VVS Laxman...is he really that good?

[tooextracool]

You want your best batsmen to bat in the position where the widest range of innings are likely to have to be played.
Yes, Tendulkar is very, very good at flaying the bowling in the first 15, and when 2 early wickets are lost, he'll also have the chance to do that. Equally, if the situation demands, he'll have the chance to shut-up shop and rebuild. His chances of batting in the middle and at the end, which he is also very, very good at, are increased rather than decreased.
You have two players in Ganguly and Sehwag who are equally proficient at flaying the bowling in the first 15, even if they won't do it quite as frequently. I guess the only average which would demonstrate this is one of each, when opening only, with an average score at the end of the 15 overs.
IMO you don't need Tendulkar to play that sort of knock, but you do need him to have the highest chance of batting later, because there are less players in the side who are good at that - Yuvraj can, Dravid is improving all the time.
Just because Tendulkar prefers to score as many runs as he can, doesn't mean this is the best thing for the team.
And IMO if he plays his role at four as best he can, his average will eventually go up to at least 45 in that role.

then howcome his averaged after nearly 40 odd games is only 38 then? i doubt its going to improve either. yes i know its best for the team for him to bat at 4,the selectors know it too thats why they've tried it over and over again. but the point is that there is absolutely no reason to make the best ODI player in your side bat in a position in which he doesnt want to bat in and bat in a position where he hasnt been anywhere near as successful as he has at the top.

 

[Richard]

im sorry what?the point im making is that you cant condemn him from opening the batting in tests when he hasnt had the opportunity to do so.

Whatever point you are trying to make, anything I've said with regards to ODIs has no relevance to the discussion of Tests.

 

[Richard]

how could it possible be one part when he wasnt even involved in that part???

Because I've never said he was involved - I just said that was part of the aura of invincibility in the team which Tendulkar was a part of.

oh wow 2 centuries batting at 4...quite brilliant compared to the 30 odd centuries hes scored batting at the top.....and the batting lineup looked just about as invincible in the wc where he batted at the top and got 6 50s and a 100.

The batting looked nowhere near as strong in WC2003, it often looked like an accident waiting to happen.
But for Dravid being dropped by McCullum they might well have struggled to chase down 146; the phenominal achievement of scoring 292 mostly against Nissanka, Fernando, Jayasuriya, Arnold and Aravinda is hardly a massive claim to fame; the chase against Pakistan was no more than a reasonable performance given how woefully Pakistan's attack bowled; to score a mere 250 against England was a very poor performance; as was a mere 255 against Zimbabwe. And of course there was the collapse to 125 against Australia, then the 234 following 359\2, not that you can really expect much chasing such an impossible target.
Still, I'd have given them an outside chance had the batting-line-up been as it was in NWS2002. With Tendulkar at the top to get out in the 1st over, there was no chance at all.

 

[tooextracool]

nope if you say that just because he hasnt been able to perform while chasing down scores at 4 it doesnt mean he cant...is the same as saying that just because he hasnt opened the batting in tests it doesnt mean he cant!

 

[Richard]

then howcome his averaged after nearly 40 odd games is only 38 then? i doubt its going to improve either. yes i know its best for the team for him to bat at 4,the selectors know it too thats why they've tried it over and over again. but the point is that there is absolutely no reason to make the best ODI player in your side bat in a position in which he doesnt want to bat in and bat in a position where he hasnt been anywhere near as successful as he has at the top.

Yes, there is - because he is most badly needed there and can use his skills more constructively there.
While someone else can do the job he's done specifically at the top (ie in the first 15 overs) every bit as well.
The reason Tendulkar averages so high at the top is not because he has done well just at the top, but because he has done well everywhere.

 

[nookie_lk]

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.

i think laxman is not thaat a great player...good wristy player..that is...

 

[Richard]

nope if you say that just because he hasnt been able to perform while chasing down scores at 4 it doesnt mean he cant...is the same as saying that just because he hasnt opened the batting in tests it doesnt mean he cant!

