pick the top 3 Indian test batsmen

[Sanz]

i haven't looked at those stats yet, but that criteria is like implying that ppl don't make enough effort in games that their teams lost!!!!

So I would by that say that any Australian batsmen is better than Lara!!!!

case closed

Oh please. Don't pooh pooh the criteria because it doesn't suit your argument. You are the one who talked about 'Whatever Criteria'. SS just provided one of many criteria where Laxman tops Sehwag easily.

Its not that people do not acknowledge Sehwag's success, but saying he is better than so and so citing simple stats is not good enough reasoning for some of us.

 

[ret]

It is a common knowledge (and simple stats wont tell you that) that Laxman's international career early on wasn't a great success mainly because of how Indian captains handled him as a youngster. That someone like him still survived and went to become India's finest batsman in crisis is a testimoney to his talent and toughness. People never had doubts about His batting skills. It is not a surprise that when India got a captain (Sourav Ganguly) who knew how to treat/handle players, Laxman Flourished greatly as a batsman.

Under Ganguly's Captaincy Laxman's average - 52.3, Under Kumble - 54.3, Under Azhar - 26.3, Under Sachin - 27.7

Despite doing so much for Indian Cricket, LAX is still treated as the Doormat of Indian Batting. I have forgotten the no. of times people on this same forum have wanted Lax out in place of a mediocre batsman like Yuvraj Singh.

Laxman's talent and skill level as batsman are far better than Sehwag's and he has delivered for India in crisis far more than any other batsman In the history of Indian Cricket.

again saying that Sehwag is a better option doesn't imply that Laxman is a bad

would saying that Dravid is better option than Laxman make you write all that you just wrote?

again there are different ways to avoid crisis, a Sehwag and a Dravid would avert crisis by taking on the bowlers, scoring runs and noting giving their wickets away cheaply

 

[Sanz]

in tests where almost everyone has an equal opportunity to bat .... and in tests,

Laxman(in the Middle order, 4-7) has played 95 innings in 63 tests(possible no. of innigns 126) out of which 17 times he remained not out ie. there wasn't opportunity to complete the innigns.

Otoh Sehwag(in Top Order 1-3) has batted 87 times out of a possible 104 innings, 3 times he couldn't complete his innings.

If we took only the completed Innings(Where they were out) - Laxman 78 in 126 (62%), Sehwag 84 in 104 (81%). a whopping 19% Difference.

it can be argued that the ability to bat longer depends upon skills too

Are you arguing that Sehwag is more skilled to bat longer than Laxman ?

 

[Sanz]

would saying that Dravid is better option than Laxman make you write all that you just wrote?

No. That Dravid is clearly the better test batsman of the two is almost indisputable. In Sehwag's case it is not. There are many who believe that Laxman is a better batsman than Sehwag regardless of what simple stats show.

again there are different ways to avoid crisis, a Sehwag and a Dravid would avert crisis by taking on the bowlers, scoring runs and noting giving their wickets away cheaply

It seems to me that you are insinuating something about Laxman i.e. he gives his wickets cheaply and doesn't take on bowlers. If so, I must say you do not deserver any furthur response on the issue.

 

[silentstriker]

Unlike many others, I think statistics are massively important and they can tell you quite a bit. However, by themselves, they are meaningless and you can easily be blinded by them. I mean no disrespect with that, but you are not seeing the bigger picture. When the team needs runs, on a track where the outcome is not yet decided, Laxman is much more important to the team than Sehwag. For a period there, Sehwag was extremely important, and his starts really created a platform for the whole team. But over his career, Laxman has been much more important to India, and the better player.

If the track is flat, I'd take Sehwag in a heartbeat, but that's not what we're talking about here.

 

[ret]

Oh please. Don't pooh pooh the criteria because it doesn't suit your argument. You are the one who talked about 'Whatever Criteria'. SS just provided one of many criteria where Laxman tops Sehwag easily.

Its not that people do not acknowledge Sehwag's success, but saying he is better than so and so citing simple stats is not good enough reasoning for some of us.

