Laxman vs Gower

[akilana]

Gower because he was very good in all conditions.

Laxman was a liability v swing and seam.

then why's Gower's average lower? he must have some weakness

 

[trundler]

then why's Gower's average lower? he must have some weakness

He batted higher up the order and played in lower scoring era. Hope this helps.

 

[BazBall21]

then why's Gower's average lower? he must have some weakness

He was consistently very good but never had a monster peak. And Laxman played throughout the run-heavy 2000s at a time when the subcontinent was particularly flat.

 

[akilana]

He batted higher up the order and played in lower scoring era. Hope this helps.

both have similar runs per innings. If anything top order batsman should have better RPI. Laxman's average isn't due to him just batting down the order.

 

[akilana]

He was consistently very good but never had a monster peak. And Laxman played throughout the run-heavy 2000s at a time when the subcontinent was particularly flat.

Gower could have looked flawelss but he wasn't a prolific scorer. Laxman produced similar results for all the weakness he had. On top of that he played some of the best innings in the history of the sport. The flat pitches is a fair point but they're close.

 

[BazBall21]

Gower could have looked flawelss but he wasn't a prolific scorer. Laxman produced similar results for all the weakness he had. On top of that he played some of the best innings in the history of the sport. The flat pitches is a fair point but they're close.

Gower was prolific. 44 overall and 46 overseas were very good returns for his era; not least for someone who played a lot of games v WI&Australia (with the exception of the mid-80s when they admittedly struggled) and missed out on playing some poor England attacks. He has a very good record at no3 in England. Laxman struggled in the top 3 outside Asia and was known to have problems v lateral movement.

 

[sayon basak]

Gower could have looked flawelss but he wasn't a prolific scorer. Laxman produced similar results for all the weakness he had. On top of that he played some of the best innings in the history of the sport. The flat pitches is a fair point but they're close.

Who argued against that?

 

[Johan]

then why's Gower's average lower? he must have some weakness

much tougher era, much less batting support and much spicier home wickets. Though, Gower's flaw was being uncompetitive and unprofessional, he did a lot of unnecessary nonsense and wasted a lot of his talent, there's a reason Gower was often dubbed the king of soft dismissals, in that regard Laxman was superior. Gower still the overall better bat though, very good in all conditions and contexts unless facing the mighty West Indies on English wickets.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Btw what's the issue with Laxman's away record now?? It's not as good as Gower's but certainly no liability either. Only see him in England as an issue.

 

[Johan]

Btw what's the issue with Laxman's away record now?? It's not as good as Gower's but certainly no liability either. Only see him in England as an issue.

don't think he was necessarily a good player on soft wickets where the ball would swing and seam, was a very good player of HTD pace though, probably the third or fourth best from India.

 

[BazBall21]

Btw what's the issue with Laxman's away record now?? It's not as good as Gower's but certainly no liability either. Only see him in England as an issue.

He has a very decent away record and was one of the better subcontinent players of HTD pace but Gower's away record is excellent and the latter had tougher home conditions in a tougher era.