Er, yes, I know that, and I never said it did - I just said I don't believe he is capable of being a good Test opening batsman - I have never once said that because he hasn't that must mean he can't.

 

[tooextracool]

Because I've never said he was involved - I just said that was part of the aura of invincibility in the team which Tendulkar was a part of.

and he would still be a valuable part of that team if he opened the batting and actually scored on that occasion!

The batting looked nowhere near as strong in WC2003, it often looked like an accident waiting to happen.
But for Dravid being dropped by McCullum they might well have struggled to chase down 146.

yes and when tendulkar batted at 4 in those last 3 matches in NZ on similar wickets his scores read 0,1,1. im sure he would have made the difference.....

the phenominal achievement of scoring 292 mostly against Nissanka, Fernando, Jayasuriya, Arnold and Aravinda is hardly a massive claim to fame.

conveniently leaving out vaas and murali their 2 best bowlers.....what was in fact a better Sl attack to the one that they played against in the natwest series.

the chase against Pakistan was no more than a reasonable performance given how woefully Pakistan's attack bowled

typically trying to load the facts in your favour when they arent.....

to score a mere 250 against England was a very poor performance

of course the quality of bowling from andrew flintoff doesnt count on this occasion.....

Still, I'd have given them an outside chance had the batting-line-up been as it was in NWS2002. With Tendulkar at the top to get out in the 1st over, there was no chance at all.

yes because time and time again hes been so successful chasing scores batting at 4......

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, there is - because he is most badly needed there and can use his skills more constructively there.

no if he is to maintain an average of 38 it would be quite pointless to have him there,because ganguly or yuvraj will both average along similar lines in that position...

While someone else can do the job he's done specifically at the top (ie in the first 15 overs) every bit as well.

the reason why hes such a good opener is not because he can only score in the first 15 overs but because he can go on to score big even after that.

The reason Tendulkar averages so high at the top is not because he has done well just at the top, but because he has done well everywhere.

umm what? if his average is so high because he has done well everywhere then why is his average at 4 11 runs less than his average at the top???

 

[Richard]

and he would still be a valuable part of that team if he opened the batting and actually scored on that occasion!

Err, so?

yes and when tendulkar batted at 4 in those last 3 matches in NZ on similar wickets his scores read 0,1,1. im sure he would have made the difference.....

Which is not especially surprising given the conditions - I really wish he'd have opened then, because he'd probably have failed again, then you never know, he might have batted four in WC2003, and might still be there now.

conveniently leaving out vaas and murali their 2 best bowlers.....what was in fact a better Sl attack to the one that they played against in the natwest series.

No, not at all. Murali's presence was the only difference.
Chaminda bowled well twice against India in NWS2002, and poorly once, the rest of the attack was every bit as rubbish in both games. Sadly Nuwan was part of the first one.

typically trying to load the facts in your favour when they arent.....

So Pakistan bowled really well, then?

of course the quality of bowling from andrew flintoff doesnt count on this occasion.....

Good, yes, but he bowled exactly the same in the final of NWS2002 and Ganguly smashed him out of sight because he kept going down the pitch. That series, India dominated England's attack consistently, except Irani in that 32-over-excuse-for-a-game.

yes because time and time again hes been so successful chasing scores batting at 4......

And Ganguly and Sehwag could have been let loose on McGrath, Lee and Bichel.
Instead Tendulkar lost his wicket.

 

[Richard]

no if he is to maintain an average of 38 it would be quite pointless to have him there,because ganguly or yuvraj will both average along similar lines in that position...

No, you can't say with any certainty at all that they will - you can just say you think they will.
I don't, I think Tendulkar is better than both in the roles demanded between overs 15 and 50.

the reason why hes such a good opener is not because he can only score in the first 15 overs but because he can go on to score big even after that.

Yes, and others can do an equally good job in the first 15 with less risk of taking away Tendulkar's chances of doing well later on.

umm what? if his average is so high because he has done well everywhere then why is his average at 4 11 runs less than his average at the top???

