Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, vs Hayden, Ponting, Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh

[OverratedSanity]

Dude thats only 62 out of 225 innings and he averages sub 40 as no.3 or opener.

Mark Waugh played 170/209 innings at no.4.

Laxman he clearly benefitted at 5/6. This is the exact same argument used to argue Waugh should be rated less since he couldn't cut it up the order.

Laxman only failed as an opener and it's a position that is uniquely difficult. As no.3 he averaged 45 and played the literal greatest knock in test history. He didn't fail as a number 3 like S Waugh did, and it was actually his preferred position.

 

[ankitj]

Laxman played way down the order and in the batting friendly era. That's a big cushion to account for their difference.

You can't realistically argue that Laxman scored easy runs. He played many fightback innings through his career.

 

[subshakerz]

You can't realistically argue that Laxman scored easy runs. He played many fightback innings through his career.

No he was a great clutch player. As was someone like Steve Waugh. But then realistically over the course of a career it does offer an easier launching pad to come at 5/6.

 

[subshakerz]

Laxman only failed as an opener and it's a position that is uniquely difficult. As no.3 he averaged 45 and played the literal greatest knock in test history. He didn't fail as a number 3 like S Waugh did, and it was actually his preferred position.

I am only responding to the stats you brought in.

62 innings is a small fraction of his overall career.

I think on this forum it is generally granted that there is a tax for batting higher up for a large portion of your career.

And Laxman also batting a big majority of his career in the flat era definitely helped his average also.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No he was a great clutch player. As was someone like Steve Waugh. But then realistically over the course of a career it does offer an easier launching pad to come at 5/6.

Steve Waugh failed at both 3 and 4. Laxman only failed as an opener, but flourished in the chances he got at 3. They are not the same.

 

[OverratedSanity]

62 innings is a small fraction of his overall career.

It's more than a quarter of his career. And opening especially is such a specialist position that it can tank anyone's numbers. If Waugh had to open even for 20-25 innings like Laxman his overall average might not have even crossed the 40 mark. VVS as non-opener averages ~49.

I think there is a pretty significant gap in their numbers whichever way you slice it.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean, salty can just have a sig that says "I hate Indian cricket and cricketers" and stop posting here and we would all be the better for it.

 

[subshakerz]

It's more than a quarter of his career. And opening especially is such a specialist position that it can tank anyone's numbers. If Waugh had to open even for 20-25 innings like Laxman his overall average might not have even crossed the 40 mark. VVS as non-opener averages ~49.

We don't know how Waugh would do as opener so penalising him for that makes no sense.

Neither can we just ignore Laxmans opening numbers either since that was his introduction to cricket.

Batting 5/6 was 60 percent of Laxmans career.

You need to add the batting boost with that plus the batting boost with playing in the flat era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Tbf, it's kinda commendable to come up with two shitty takes on the same thread

 

[Xix2565]

Junior is such an anchor here, the dude has said he got bored of batting and making runs quite often. What a loser, who wants that over VVS??????

 

[capt_Luffy]

We don't know how Waugh would do as opener so penalising him for that makes no sense.

Neither can we just ignore Laxmans opening numbers either since that was his introduction to cricket.

Batting 5/6 was 60 percent of Laxmans career.

You need to add the batting boost with that plus the batting boost with playing in the flat era.

Batting boost for what? Batting at Top 3 is also much difficult to batting at 4, Laxman did that for 30% of his innings. That by all accounts should balance out that Junior batted mostly at 4 and he at 5/6 (more at 5 actually).

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Sachin

 

[subshakerz]

Batting boost for what? Batting at Top 3 is also much difficult to batting at 4, Laxman did that for 30% of his innings. That by all accounts should balance out that Junior batted mostly at 4 and he at 5/6 (more at 5 actually).

That 30 percent he average sub 40 thanks to his opening.

If he batted for 30 percent in a more difficult position and scored as much or more, then you could have an argument. Him scoring less at the top of the order isn't.

 

[capt_Luffy]

That 30 percent he average sub 40 thanks to his opening.

If he batted for 30 percent in a more difficult position and scored as much or more, then you could have an argument. Him scoring less at the top of the order isn't.

And that balances out on his overall record. Not to mention Mark never opened so he ain't getting any boost for that.

He averages as much at 3 played arguably the Greatest Innings Ever. Again, his overall average comes down for his Opening stint (which Mark never had). If you want to hold it separately, then I will say they have a 8 runs avg difference as well

 

[subshakerz]

And that balances out on his overall record. Not to mention Mark never opened so he ain't getting any boost for that.

He averages as much at 3 played arguably the Greatest Innings Ever. Again, his overall average comes down for his Opening stint (which Mark never had). If you want to hold it separately, then I will say they have a 8 runs avg difference as well

Lol statistically it doesn't balance it out if you play 30 percent in a tougher position, don't score as much, and 60 percent in an easier position and scored much better. Still means you have a net advantage of your batting position on your record.

And after all that playing the majority of his career in the flat era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lol statistically it doesn't balance it out if you play 30 percent in a tougher position, don't score as much, and 60 percent in an easier position and scored much better. Still means you have a net advantage of your batting position on your record.

And after all that playing the majority of his career in the flat era.

It also means that you played a significantly higher chunk in a tougher position and the statistical difference between them is much more staggeringly higher, at 8 runs. If you can't get your head around this, Idk what to say to ya lol.

 

[Al Salvador]

Laxman has longevity advantage and I think he was slightly more consistent outside of his first 4 years. Both men played many great knocks. Junior was more well rounded cross conditions player. I think they're same tier, it comes down to preference. I tend to prefer player with less conditions/bowling type weakness, so I will take junior but I won't mind if someone else picks Laxman. I just don't agree with them having big gap

 

[subshakerz]

Laxman has longevity advantage and I think he was slightly more consistent outside of his first 4 years. Both men played many great knocks. Junior was more well rounded cross conditions player. I think they're same tier, it comes down to preference. I tend to prefer player with less conditions/bowling type weakness, so I will take junior but I won't mind if someone else picks Laxman. I just don't agree with them having big gap

Yes my position basically.

 

[subshakerz]

It also means that you played a significantly higher chunk in a tougher position and the statistical difference between them is much more staggeringly higher, at 8 runs. If you can't get your head around this, Idk what to say to ya lol.

No the higher chunk is in an easier position at 5/6.

And the major boost difference is batting era.

 

[ma1978]

You don't know what you are talking about. That Waugh ton against SA was one of the best knocks of the decade.

Not a candle on the best of Laxman