Laxman -- Highly overrated!

[chekmeout]

Well, despite the 281 in Calcutta, and many of his other 100s I feel VVS Laxman is a highly overrated player and for some reason I don't like him. Illogical I know... but well some people just irritate !! I mean have any of you noticed how shocked Laxman looks when he gets out even if its bowled.. Like hes never been out before. Anyways point of this thread is check out some interesting statistics :-

This is a letter from a friend of mine

How's life going man? How's your cricket going on?
After yet another failure by our very own, dear mr. vangipurappu
venkata sai laxman, I decided it was time to really wash some dirty
linen in public and see what the guy's been upto ever since he made
the unfortunate decision of playing cricket for the country.Remember,
this doesnt take into account his duck against pakistan yesterday.

reasons why we hate laxman

1.>vvs has scored less than 10 runs in 31 test matches, in which his
average is...you guessed it,a miserly 3.45<83 runs from 25 innings>

2.>in those matches , india has only won 7 times.Evidently, ol vvs is
the reason why we lose matches.

3.>in the 2004/2005 season as of yet, he played 9 matches < 12
innings> scoring only 269 runs at an average of 22.41, his highest
being an unimpressive 69. Dravid scored that much in a single innings
against Pakistan in early 2004.

4.>in the 83 odis that vvs has played, he has scored less than 10 31
times, making only 109 runs and scoring at an average of 4.19.

reasons why we love laxman

1.>Any ideas?

How can a guy who has such a miserable and pitiable record find a
place in the indian team. I bet habibul bashar would have fared
better, but i am not checking his record as i dont want to make myself
feel any worse. VVS has to stop riding on his 281 against Australia
and do something with the chance he has been given

 

[Swervy]

well I see what you mean...I guess the reason I dont see what the fuss about VVS is is because he never has really done much in England (where I get to see most of my cricket)..and when ever I have watched him abroad, it just so happenes he doesnt score that much

 

[a massive zebra]

Are you sure its not just a form slump?

You are right in pointing out that he fails a lot and is inconsistent, but Laxman has also proved he can really turn it on against the best of the best, and a Test average of 42 is pretty decent.

 

[chekmeout]

Some facts not mentioned :-
a) He is also the worst fielder in international cricket
b) The poorest runner between the wickets i have ever seen in my life
c) An absolutely crap one day player

On his day I agree he could be brilliant but those days just don't come often enough. And with Yuvraj Singh and Mohammad Kaif waiting for a place in the Test team I don't see him lasting too long.

Plus I just don't like him!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

There are dodgy statistics, and there are dodgy statistics, but for crying out loud, what do you expect him to average if you only count the times he's out for less than 10?!

 

[Swervy]

There are dodgy statistics, and there are dodgy statistics, but for crying out loud, what do you expect him to average if you only count the times he's out for less than 10?!

good point..Bradmans average in innings where he scored 10 or less was 2.21.... what a crap batsman

 

[chekmeout]

There are dodgy statistics, and there are dodgy statistics, but for crying out loud, what do you expect him to average if you only count the times he's out for less than 10?!

It's also worth noting the number of times he is out for 10 and below.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Tendulkar averages 4.29 in 53 sub-10 innings, and India have only won 13 of 54 "Sachin fails" tests (24.1% as opposed to Laxman's 22.6%)

Statistically irrelevant, and knocking some of Richard's rubbish out of the top ten.

 

[chekmeout]

Tendulkar averages 4.29 in 53 sub-10 innings, and India have only won 13 of 54 "Sachin fails" tests (24.1% as opposed to Laxman's 22.6%)

Statistically irrelevant, and knocking some of Richard's rubbish out of the top ten.

Did you actually calculate this or just read it off somewhere?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Cricinfo StatsGuru. Works it all out for you in about two minutes.

 

[Anil]

Tendulkar averages 4.29 in 53 sub-10 innings, and India have only won 13 of 54 "Sachin fails" tests (24.1% as opposed to Laxman's 22.6%)

...and isn't tendulkar the most overrated player of all time?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The outcome of these threads tends to be inspiration for the player in question. I wouldn't be surprised by a Laxman hundred soon, if he's persisted with.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Dravid: Average 4.12 and 10 wins in 37 (27.0%)
Sehwag: Average 2.50 and 4 wins in 12 (33.3%)
(interestingly, India have only won 2/10 where Sehwag has made 2 or less, at a pitiful average of 0.57)
Ganguly: Average 3.40, 10 wins in 39 (25.6%)
Kumble: Average 3.90, 22 wins in 65 (33.8%)

Make of that what you will (or don't, as it's utterly rubbish, and tells you as much as the fact that India have never won when Kumble passes fifty, though when he does he averages 109, or when Laxman passes 100, he averages 232.40, but India only won 2 out of 7).

i.e. Nothing at all

 

[Neil Pickup]

Tendulkar averages 4.29 in 53 sub-10 innings, and India have only won 13 of 54 "Sachin fails" tests (24.1% as opposed to Laxman's 22.6%)

Statistically irrelevant, and knocking some of Richard's rubbish out of the top ten.

In fact, Laxman's average and win ratio are actually 3.45 and 25.8% respectively.

Thus, following point two, Tendulkar is the reason India lose.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Let's not forget that when Matthew Hayden passes 250 he has an awesome average of 380, and when Brian Lara passes 300 he averages an even more astonishing 775!

 

[Anil]

In fact, Laxman's average and win ratio are actually 3.45 and 25.8% respectively.

Thus, following point two, Tendulkar is the reason India lose.

you hit the nail on the head there....

 

[Top_Cat]

Any chance of combining 'scores under 10' with 'first-chance averages'? I think we could be onto the most irrelevant statistic of all time here.

 

[C_C]

less/more contributions to losses/wins mean zilch.

If that is your argument criteria, consider this : Jimmy Adams averages less than Lara in WI defeats and more than Lara in WI victories...therefore, Jimmy Adams is a better batsman than Lara.

 

[Jono]

Try and give decent statistics when trying to prove a point next time chekmeout.

And he's far from the worst fielder, he's very very good in the slips. He was the best ODI player for India in 2004, and though he's far from the best runner between the wickets, he's not the worst. If you think he's worse than Inzy and Ranatunga you haven't seen much cricket.

 

[C_C]

Jono, I dont think Laxman is worse than Inzy between the wickets-not by a longshot...but ranatunga was definately better...i've seen ranatunga a long time and he never ceased to impress me and often the commentators as to how quickly he could move his considerable bulk...infact Ranatunga was one of the top Bevan-esque nurdlers in cricket- he kept rotating strike and stealing singles at a very high rate.