Because when he's opening he can play all roles well - when he's batting four he's less likely to get the chance to play the 15-over role.
And he doesn't need to, because there are others equally good at that.
He does, however, need the maximum possibility of batting in the other roles he has proved best at - middle and end.
It's a fairly logical deduction that performances in middle + performances at top make more runs and higher average.
But not neccesarily more use to team.

 

[tooextracool]

Err, so?

so hes better of opening the batting

Which is not especially surprising given the conditions - I really wish he'd have opened then, because he'd probably have failed again, then you never know, he might have batted four in WC2003, and might still be there now.

the fact that he failed at 4 in similar conditions to the game in the wc against NZ goes to show that you cannot say that hes better off at 4...

No, not at all. Murali's presence was the only difference..

a major difference i might add......

Chaminda bowled well twice against India in NWS2002, and poorly once, the rest of the attack was every bit as rubbish in both games. Sadly Nuwan was part of the first one.

why is it not surprising that both of chamindas good performances came on seamer friendly wickets?

So Pakistan bowled really well, then?.

they did not bowl poorly either, just because tendulkar happened to play brilliantly at the top it doesnt not mean that they bowled poorly. that said wasim akram was brilliant....

Good, yes, but he bowled exactly the same in the final of NWS2002 and Ganguly smashed him out of sight because he kept going down the pitch.

what rubbish...flintoff bowled nowhere near as well as he did in the world cup, anybody who watched him bowl then would have realised that

And Ganguly and Sehwag could have been let loose on McGrath, Lee and Bichel.
Instead Tendulkar lost his wicket.

yes instead they would rather have had tendulkar fail again while chasing at 4.....and he would probably have failed against pakistan if he batted at 4 too.

 

[tooextracool]

No, you can't say with any certainty at all that they will - you can just say you think they will.
I don't, I think Tendulkar is better than both in the roles demanded between overs 15 and 50.

if he was better he would average more than 38.....

Yes, and others can do an equally good job in the first 15 with less risk of taking away Tendulkar's chances of doing well later on..

actually the others can do a similar job of averaging 38 later on but none can average 50 at the top.

Because when he's opening he can play all roles well - when he's batting four he's less likely to get the chance to play the 15-over role.
And he doesn't need to, because there are others equally good at that.

there are also other equally good enough to average 38 in the middle order.....

He does, however, need the maximum possibility of batting in the other roles he has proved best at - middle and end.

how can he be 'proved best' at 4 when he averages on 38 as opposed to his average of nearly 50 at the top?

 

[Richard]

so hes better of opening the batting

No, that does not mean such.

the fact that he failed at 4 in similar conditions to the game in the wc against NZ goes to show that you cannot say that hes better off at 4...

Similar, but not quite as bad. Otherwise New Zealand might have competed better than they did.
As it was, they only disadvantaged themselves in the end by putting more emphasis on 5-2 than planning for the Cup.

a major difference i might add......

No, not so, given that Murali's figures were not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination.

why is it not surprising that both of chamindas good performances came on seamer friendly wickets?

Because, guess what - THEY DIDN'T!!!!! Yet again our supposedly all-seeing maestro has got it wrong. And this time I can verify as such.
Yes, the wicket for the second game at Edgbaston offered seam-movement all through the match, but the first one did only for the first 20 overs or so, which meant Nehra got far better figures than he usually does on less extravagant wickets and that Agarkar started well (7 overs for 21, 3 wickets).
By India's innings, it had flattened out and was playing very well. Chaminda's performance was excellent.
And even if they had both been on seaming wickets, incidentally, what would that mean so far as the difference (or rather the non-difference) of Sri Lanka's attack between these games and WC2003?

they did not bowl poorly either, just because tendulkar happened to play brilliantly at the top it doesnt not mean that they bowled poorly. that said wasim akram was brilliant....