It's not a criteria at all and i guess, even you know it but are probably arguing to make something out of nothing .... and i took a look at that criteria and will show you how out of place it is

Sehwag has won 20 games out of 57 that he has played - success ratio of 35%
Laxman has won 31 games out of 93 that he has played - success ratio of 33%

so I can take the same criteria that you provided and argue that playing Sehwag would result in more Indian victories than playing Laxman!!!! and thus playing Sehwag is more beneficial

if you look at it more closely, in the games that India has won when VVS and Sehwag have played together, Sehwag averages 41 and VVS 43, big difference, eh?

and more importantly in the games that India has won with them together, Sehwag has scored 1147 runs to VVS's 1076!!!!

so even that the stats that you thought were good to say that VVS is better doesn't show that

and are you willing to argue who is better amongst Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar on the basis of matches won? If 'No', then that again shows that criteria was out of place but even in that I have shown that picking Sehwag is a better option

 

[Cricket_God]

It's not a criteria at all and i guess, even you know it but are probably arguing to make something out of nothing .... and i took a look at that criteria and will show you how out of place it is

Sehwag has won 20 games out of 57 that he has played - success ratio of 35%
Laxman has won 31 games out of 93 that he has played - success ratio of 33%

so I can take the same criteria that you provided and argue that playing Sehwag would result in more Indian victories than playing Laxman!!!! and thus playing Sehwag is more beneficial

if you look at it more closely, in the games that India has won when VVS and Sehwag have played together, Sehwag averages 41 and VVS 43, big difference, eh?

and more importantly in the games that India has won, Sehwag has scored 1147 runs to VVS's 1076!!!!

so even that the stats that you thought were good to say that VVS is better doesn't show that

and are you willing to argue who is better amongst Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar on the basis of matches won? If 'No', then that again shows that criteria was out of place but even in that I have shown that picking Sehwag is a better option

fact is shewag and laxman both are class players,one changes game at the top
and the other at the bottom so you can argue whichposition is more difficult
but both are greats.

 

[Sanz]

Sehwag has won 20 games out of 57 that he has played - success ratio of 35%
Laxman has won 31 games out of 93 that he has played - success ratio of 33%

That's another won of those superficial stats. Sehwag/Laxman do not win matches for India on their own.

 

[Sanz]

so I can take the same criteria that you provided and argue that playing Sehwag would result in more Indian victories than playing Laxman!!!! and thus playing Sehwag is more beneficial

That sounds more like a superstitious reason. You dont win by just playing Sehwag. There are other factors involved too. Obviously Sehwag's contribution is also one of the factors.

if you look at it more closely, in the games that India has won when VVS and Sehwag have played together, Sehwag averages 41 and VVS 43, big difference, eh?

I do not care about that difference. That VVS averages slightly more doesn't automatically make him better than Sehwag.

and more importantly in the games that India has won with them together, Sehwag has scored 1147 runs to VVS's 1076!!!!

Any reason why you are showing total runs scored and not the Average ?

so even that the stats that you thought were good to say that VVS is better doesn't show that

What stats ? You mean the stats SS showed ?

and are you willing to argue who is better amongst Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar on the basis of matches won? If 'No', then that again shows that criteria was out of place but even in that I have shown that picking Sehwag is a better option

Do Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar Play for same team ?

 

[ret]

thats my point when I said that not the criteria at all to judge the players, but it was you who said the below

Oh please. Don't pooh pooh the criteria because it doesn't suit your argument. You are the one who talked about 'Whatever Criteria'. SS just provided one of many criteria where Laxman tops Sehwag easily.

but now when the same criteria don't suit your need, you are like

That's another won of those superficial stats. Sehwag/Laxman do not win matches for India on their own.

and then you still say something like this

ret reminds me of my early days on internet forums, except that I made a lot more sense even as an inexperienced lad. I still show glimpses of those days once in a while, though.

yes buddy, you make a lot of sense .... why not start by doing the opposite of what you think and may be you will make better choices

 

[ret]

That sounds more like a superstitious reason. You dont win by just playing Sehwag. There are other factors involved too. Obviously Sehwag's contribution is also one of the factors.

I do not care about that difference. That VVS averages slightly more doesn't automatically make him better than Sehwag.

Any reason why you are showing total runs scored and not the Average ?

What stats ? You mean the stats SS showed ?

Do Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar Play for same team ?

haha, would you please stop bombarding us with your non-sense

 

[Sanz]

but now when the same criteria don't suit your need, you are like

First of all I didn't say 'whatever criteria and Sehwag will come out on top' - You said it and SS just posted.

Secondly It's not the same criteria - what SS posted reflected individual performance (i.e. runs scored by the two in matches won), what you posted reflected team performance (i.e. matches won where the two played)

 

[Sanz]

haha, would you please stop bombarding us with your non-sense

You refer to yourself as 'us' ?

