Exactly how good was VVS Laxman?

[Prince EWS]

Really, I recall it being around 41, and then climbing up to 45-56 at the back end.

45/46 I mean

That's not what he meant.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Really, I recall it being around 41, and then climbing up to 45-56 at the back end.

He meant that from 2000 onwards, over a 13 year period, he averaged 50+, which is true. Not the cumulative average.
It's just because he was forced to open that he has a sub 50 average

 

[GuyFromLancs]

He meant that from 2000 onwards, over a 13 year period, he averaged 50+, which is true. Not the cumulative average.
It's just because he was forced to open that he has a sub 50 average

Cheers.

I suppose the wedge up his arse global mod above you had neither the time or the inclination to explain that.

 

[Daemon]

Neither did the dozens of members who read this thread. Such ****s, all of them.

 

[Howe_zat]

Why is it always PEWS that gets called out as posting as a mod when he isn't, and never one of the others?

 

[Maximas]

And at this point it should be noted that cribb only behaves in this manner because he is a moderator - it completely separates him from the other members and there is no denying it

 

[Prince EWS]

Why is it always PEWS that gets called out as posting as a mod when he isn't, and never one of the others?

None of the other mods ever do any modding so no-one realises they're mods.

 

[Maximas]

Are you sure they just don't post like mods?

 

[Daemon]

Why is it always PEWS that gets called out as posting as a mod when he isn't, and never one of the others?

Haha. And the nose gets browner.

 

[Furball]

Did ****all against minnows like Bangladesh, NZ, and England too

On a scale of 1 to Precam, I give this troll a 3.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

The fickle nature of cricket sites leads to smart-ass, unhelpful replies in some cases. Hence my previous objection.

If you're gonna take the time to login and tell someone their wrong, at least man the fook up and say where/why. IMHO

 

[Prince EWS]

I just couldn't be bothered explaining it. I figured you'd guess what he meant through the process of elimination with the knowledge that you were wrong the first time.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Nah, you tried to beef yourself up by logging in and being flippant.

Hope it worked, beefy boy. I'd hate for you to feel less beefy

 

[Prince EWS]

 

[OverratedSanity]

*farts*

 

[salman85]

Very good player.

But he had a glaring weakness against genuine pace and the incoming deliveries.Plus his tendency to get bowled so often is something that somewhat puts me off,and IMO suggests that there was something missing in his technique.This is one of the reasons why he will always be a notch under the likes of Dravid and co as far as i'm concerned.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Very good player.

But he had a glaring weakness against genuine pace and the incoming deliveries.Plus his tendency to get bowled so often is something that somewhat puts me off,and IMO suggests that there was something missing in his technique.This is one of the reasons why he will always be a notch under the likes of Dravid and co as far as i'm concerned.

He did get bowled a lot but he made up for it by looking utterly bemused and shocked as if the ball had swung two feet in the air twice in each direction. Gold. WAFG

 

[OverratedSanity]

On topic, I've never understood why getting bowled too often to incoming deliveries is apparently seen as a bigger technical weakness than, say, getting lbw too often... It just looks worse than other dismissals, at the end of the day the both are out. You're getting out anyway, what does it matter if you get out in a certain manner quite often but still score very consistently?
But yes, he is a step below the greatest batsmen. Compensates by being brilliant at the clutch though

 

[Prince EWS]

On topic, I've never understood why getting bowled too often to incoming deliveries is apparently seen as a bigger technical weakness than, say, getting lbw too often... It just looks worse than other dismissals, at the end of the day the both are out. You're getting out anyway, what does it matter if you get out in a certain manner quite often but still score very consistently?
But yes, he is a step below the greatest batsmen. Compensates by being brilliant at the clutch though

Well obviously it doesn't really matter at the end of your career as your potential to add to your run-scoring is zero regardless. However, being bowled is regarded as a bigger technical frailty in ongoing careers than getting out lbw because it suggests greater problems that will be easier to exploit in the future. If you're pinned lbw then at least your footwork has been such to get your second line of defence in the way but if you're bowled a lot, it suggests more significant issues. It's less applicable at Test level than it is when coaching kids admittedly and when everything is all said and done then it doesn't exactly matter how you get out; it's when you get out and how many, but that's where it comes from.

 

[salman85]

Being bowled too often exposes a very simple rule of classic batting : Leaving no distance between your front leg and bat.

Obviously, a batsman could be getting bowled from outside the bat too, but more often than not, the ball sneaks in from the distance you leave between the bat and your front leg. It's a very basic technique of batting, and anyone on the wrong end of it does have a technical flaw.