Brilliant, yes, that's why he went for 48 off 10 overs, isn't it. You'd expect someone who bowled brilliantly in a ODI to go for 25 at the most.
And you do not go for 8-an-over, which both Waqar and Shoaib did without bowling very poorly, no matter who the batsman is.

what rubbish...flintoff bowled nowhere near as well as he did in the world cup, anybody who watched him bowl then would have realised that

And anyone who watched the NatWest final closely would see he bowled exactly the same in both matches, except Ganguly used his feet, sensibly, and didn't allow someone bowling so quick that the wicketkeeper couldn't stand-up to be economical just because he was bowling accurately.
There was nothing wrong with the line or length, but Ganguly made a mockery of it, as he tends to do with alarming regularity...

yes instead they would rather have had tendulkar fail again while chasing at 4.....and he would probably have failed against pakistan if he batted at 4 too.

Probably... and of course you can know that probability, can't you?
Well, in that case I think it's probable that Ganguly and Sehwag would have won the game by 10 wickets if they were opening.
And with regards the final, even if he had failed at four, it would still have given India a better chance. Would you really prefer him coming in with 7-an-over needed for 50 overs than 7-an-over for 35 or 30?

 

[Richard]

if he was better he would average more than 38.....

actually the others can do a similar job of averaging 38 later on but none can average 50 at the top.

there are also other equally good enough to average 38 in the middle order.....

how can he be 'proved best' at 4 when he averages on 38 as opposed to his average of nearly 50 at the top?

And all of this tries to bring averages back into it when I have proved my point by taking them out of the equation!

 

[tooextracool]

Similar, but not quite as bad. Otherwise New Zealand might have competed better than they did.
As it was, they only disadvantaged themselves in the end by putting more emphasis on 5-2 than planning for the Cup.

your point being?you cant say that if SRT batted at 4 he would have scored on that occasion considering the 3 past failures on similar wickets against the same bowling side only a short while earlier.

No, not so, given that Murali's figures were not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination.

so 3/46 was poor bowling on a flat track then,especially considering that he also had to bowl in the death?

Because, guess what - THEY DIDN'T!!!!! Yet again our supposedly all-seeing maestro has got it wrong. And this time I can verify as such.
Yes, the wicket for the second game at Edgbaston offered seam-movement all through the match, but the first one did only for the first 20 overs or so, which meant Nehra got far better figures than he usually does on less extravagant wickets and that Agarkar started well (7 overs for 21, 3 wickets).
By India's innings, it had flattened out and was playing very well. Chaminda's performance was excellent.

what kind of stupid statement is this?if it seamed for the first 20 overs or so then wouldnt it be fair to say that someone like chaminda vaas who bowled more than half his overs in that period would have been able to make his bowling figures look superior because of that?

And even if they had both been on seaming wickets, incidentally, what would that mean so far as the difference (or rather the non-difference) of Sri Lanka's attack between these games and WC2003?.

if you watch any cricket at all you would see that murali made that attack a whole lot better

Brilliant, yes, that's why he went for 48 off 10 overs, isn't it. You'd expect someone who bowled brilliantly in a ODI to go for 25 at the most.

look at it in context, the rest of the attack were smashed all over the park by tendulkar.....

And you do not go for 8-an-over, which both Waqar and Shoaib did without bowling very poorly, no matter who the batsman is.

that depends on how well the batsmen played, on this occasion tendulkar was batting brilliantly....

And anyone who watched the NatWest final closely would see he bowled exactly the same in both matches, except Ganguly used his feet, sensibly, and didn't allow someone bowling so quick that the wicketkeeper couldn't stand-up to be economical just because he was bowling accurately.
There was nothing wrong with the line or length, but Ganguly made a mockery of it, as he tends to do with alarming regularity.

and if you had been watching closely enough you would have seen that flintoff bowled uncharateristically wide which is why ganguly kept smashing him through the covers.....

Probably... and of course you can know that probability, can't you

its considerably higher than the probability of india winning that game against pakistan if he had batted at 4 i can assure you.

