Player Ratings

[Cevno]

Laxman throughout his career has wanted to bat at 3 and has done well previously there. Hardly was forced to bat there.

Don't know where this nonsense about Sachin forcing him to bat there comes from. Did KP force Bell to bat at 3 when trott went out?

[MW1304]

Sachin's much more suited to batting against the new ball than Laxman, who's played his best innings in recent times at 5 or 6. I just find it astounding that someone of Sachin's calibre has never batted at 3, whereas Bell has a better defensive technique than KP and more suited to number 3. Not as if KP has never batted there, he was just never good at it.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Cevno

Laxman throughout his career has wanted to bat at 3 and has done well previously there. Hardly was forced to bat there.

Don't know where this nonsense about Sachin forcing him to bat there comes from. Did KP force Bell to bat at 3 when trott went out?

Laxman's strength is his firefighting ability when India are in trouble. He's played plenty of knocks in the last year where he's rescued India from being in deep ****, given that the team had been disrupted enough by Gambhir's injuries forcing Dravid up the order, it beggars belief that you'd not only disrupt the line up further by shifting Laxman up the order but also negate Laxman's greatest ability in doing so.

If India had a fully fit lineup all series Laxman wouldn't have been batting ahead of Tendulkar, so why was he doing it when Gambhir wasn't fit?

Ian Bell's position isn't a valid comparison, Bell has always been a number 3 and the only reason he's been batting lower for England for the last 2 years is because up until now he'd been a complete and utter failure at 3, and a proven success at 5 or 6. Bell obviously decided that he fancied a go at 3 and scored a big hundred at Trent Bridge, which secured him the slot for the rest of the series.

[Spark]

Not to mention India could really have used a firefighter. Not much you can do to stop a collapse when you basically started it.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Spark

Not to mention India could really have used a firefighter. Not much you can do to stop a collapse when you basically started it.

Yeah, exactly. There were a couple of times in the series where the ideal man for the situation was Laxman, unfortunately for India Laxman was often sitting with his feet up on the balcony in his tracksuit bottoms because he'd gotten out half an hour previously.

The one thing that's really suprised me though is how little criticism MS Dhoni has received for his batting; it was utterly appaling.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by MW1304

Sachin's much more suited to batting against the new ball than Laxman, who's played his best innings in recent times at 5 or 6. I just find it astounding that someone of Sachin's calibre has never batted at 3, whereas Bell has a better defensive technique than KP and more suited to number 3. Not as if KP has never batted there, he was just never good at it.

Because he was very good at 4 since he started to bat there and the Number 3 slot has been occupied by other throughout his career and since Dravid and Laxman broke through there were 2 number 3's already in the team.

Before this series Bell averaged around 30 at number 3 while Laxman averaged around 50 there. Given those records and given that is what India has done previously, why the hell would they shift the whole order up to accomodate the loss of one player this time?

Laxman has often said he wants to bat at 3 too.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Cevno

Because he was very good at 4 since he started to bat there and the Number 3 slot has been occupied by other throughout his career and since Dravid and Laxman broke through there were 2 number 3's already in the team.

Before this series Bell averaged around 30 at number 3 while Laxman averaged around 50 there. Given those records and given that is what India has done previously, why the hell would they shift the whole order up to accomodate the loss of one player this time?

Laxman has often said he wants to bat at 3 too.

Because Laxman's greatest strength is his ability to play innings that you can't play at 3. In England, Tendulkar is a much better bet for the number 3 spot than Laxman.

By your logic the natural order for India should be Dravid-Laxman-Tendulkar.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Because Laxman's greatest strength is his ability to play innings that you can't play at 3.

By your logic the natural order for India should be Dravid-Laxman-Tendulkar.

So you can't play that innings at 3 and can at 4?

Laxman would have been at 3 for India had Dravid not been there throughout his career and has done well there too.

Are you saying this series despite him averaging 50 at 3 in 20 odd matches , India should have told him you aren't good enough to bat at 3? Specially when throughout Dravid's career when he has been out Laxman has batted at 3.

It's not as if -

1) He has done it for the first time and not done it before like Sachin infact.

2) He doesn't want to bat there.

3)He hasn't done well there.

4)He looked really bad or something. Infact on 3 occasions he threw his wicket away playing loose shots after getting settled down and getting through the worst spell.

Sachin bats at 4 and is settled there. Why would you shift everyone instead of just shifting 1 player or 2 instead of injury?

