VVS Laxman...is he really that good?

[Richard]

If they agreed with you, they'd stand up and back you up.

You think so? Personally I don't.

Similarly, it's not just one thread about where best to bat SRT, has been mentioned in others.

Yes, no surprise there.
It's just coincidence, then, that India's best period in ODIs (2002) came when Tendulkar was batting four and Ganguly opening with Sehwag, even if Mongia not Laxman took the three spot?
Personally I don't think it's any coincidence that they looked near enough unbeatable, like they could chase down anything you set them - until Tendulkar got injured and missed the West Indies series.
Then things got messy again, as Laxman and, amazingly enough, Agarkar, made claim to spots up the order.
Then came WC2003 and Tendulkar's best chance to showcase his ability, and support all over The World for him batting at the top, just so they could watch the best of him without caring about what happened to India.
Since then there's not really been a murmer about moving him to four again.

 

[Richard]

considering he averages 11 runs higher at the top, no its not enough......

That's an obscene statement given that even though he does average 11 higher at the top it's proven less succesful for the team with him there.

 

[Richard]

so why send him back down to 4 then?? hes done better at the top and only a fool would send him down the order when a)he doesnt like batting there and b) he goes from being 'brilliant' to 'ordinary' at 4

So 38 is "ordinary" now, is it?
No, it's still exceptional and an average few achieve in ODIs.
Only a fool would consider it foolish to send him back to four when it's clear after a proper look that he serves the side best there.

 

[Richard]

take a good look at this thread and see how many people would rather have tendulkar at 4.....

It's hard to believe sometimes, but there are those who are more concerned about Tendulkar than India. Even Indians.
Certainly almost all non-Indians are.
In the 2002 NatWest Series, almost all the English commentators expressed disappointment that they didn't see the Sehwag-Tendulkar partnership, caring far more about early entertainment than India's best interests. These ideals were formed in 2001\02 when Tendulkar batting at the top IMO cost India three victories. They failed to finish-off games (and nearly failed to finish of another) because of a substandard middle-order. Had Tendulkar been present, I'm very confident that he'd have played a big part in winning all four much more comfortably.

 

[tooextracool]

That's an obscene statement given that even though he does average 11 higher at the top it's proven less succesful for the team with him there.

if it was proven successful then why did they make him bat at the top of the order again??

 

[tooextracool]

So 38 is "ordinary" now, is it?
No, it's still exceptional and an average few achieve in ODIs.

its not exceptional either and its definetly no anywhere as good as his average at the top of the order.....

Only a fool would consider it foolish to send him back to four when it's clear after a proper look that he serves the side best there.

so all the selectors are fools then? if hes by far been the best batsman at the top of the order then why change it??

 

[Tom Halsey]

if it was proven successful then why did they make him bat at the top of the order again??

Because, TEC, amazingly, people high up occasionally get things wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

In the 2002 NatWest Series, almost all the English commentators expressed disappointment that they didn't see the Sehwag-Tendulkar partnership, caring far more about early entertainment than India's best interests. These ideals were formed in 2001\02 when Tendulkar batting at the top IMO cost India three victories. They failed to finish-off games (and nearly failed to finish of another) because of a substandard middle-order. Had Tendulkar been present, I'm very confident that he'd have played a big part in winning all four much more comfortably.

actually no, tendulkar has never exactly been the best finisher in the indian side(or for that matter the best under pressure) and its better that he bats under minimal pressure at the top of the order.

 

[tooextracool]

Because, TEC, amazingly, people high up occasionally get things wrong.

yes but the averages show that they are right.....

 

[tooextracool]

It's just coincidence, then, that India's best period in ODIs (2002) came when Tendulkar was batting four and Ganguly opening with Sehwag, even if Mongia not Laxman took the three spot?
Personally I don't think it's any coincidence that they looked near enough unbeatable, like they could chase down anything you set them - until Tendulkar got injured and missed the West Indies series.

one question....in how many of those run chases did tendulkar play a major role in?in almost every one of those innings tendulkar was out without guiding his team through till the end....which is what i would assume his job was batting at 4......

 

[Richard]

yes but the averages show that they are right.....

No, they don't - result statistics show they are wrong.

 

[Richard]

one question....in how many of those run chases did tendulkar play a major role in?in almost every one of those innings tendulkar was out without guiding his team through till the end....which is what i would assume his job was batting at 4......

Not just run-chases. Also applies to batting first when early wickets have been lost and when they haven't.

 

[Richard]

actually no, tendulkar has never exactly been the best finisher in the indian side(or for that matter the best under pressure) and its better that he bats under minimal pressure at the top of the order.

Sorry, I've never believed this rubbish about Tendulkar being poor under pressure - he has scored massive amounts of runs all over everywhere.
Tendulkar is perfectly capable of playing just about any innings as far as I'm concerned - just because he hasn't done so - yet - that doesn't mean he can't.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, no surprise there.

But seeing as most people say he should open, you'll ignore those and decide that they really think he should bat at 4 because they haven't said otherwise in this thread?

 

[Richard]

if it was proven successful then why did they make him bat at the top of the order again??

Because, TEC, amazingly, people high up occasionally get things wrong.

I'd say they get stuff wrong every bit as often as normal people do.

 

[Richard]

But seeing as most people say he should open, you'll ignore those and decide that they really think he should bat at 4 because they haven't said otherwise in this thread?

No, I look at what I've seen and I decide that whatever anyone might perceive about the matter that I have made the decision based on the right formula.
But don't tell me - I've just decided that I don't like Tendulkar when he opens, because that's what I always do with every player.

 

[Richard]

its not exceptional either and its definetly no anywhere as good as his average at the top of the order.....

And the apparrent inbalance is cancelled-out by the better roles played by players in certain positions - and more importantly the lack of any players to play a certain role.

so all the selectors are fools then? if hes by far been the best batsman at the top of the order then why change it??

Because it's not best for the team for him to bat there.

 

[marc71178]

No, I look at what I've seen and I decide that whatever anyone might perceive about the matter that I have made the decision based on the right formula.

This is talking about what everyone else thinks - in spite of the fact in other threads, people say they want him to open, you have said that they prefer him to bat at 4.

 

[Richard]

Err, no, I haven't.
I've said I would prefer him to bat four.
You are talking about what some others think, and saying I should automatically think that because they do - I am talking about why I think the way I think.

 

[Tom Halsey]

yes but the averages show that they are right.....

The averages show that it would be good for Tendulkar to bat at the top, not for the team.