Well, in that case I think it's probable that Ganguly and Sehwag would have won the game by 10 wickets if they were opening.And with regards the final, even if he had failed at four, it would still have given India a better chance. Would you really prefer him coming in with 7-an-over needed for 50 overs than 7-an-over for 35 or 30?

what would be the point of him coming in at 4 and failing to help india with the chase again? if he had batted at 4 we wouldnt have seen that innings against pakistan and india would probably have lost.

 

[tooextracool]

And all of this tries to bring averages back into it when I have proved my point by taking them out of the equation!

how have you proved anything?the fact that hes happier opening the batting and is scoring more prolifically than anyone else at the top and has time and time again failed to help india with run chases at 4 suggests to me that hes better off at the top!

 

[Richard]

your point being?you cant say that if SRT batted at 4 he would have scored on that occasion considering the 3 past failures on similar wickets against the same bowling side only a short while earlier.

No, I can't say it for certain. But given that the wicket wasn't quite as seam-friendly, I can say that it was less likely.

so 3/46 was poor bowling on a flat track then,especially considering that he also had to bowl in the death?

Yes, because the fact that he got 2 wickets in his last 11 balls, when batsmen were throwing caution to the winds, suggests that he didn't bowl all that impressively and didn't make the attack massively better than it was in NWS2002.

what kind of stupid statement is this?if it seamed for the first 20 overs or so then wouldnt it be fair to say that someone like chaminda vaas who bowled more than half his overs in that period would have been able to make his bowling figures look superior because of that?

No, it wouldn't - because if you think about it, I was talking about the first 20 overs of the match, not of both innings.
In the 50th over of the match, which was Chaminda's first, there was no seam-movement left in the wicket. He did, however, bowl very well including a beautifully pitched nip-backer (swing, not seam) to bowl Sehwag with his 1st ball.

if you watch any cricket at all you would see that murali made that attack a whole lot better

Oh, a bit, I'll give you that, but his figures up to 45.4 overs suggested he hadn't made a significant, match-changing, difference.

look at it in context, the rest of the attack were smashed all over the park by tendulkar.....

Well, Razzaq was actually even more economical than Wasim, but yes, Shoaib and Waqar were hammered all over the park - because they bowled exceptionally poorly. Wasim, meanwhile, merely bowled poorly.

that depends on how well the batsmen played, on this occasion tendulkar was batting brilliantly....

And if Waqar and Shoaib had bowled better he wouldn't have been able to score anywhere near as quickly as he did, even if he had batted every bit as well.

and if you had been watching closely enough you would have seen that flintoff bowled uncharateristically wide which is why ganguly kept smashing him through the covers.....

No, Ganguly kept backing away and making straight balls into wide ones, the logical thing to do if someone is bowling very straight.

its considerably higher than the probability of india winning that game against pakistan if he had batted at 4 i can assure you.

I would be astonished if Pakistan had won that game the way they bowled, whoever the lucky batsmen happened to be.

what would be the point of him coming in at 4 and failing to help india with the chase again? if he had batted at 4 we wouldnt have seen that innings against pakistan and india would probably have lost.

No, they would almost certainly not have lost given how abysmally most of the Pakistanis bowled.
If Tendulkar had batted four in the final, India would have had a slightly better chance if you ask me.

 

[Richard]

how have you proved anything?the fact that hes happier opening the batting and is scoring more prolifically than anyone else at the top and has time and time again failed to help india with run chases at 4 suggests to me that hes better off at the top!

Because of the very simple reason that if he bats in the middle he's got the best chance of playing his most important role, despite losing the chance of playing a role anyone else can play every bit as effectively.
Whether or not he's happier batting at the top where he can glean as many runs as he wants - it's sure big hypocrisy of him when he continuously asserts that his first objective is to make India win. Either that or he doesn't really understand the situation very well, and actually thinks he benefits the team more as an opener.

 

[nookie_lk]

laxman is crap..........