little odd. He has scored heavily against Australia, but has not done so against South Africa, Sri Lanka, England (being harsh) and even the minnows. Like Waugh, his home and away record is consistent. I have heard that his temperament isn't that strong and he does have weaknesses against a well-aimed body ball and also the off-cutter (as Brett Lee and Stuart Clark exposed). Maybe this is why he hasn't been able to become the great that his talent would demand.

In Waugh's favour, though, he was a capable medium-pace bowler (and a passable offspinner) and one of the great slip fielders.

I would also not hesistate to pick Waugh>Laxman in my ODI side every time. I'm going for Waugh, rather than wimping out like I did with Greg Chappell/Viv Richards.

 

[honestbharani]

Laxman ever so slightly the better test batsman, IMHO....


So voted for him.. If we include ODIs, bowling etc... then Waugh.

 

[funnygirl]

As a test batsman VVS is better than Waugh ,i like to watch both at any time against any opposition .VVS has some unbelievable test knocks of high quality ,which i can't ignore .

 

[Googenheim]

Laxman makes his runs when they are usually most needed. Prefer him over Waugh in Tests. Waugh easily the better batsman (even ignoring his bowling) in ODIs.

 

[Isaac C]

I agree Laxman's a better test batsman. He always seems to score bags of runs against the Aussies. The reason I voted for Mark Waugh was because he's a more all round cricketer. If it was a judge of test batting Laxman gets it for me.

 

[Mister Wright]

Laxman easily in tests.

Waugh easily in ODIs.


Given I prefer tests. I've voted for Laxman.