Langer a great cricketer

[Andrew_14]

The only reason Agarkar was so good against Langer was Langer's balance problem, wher he leans to far out of off stump, although this problem has been worked on by him, as you could see in his innings today and yesterday. Once this problem is gone completely, which it nearly is, Agarkar won't be nearly as successful, the other Indian bowlers didn't have enough sense to bowl in that area (swinging into leg/middle stump).

Great innings to watch though, he's one of the best I have seen.

 

[Pace Setter]

Cant agree with that statement when you look at his innings list, he appears very consistant. In fact he looks very solid over the last 4 years with no serious form slumps at all.

If you start from the India-Aus series in Aus last year, Langer has 14 innings where he scored more than 20 runs-nine of those half centuries or better, but also 14 innings where he scored 20 or less. That's one failure for every acceptable knock. Would you call that consistent?

 

[Sudeep]

If you start from the India-Aus series in Aus last year, Langer has 14 innings where he scored more than 20 runs-nine of those half centuries or better, but also 14 innings where he scored 20 or less. That's one failure for every acceptable knock. Would you call that consistent?

That's acceptable IMO, unless you're Bradman.

 

[Scallywag]

Langers innings since 1st test v India Bris 03-04

121
0
58
10
14
2
117
47
12
32
3
9
19
166
30
10
162
8
52
0
71
19
44
30
12
0
34
215

I wouldent think thats inconsistant.

 

[Scallywag]

12 ........ Sehwag's last 28 innings
1 ........compared to Langers as posted above
25
29 ....... 3 ducks each
17 ....... 5 centuries each
130 ....... 7 single figures each
1 ....... 7 scores 10-30 each
45
0
47
47
195
11
72
47
309
39
90
0
39
0
155
12*
22
58
8
5
164

 

[tooextracool]

I have allways thought how many many matches you play.

by that count bradman is nowhere near the rest.....

and the amount of runs you score were the only things that mattered in test cricket.

what a blatant modification from your original post where you talk about langer scoring his runs at a greater SR and langer scoring more centuries, when the fact is that neither of those things matter in test match cricket.

 

[Pace Setter]

Sehwag isnt really renowned as the king of consistency, is he now. How about comparing them to the current Aus batting order.

Since Aus V India,

As mentioned, Lehmann has 14 innings that have been over 20 runs, and 14 that havent

Hayden has had 22 innings over 20 runs, and 6 that werent

Ponting has had 15 over, and 5 at or under

Martyn has had 19 over, and 8 at or under

Clarke has had 5 over, 5 at or under

Gilchrist has had 13 over, 13 at or under

Going by that, Langer's only as consistent as no.s 6 & 7, and far less consistent as everyone else in the side since that series. Considering Gilly's role in the team, and the inexperience/role of Clarke once he comes into bat, being as consistent as them isn't that impressive. It's not bad, but the worst of the best I reckon.

 

[Scallywag]

Although there is only .65 of a run difference in averages between the two players Langer has scored in excess of twice as many runs than Richardson and has scored 5 times as many centuries and played over twice the amount of tests. Langer also scores his runs faster than Richardson.

A bit like comparing Dravid and Tendulkar, Dravid has a bit better average but Tendy has performed over a longer period and scored more runs.

Your reply

neither of which actually matter in test match cricket

My reply

I have allways thought how many many matches you play and the amount of runs you score were the only things that mattered in test cricket.......

your reply

what a blatant modification from your original post where you talk about langer scoring his runs at a greater SR and langer scoring more centuries, when the fact is that neither of those things matter in test match cricket.

I'll just leave it at that

 

[tooextracool]

err your reply

Although there is only .65 of a run difference in averages between the two players Langer has scored in excess of twice as many runs than Richardson and has scored 5 times as many centuries and played over twice the amount of tests. Langer also scores his runs faster than Richardson.

none of those matter matter when you compare 2 players, and yes neither do the runs because that would make allan border the best batsman ever.

 

[Sudeep]

err your reply


none of those matter matter when you compare 2 players, and yes neither do the runs because that would make allan border the best batsman ever.

These days it does matters how quick you score your runs, especially if you're scoring a decent amount of 'em. Scoring 600 in 5 sessions gives you a better chance of winning than scoring that many runs in 6 sessions.

 

[tooextracool]

These days it does matters how quick you score your runs, especially if you're scoring a decent amount of 'em. Scoring 600 in 5 sessions gives you a better chance of winning than scoring that many runs in 6 sessions.

while a slow scorer gives you a better chance of saving a game and allows a team to bat for more time. id rather have someone who can bat for 200 balls than someone who bats for 100 balls to save a test match......

 

[Sudeep]

while a slow scorer gives you a better chance of saving a game and allows a team to bat for more time. id rather have someone who can bat for 200 balls than someone who bats for 100 balls to save a test match......

Since when has saving a Test become a higher priority than winning one?

 

[Mr Casson]

Since when has saving a Test become a higher priority than winning one?

Exactly, tooextracool is playing negatively. You should consider players based on the fact that they will win you a game, not draw it for you.

 

[Scallywag]

err your reply


none of those matter matter when you compare 2 players, and yes neither do the runs because that would make allan border the best batsman ever.

I would have thought that you could come to the conclusion that Border is not the best batsman ever because for the amount of runs he scored in the amount of games he played is not as good as the runs Bradman scored in the amount of games he played.

Thats only my theory though.

 

[tooextracool]

Since when has saving a Test become a higher priority than winning one?

neither are higher, they're both just as important, saving a game is just as important as winning a game, its fairly obvious..

 

[tooextracool]

I would have thought that you could come to the conclusion that Border is not the best batsman ever because for the amount of runs he scored in the amount of games he played is not as good as the runs Bradman scored in the amount of games he played.

Thats only my theory though.

err they invented something called the 'average' to show that......

 

[Pratters]

The tragedy is, great is a word which is more as commonly used in sports as it can. It should be used as little and as preciously as possible.

When we think of great players from the last 15 years, we will think of Akram, Tendulkar, S.R.Waugh, B.Lara, McGrath, Warne, Ambrose, Murali, Donald, Rhodes (for revolutionising fielding), Gilchrist(controversial - dont argue on it I am not saying he is great or not but hewill considered so for various reasons)

Dravid may well be the most recent addition to that memorable club of 'Greats'

Chetan Chauhan is a batsman who had one of the best opening partnerships for India with Gavaskar. Yet no one in India considers him even good enough to eb considered among Indian greats. Langer will not be considered among great Australian openers, let alone great world openers.

His average is 43.89 before this test. Averages are not every thing but they are not worthless either. And the generation we are in does have some very mediocre attacks.

Langer is part of a great opening partnership and a great Australian team. That is it. He cannot be termed as a great just as Sehwag or Richardson or Smith or Gibbs or Vaughan cant be termed as one.

 

[Sudeep]

neither are higher, they're both just as important, saving a game is just as important as winning a game, its fairly obvious..

Priority and importance are two different terms.

Winning is a priority, while winning and saving both are important.

And we need to look at priorities first. That's my opinion.

 

[Scallywag]

while a slow scorer gives you a better chance of saving a game and allows a team to bat for more time. id rather have someone who can bat for 200 balls than someone who bats for 100 balls to save a test match......

What you should be looking at is if Langer faces 200 balls he will score 104 runs and if Richardson faces 200 balls he will score 74 runs. Could be very handy in a tight game.

 

[Sudeep]

err they invented something called the 'average' to show that......

Which shows that Langer as an opener scores 5 more runs per innings than Richardson.