VVS Laxman...is he really that good?

[ReallyCrazy]

A lot of people over here in cricketweb seem to think very very highly of VVS Laxman. So do I...however, I think highly of him only in test cricket. He has always stuck me as a below average OD player. People are quick to point out his 5 centuries (3 against Australia) in the last 9 months or the last 21 matches he's played. His average is a respectable 44.38 during this time. That's really awesome, I agree. But lets look at his series of scores during that period.

25, 102, 21, 31, 18, 3, 22, 16, 13*, 103*, 12, 106*, 131, 1, 32, 24, 5, 4, 3, 20, 107, 14.

His HS apart from the 100s is only 32. If his average in the same period is calculated discounting his 100s, it would be 16.50. If his avg is calculated w/o the not outs, it's 37. This shows that he's very inconsistent and unreliable. I don't know about you guys but I prefer a player who can keep his average around a particular respectable number (around 35), but with Laxman, the numbers are all over the place and highly skewed.

His average against every country is:

Australia : 46.18
Bangladesh: 4.00
England: 14.40
Kenya: 8.00
NZ: 18.20
Pakistan: 21.57
South Africa: 13.50
SL: 50.33
WI: 41.50
Zim: 37.50

He only seems to do well against Australia and SL.

 

[Jono]

Well as you stated the question of Laxman's brilliance only revolves around ODIs because his status as a test champion can't be denied.

Following the statistics you have provided, I guess the question to be debated upon is, how valuable is a player who will either get a big score, or not get much at all. A hit or miss player. Would you rather have a player who consistently scores the 40s and 50s (which sometimes can be annoying if they can't ever get on with it), or do you want the players who can score the 100's, however if they don't get a ton they don't get much at all. That's the topic that is being presented.

I'm not going to deny that there are better ODI players than Laxman, however I feel batting Laxman at 3 is the way to go in ODIs, and India does have a batting order who can score if Laxman fails, but if Laxman scores then all the better for India correct? I want him in the ODI team, however I can understand while others would see his flaws. I just think he's too great to waste. Case in hand, WC 2003.

 

[marc71178]

Is he any more inconsistent then for example Jayasuriya?

 

[alexkumar]

No one can deny he is a good Batsman in TEST cricket.

He blows in ODI. He is a slow scorer and put lot of pressure on other players.

He is not the player of type who can keep the run rate to 5. He is around 3-4 run rate player.

He is absolutely unfit to be in ODI. Yet he is in Indian ODI XI , that says lot about mentality of this INDIAN TEAM.

They are just show offs. A paper champions in terms of BATTING. They all collapse under pressure like crazy.

Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly always choked when India needed them badly.

later.

 

[shankar]

I have another way of looking at it. His highest score discounting his 100's is 32 because he has a fantastic conversion rate. Whenever he gets to 50 he converts it to a century.

 

[imranrabb]

yeah but he has a average of 4 against bangladesh lol

 

[arjwiz]

yeah but he has a average of 4 against bangladesh lol

Sehwag has an average of 0 against UAE!


As far as Laxman goes, ofcourse he is really that good. Laxman is a class act, theres no denying that. He certainly deserves his place.

 

[Sehwag309]

yeah but he has a average of 4 against bangladesh lol

Why, u must be a great statistician...while ur on the job, care to show his statistics v/s the best team in the world. You surely can't, coz that will expose the talent of an Indian batsmen,...which u can't stand., RIGHT?

 

[Richard]

What was said a lot in Australia, especially by Mark Taylor, is that Laxman finds it hard to hit the ball in the air (one of the reasons he's been so phenominally successful at Test-cricket recently). This inevitably means he's not as good at one-day cricket as some, but personally I still think he's worth his place in the ODI side. If he doesn't get you 100 he'll probably get you something - not many single-figure scores there, notice?
If Tendulkar were to come in after him, that would lessen some of the problems IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I have another way of looking at it. His highest score discounting his 100's is 32 because he has a fantastic conversion rate. Whenever he gets to 50 he converts it to a century.

But you can't pick a player on that basis. A good player gets to 50 on a regular basis and then the conversion rate can be brought into question. If we're picking players purely on conversion rate, Dwayne Smith is a star with one Test hundred and no fifties.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Why, u must be a great statistician...while ur on the job, care to show his statistics v/s the best team in the world. You surely can't, coz that will expose the talent of an Indian batsmen,...which u can't stand., RIGHT?

You're blowing a simple, light-hearted comment way out of proportion.

 

[marc71178]

If Tendulkar were to come in after him, that would lessen some of the problems IMO.

Interesting that you say this, yet in another thread are against moving a batsman from a position he's made his own in order to accomodate another (ie when someone suggested opening in Tests with SRT)

 

[Sehwag309]

You're blowing a simple, light-hearted comment way out of proportion.

Oh no Mate!, If u had seen his comments b4...Below is one of his antics


Post No.19 http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=8327&page=2&pp=15&highlight=woolmer

And this fella Imran's response, which he deleted later but Neil Quoted him in Post 21,,,

..and thats not the only one

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

True that he may have stated some things in the past, but on this occasion there's really no need to get too upset. That said, I see where you're coming from and you're really not at fault.

 

[masterblaster]

Yeah Imran, the world has grown out of the post 1947 partition bias crap that you spout all the time.

I suggest you grow up as well.

Regarding Laxman, its already been said that he's a classy test player and I fully agree to that, but he's also a changed ODI player.

His low average is that of his past performances (back in 1998/99) when he averaged about 7.6 with the bat from about 10 ODI Matches. Since then Laxman has re-invented his style of play, changed his game and matured as an overall cricketer.

He was simply awesome in Australia, simply brilliant and helped India so many times. That average of 7.6 has been boosted to an average of 31 odd due to the consistent level of performance that he has showed ever since the Australian tour of 2001.

He's one of the best slips fielders that India has got at the moment and is currently the best of the whole bunch out of guys like Badani, Gavaskar, Gambhir, Powar, Mongia etc.

In my opinion, yes he's really that good. He's a very humble and nice guy, yet fiercly competitive. He's got the style, the elegance that very few batsmen have, and for me he deserves to be in any side India picks whether its Test Cricket or ODI Cricket.

 

[shankar]

But you can't pick a player on that basis. A good player gets to 50 on a regular basis and then the conversion rate can be brought into question. If we're picking players purely on conversion rate, Dwayne Smith is a star with one Test hundred and no fifties.

I'm not saying he should be picked based on his conversion rate. I'm pointing out that it's a feature of his game. It's evident even if you look at his first class or test record. When he's set he goes on to make it a big innings. As a result while a study of his scores over the last 20 matches suggest that he's a hit or miss player, it may actually because he actually converts those 40's and 50's into 100's. If he had a lower conversion rate, his scores would be more evenly spread out and he may appear 'more consistent'.

 

[marc71178]

Conversion stats are just as valid a manipulation of stats as removing his centuries and saying he's rubbish based on that average.

 

[shankar]

My point is that you cant remove his centuries and say because there is'nt even 1 fifty left he's rubbish because any fifty he makes he more often than not converts into into century.

 

[Revelation]

but surely it won't hurt his team if he can manage to get a couple 40s or 50s. In ODI cricket, the benchmark average for greatness is usually 40+.

 

[shankar]

Oh I agree. He's not a 'great' ODI player as yet by any stretch of imagination.