VVS Laxman...is he really that good?

[Top_Cat]

ODI stats and Test stats and any stats be damned; Laxman is a fantastic player in my book. He may not be 'statistically' one of the greats of ODI's but he's an awesome player. The last time I saw a player rely on timing rather than power to the extent he does, I was watching Gower. He hits the ball cleanly with minimal backlift and very little follow-through but with sometimes incredible power. He must have one of the better examples of bat-speed of anyone in the world.

 

[Mr. P]

I have another way of looking at it. His highest score discounting his 100's is 32 because he has a fantastic conversion rate. Whenever he gets to 50 he converts it to a century.

Smart, logical way to look at it. I was going to say the same.

Besides, you say things like "Oooh but if you took away his hundreds..."

These are IFs and BUTs. Laxman DID score the centuries, and that was because he played well and that's that.

 

[Arjun]

Laxman is one of the few batsmen in this team scoring consistently. He's far better than most of the other batsmen in the Indian ODI side, except Sachin and Dravid. His fielding and running between wickets has improved and he's hitting the odd six, and I'm sure he's working on hitting, but he does not have to play like a Gilchrist or Klusener. Let someone else do that! He'd walk into most opposition batting sides.

 

[Richard]

Interesting that you say this, yet in another thread are against moving a batsman from a position he's made his own in order to accomodate another (ie when someone suggested opening in Tests with SRT)

My point is that Tendulkar is a middle-order player who, in ODIs, is perfectly capable of opening and will generally score more there, but won't benefit his team best there.
IMO India's best ODI line-up would be Ganguly, Sehwag, Laxman, Tendulkar, Dravid, Yuvraj. Even if Tendulkar wouldn't score as heavily there.

 

[marc71178]

And even though Ganguly averages greater at 3?

It's the whole Butcher Vaughan argument again, ie complete tripe.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because you say your methods are correct and you say mine are wrong.
Sorry, but I'm afraid you have been the only one to hold onto the misconceptions of generalisation once I've pointed them out. Butcher from 2001 onwards has been every bit as competant opening as at three, same as he was mostly incompetant at three and one before 2000.
Ganguly, likewise, averages so well at three mainly because of three recent big, unbeaten innings against minnow teams. Otherwise he's not has as much success when moved away from his better positions.

 

[Will Scarlet]

Different batting roles

Either way, Laxman needs to be at 4 or 5 to hold the flambouyant but fragile batting order together. There's a lot of talent in the Indian batting lineup but most are aggressive palyers that aren't suited to the anchor role in difficult situations.

 

[delkap]

I believe Indian team needs guys like Laxman and Dravid in ODI squad just to provide solidity in middle-order and counter balance the attackers in Sehwag, Tendulkar and Yuvraj. Laxman is improving in ODIs by the day, and deserves to be in the team. Hopefully in the next year or so he will be more consistent... Just like Dravid turned out to be a brilliant ODI batsman after an indifferent start, no reason why Laxman can't make it, he certainly is a a class batsman..

There is obviously no doubt abt his place in test team.

 

[Nate]

^ but hes a choker, india are all chokers, choker choker choker...
hes a great test player, and is always getting better in odis. keep him in both teams india.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, because you say your methods are correct and you say mine are wrong.
Sorry, but I'm afraid you have been the only one to hold onto the misconceptions of generalisation once I've pointed them out. Butcher from 2001 onwards has been every bit as competant opening as at three, same as he was mostly incompetant at three and one before 2000.
Ganguly, likewise, averages so well at three mainly because of three recent big, unbeaten innings against minnow teams. Otherwise he's not has as much success when moved away from his better positions.

agree with you on the mark butcher bit, although i dont see any reason why he should be opening the batting now with strauss as opener.
regardless why should tendulkar bat at 4 if he isnt comfortable there and hasnt been scoring half as heavily as he has at the top, while ganguly has been just about as successful at 3 as he has as an opener(Even if you take into account the minnow centuries).

 

[Richard]

Because Tendulkar can offer more to the team at four than Ganguly can at three.
Both IMO offer equal prodigy at the top of the order.

 

[tooextracool]

Because Tendulkar can offer more to the team at four than Ganguly can at three.
Both IMO offer equal prodigy at the top of the order.

yet their stats point to the contrary!

 

[Richard]

Yes, and Ganguly's stats at the top of the order are woeful, despite being inferior to Tendulkar's!

 

[tooextracool]

errr what?tendulkar averages more than 10 runs less at 4 than he does at the top while ganguly averages far higher at no 3 than at the top,albeit that has a lot to do with his centuries against the minnows but if you take out his knocks against the minnows hes still averaging over 40

 

[Richard]

None of this takes away from the fact that Ganguly's average at the top of the order, over a lengthy period, is very impressive.
And even if Tendulkar averages 10 less at four than opening (believe it or not I was perfectly aware of that) IMO he's still more useful in the middle (equally he's perfectly capable of raising that four-average) to the team.
Ganguly-Sehwag-Laxman-Tendulkar, I repeat, I believe to be a more useful combination, with the best player in the position where the most diverse range of innings are usually required to be played. Ganguly is every bit as likely to play the sort of innings neccessary for an opener as Tendulkar, but less likely to play the sort required in the middle and late overs.

 

[tooextracool]

gangulys average at the top is just abt as impressive as his average at 3,which is not the case for tendulkar. i dont see how you could make someone who doesnt like to bat at 4 and has clearly struggled at 4 bat in that position despite the fact that he has a higher average at the top than anyone else in the entire side

 

[Richard]

Because I wouldn't exactly class averaging 38 as "clearly struggling".
Tendulkar has been a designated number-four for virtually every Test of his career.
And IMO Tendulkar, being one of the best one-day players ever, has the ability to play innings which all roles throw-up. Ganguly and Laxman don't - Ganguly is much best when throwing the bat and Laxman much best when he doesn't have to. Tendulkar can do either and just about everything in between. So IMO he's best in the role where the most diversity of innings crops-up.

 

[tooextracool]

Because I wouldn't exactly class averaging 38 as "clearly struggling".
Tendulkar has been a designated number-four for virtually every Test of his career.
And IMO Tendulkar, being one of the best one-day players ever, has the ability to play innings which all roles throw-up. Ganguly and Laxman don't - Ganguly is much best when throwing the bat and Laxman much best when he doesn't have to. Tendulkar can do either and just about everything in between. So IMO he's best in the role where the most diversity of innings crops-up.

tendulkar averages nearly 11 runs higher opening than at 4,considerably higher than anyone else in the side. but of course you would rather have him bat at 4 despite the fact that he prefers to open the batting.
and if ganguly is so very good at throwing the bat then why does he average so high batting at 3 irrespective of those 3 100s against the minnows

 

[Richard]

Because often when batting at three he can throw the bat too.
Early wickets aren't uncommon, you know.
And so what if Tendulkar averages 11 more opening - he still has a very good average at four and if he batted there more often I'm very confident it would go over 40. If he prefers opening, that's his problem - the best thing for the team if you ask me is for him to bat four.

 

[tooextracool]

the thing is ganguly averages more than tendulkar at 3 and tendulkar averages far higher at the top than at 3 or 4.....why exactly should that be changed??laxman too averages higher at 3 than anywhere else in the order...but of course you would would rather make laxman bat in a position where he performs worse and tendulkar bat in a position where he isnt comfortable.
yes the best thing would be for tendulkar to bat at 4 which is why they've tried it so very often, but the fact is that he hasnt been half a successful at 4 so they've sent him back up