 

[ret]

 

[Uppercut]

When looking at averages, it should probably be taken into account that the job of opening that Sehwag has is harder than batting at 4 or 5. However, he has a tendency to get some REALLY big scores that push the average up.

Out of the batsmen, he's my favourite to watch because he has so many shots. Tendulkar and Dravid are well above everyone else in terms of achievement, so Sehwag should be third by my reckoning. But in ODIs and T20, for my money he's as good as any Indian batsman at the moment.

 

[weldone]

When looking at averages, it should probably be taken into account that the job of opening that Sehwag has is harder than batting at 4 or 5.

Buddy, this statement is highly debatable...Maybe you'll cite as a logic that less no. of batsman have great stats opening than batsmen playing in the middle order...But one can say that's because only 2 batsmen open in a team while 4-5 batsmen play in the middle order...So, there are bound to be more great batsmen in the middle-order than opening...That doesn't prove opening is always more difficult than batting in the middle-order...

The fact is that it depends on the pitch, the opposition bowling strength, match situation etc. etc. ...

 

[Uppercut]

Buddy, this statement is highly debatable...Maybe you'll cite as a logic that less no. of batsman have great stats opening than batsmen playing in the middle order...But one can say that's because only 2 batsmen open in a team while 4-5 batsmen play in the middle order...So, there are bound to be more great batsmen in the middle-order than opening...That doesn't prove opening is always more difficult than batting in the middle-order...

The fact is that it depends on the pitch, the opposition bowling strength, match situation etc. etc. ...

No, it's just generally accepted to be much harder to open the vast majority of the time. You have to face the new ball, the brunt of the opposition attack, and often any initial demons in the pitch.

Obviously not always true, i wouldn't try to say it is. Perhaps not true as often in India as in other places. But it's definitely true often enough to say that over their respective careers, Sehwag had the more difficult job the majority of the time.

 

[weldone]

No, it's just generally accepted to be much harder to open the vast majority of the time. You have to face the new ball, the brunt of the opposition attack, and often any initial demons in the pitch.

Obviously not always true, i wouldn't try to say it is. Perhaps not true as often in India as in other places. But it's definitely true often enough to say that over their respective careers, Sehwag had the more difficult job the majority of the time.

I don't buy that...

Opening batsmen have had an overall test average of 35.79 over the history of test cricket.... Laxman mostly plays in no. 5 or 6 ...All batsmen playing in those positions have had an average of 34.35... So, if opening is tougher than playing at no. 5 or 6, then why do people have better batting averages there?....It's a myth and nothing else...

 

[Uppercut]

I don't buy that...

Opening batsmen have had an overall test average of 35.79 over the history of test cricket.... Laxman mostly plays in no. 5 or 6 ...All batsmen playing in those positions have had an average of 34.35... So, if opening is tougher than playing at no. 5 or 6, then why do people have better batting averages there?....It's a myth and nothing else...

1. The difference in those numbers is negligible
2. Number 5 and 6 batsmen usually aren't as good as those batting in the top 4.

Forget the stats, watch or play some cricket. The vast majority of the time, the openers have a harder job against the pick of the opposition bowlers, at their freshest, with a shiny, hard new ball at their disposal.

What's the argument for it being harder to bat down the order anyway?

 

[Aamir Alauddin]

It's not a criteria at all and i guess, even you know it but are probably arguing to make something out of nothing .... and i took a look at that criteria and will show you how out of place it is

Sehwag has won 20 games out of 57 that he has played - success ratio of 35%
Laxman has won 31 games out of 93 that he has played - success ratio of 33%

so I can take the same criteria that you provided and argue that playing Sehwag would result in more Indian victories than playing Laxman!!!! and thus playing Sehwag is more beneficial

if you look at it more closely, in the games that India has won when VVS and Sehwag have played together, Sehwag averages 41 and VVS 43, big difference, eh?

and more importantly in the games that India has won with them together, Sehwag has scored 1147 runs to VVS's 1076!!!!

so even that the stats that you thought were good to say that VVS is better doesn't show that

and are you willing to argue who is better amongst Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar on the basis of matches won? If 'No', then that again shows that criteria was out of place but even in that I have shown that picking Sehwag is a better option

What a stupid logic. Sehwag has wonmatches against teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe etc. Laxman wonthematches against Austrlia.