The difference is it worked well for England while it didn't for India. Hindsight is great and all but Laxman's record there before the series was better.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Spark

Not to mention India could really have used a firefighter. Not much you can do to stop a collapse when you basically started it.

So you would have played Raina at 4 to stick with Laxman at 5?

Which basically means 3 players are playing out of position instead of 2, one of which feels he has gone into his natural postion?

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Cevno

So you can't play that innings at 3 and can at 4?

Laxman would have been at 3 for India had Dravid not been there throughout his career and has done well there too.

Are you saying this series despite him averaging 50 at 3 in 20 odd matches , India should have told him you aren't good enough to bat at 3? Specially when throughout Dravid's career when he has been out Laxman has batted at 3.

It's not as if -

1) He has done it for the first time and not done it before like Sachin infact.

2) He doesn't want to bat there.

3)He hasn't done well there.

4)He looked really bad or something. Infact on 3 occasions he threw his wicket away playing loose shots after getting settled down.

Sachin bats at 4 and is settled there. Why would you shift everyone instead of just shifting 1 player or 2 instead of injury?

The difference is it worked well for England while it didn't for India. Hindsight is great and all but Laxman's record there before the series was better.

You can't firefight at 3 because you're never going to enter a crisis situation. With a new ball and fresh bowlers, there's always a chance that an opener is going to lose his wicket early, coming in at 0/1 isn't a crisis.

Coming in at 20/3 most certainly is a crisis.

I also had my doubts over Laxman's technique against a newish ball in England - his good record at 3 was largely accumulated in conditions vastly different to what you'd expect to face in England at 3. Tendulkar was the man for the job, not Laxman IMO.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

You can't firefight at 3 because you're never going to enter a crisis situation. With a new ball and fresh bowlers, there's always a chance that an opener is going to lose his wicket early, coming in at 0/1 isn't a crisis.

Coming in at 20/3 most certainly is a crisis.

Yes you can. If you capitalise on your starts at 3.

Laxman's 281 came batting at 3 with Dravid down at 6 for example, which itself kind of defeats your point.

And he would have batted at 4 if not at 3, not 5 in anycase.

I also had my doubts over Laxman's technique against a newish ball in England - his good record at 3 was largely accumulated in conditions vastly different to what you'd expect to face in England at 3. Tendulkar was the man for the job, not Laxman IMO

Maybe, but then i had doubts about Bell coming back to a position he previously failed in.

Basically Sachin has never batted at 3, and India use Laxman there everytime when Dravid is out and even sometimes early on their careers with Dravid in the team. So there was no real basis to change that strategy this time when it has worked previously perfectly well.

And it's not as if Laxman looked out of his depth or something. He as i said threw his wicket away softly on most occasions.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Cevno

Yes you can. If you capitalise on your starts at 3.

Laxman's 281 came batting at 3 with Dravid down at 6 for example, which itself kind of defeats your point.

And he would have batted at 4 if not at 3, not 5 in anycase.



Maybe, but then i had doubts about Bell coming back to a position he previously failed in.

Basically Sachin has never batted at 3, and India use Laxman there everytime when Dravid is out and even sometimes early on their careers with Dravid in the team. So there was no real basis to change that strategy this time when it has worked previously perfectly well.

And it's not as if Laxman looked out of his depth or something. He as i said threw his wicket away softly on most occasions.

He looked massively out of his depth towards the end of the series when his offstump acquired a rather annoying (for him) habit of cartwheeling all over the place.

[Cevno]

Still whether you agree on disagree with the decision do not know how you can say Sachin forced Laxman to play there and with what basis? It would have been Dhoni and the team management's call and they stucked with what has worked in the past.

Some of the things attributed to Sachin on here are clearly straw clutching or really ridiculous at best.
When he gets injured with maybe requiring a surgery in the future he is supposed to be faking it without basis, and now he is supposed to have held a gun to Laxman's head to force him to play there ,when Laxman infact wants to play in that position.

Sigh!!

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

You can't firefight at 3 because you're never going to enter a crisis situation. With a new ball and fresh bowlers, there's always a chance that an opener is going to lose his wicket early, coming in at 0/1 isn't a crisis.

It was just the norm for Dravid wasn't it?

[vic_orthdox]

India have long had Laxman as their back up number 3. He wants to bat there, Tendulkar feels more comfortable at 4. Whenever Dravid's opened in the past, VVS has put his hand up. It's really not an issue at all for mine.