Is Laxman a great batsman?

[Dissector]

Azhar may have played a few special knocks outside the subcontinent but his overall record is poor. He averaged 28 in Australia, 23 in South Africa and 20 in the West Indies, only doing relatively well in England with 42.

One of the things that makes Laxman a great is his consistency abroad especially in places like Australia, South Africa and England where sub-continental batsmen have often struggled. He averages 40+ in each of these countries and 54 in Australia. IMO this places him a cut above batsmen like Jayawardane and Yousuf.

 

[marc71178]

Rating Azhar over Laxman seems to me a classic case of romanticising the past.
There is a tendency to rate current batsmen lower than what they should be in this board for me.

I think it may be partially a recognition that the current batsman's career is not yet over so we don't know quite how they're going to pan out.

 

[aussie]

Azhar may have played a few special knocks outside the subcontinent but his overall record is poor. He averaged 28 in Australia, 23 in South Africa and 20 in the West Indies, only doing relatively well in England with 42.

One of the things that makes Laxman a great is his consistency abroad especially in places like Australia, South Africa and England where sub-continental batsmen have often struggled. He averages 40+ in each of these countries and 54 in Australia. IMO this places him a cut above batsmen like Jayawardane and Yousuf.

Outside of AUS of course. I wonder how Laxman would have averaged away in SA & WI away, if faced those 90s attacks that Azhar had to deal with.

 

[vcs]

Outside of AUS of course. I wonder how Laxman would have averaged away in SA & WI away, if faced those 90s attacks that Azhar had to deal with.

Averaged more than Azhar in the series they both played in SA and WI in the 90s. Neither did particularly well, and there isn't much data to go by.

Since Laxman has come into his prime (post 2000) he has been consistent in most series he has played against top opposition in a variety of conditions. Very few horror shows.

 

[kingpin]

4th innings specialist...

 

[GotSpin]

Averaged more than Azhar in the series they both played in SA and WI in the 90s. Neither did particularly well, and there isn't much data to go by.

Since Laxman has come into his prime (post 2000) he has been consistent in most series he has played against top opposition in a variety of conditions. Very few horror shows.

I guess one could argue that his coming into prime coincided with the plethora of 90s bowlers coming to the end of their careers.

 

[vcs]

I guess one could argue that his coming into prime coincided with the plethora of 90s bowlers coming to the end of their careers.

Could also say that for a fair few of the other batsmen that have dominated this decade then... Dravid, Hayden, Ponting (can of worms) and so on. Would be unfair though, IMHO. It's obvious he wasn't comfortable opening, the stats indicate that quite clearly.

 

[Dissector]

I think people have a mental image of Laxman as someone who averages 45 in an era where the top players average close to 60 but as mentioned this is a myth. Laxman's average from 2000-2010 is 53 and the highest among major batsmen in that period is 56 (excluding Zim/Ban). When you factor his consistency at home and abroad and his match-winning innings, Laxman is right there among the greatest performers for that entire period.

Here is another revealing list. It's the batting average of everyone in Australia, South Africa and England from 2000 onwards. Over this period these are the countries who have been the most challenging for sub-continental players. Among major players no one averages more than 60 and not surprisingly there are several from the three countries themselves like Ponting, Kallis etc. Laxman is right there in the mix averaging 54 over 21 tests. Among major players not from those three countries, Laxman is second only to Tendulkar who averages 56.

 

[smash84]

Very good - slightly better than Mark Waugh or Gower for me...in the same league with Martin Crowe or Younis Khan or Azharuddin...but nowhere near as good as Dravid or Kallis (not as good as Sehwag or Sangakkara, too)...

But when on song, he is a delight and a magician. I feel he has been born in the wrong era. He would have got much much more appreciation for his style and abilities had he played in the eras of the Ranjis and the Trumpers (not saying that would have been fairer, though).

I understand Azharudding and Martin Crowe........but errrr..... Younis Khan?????

 

[honestbharani]

Laxman clearly a great of the game for me, and better than Azhar even without factoring in the match fixing.

AWT GI Hoe..

 

[TT Boy]

Played some great test match innings but not a great batsman for mine.

 

[weldone]

I understand Azharudding and Martin Crowe........but errrr..... Younis Khan?????

Definitely yes. My views, you don't need to agree.

 

[Jono]

For mine, he is the closest you can get without being a great. Just below that line.

 

[Teja.]

For mine, he is the closest you can get without being a great. Just below that line.

Yeah, will agree with this. Even if he kisses an average of fifty before retiring, I'll still stick to this.

 

[tooextracool]

2nd Test: England v India at Manchester, Aug 9-14, 1990 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

2nd Test: South Africa v India at Cape Town, Jan 2-6, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

3rd Test: New Zealand v India at Auckland, Feb 22-26, 1990 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

2nd Test: New Zealand v India at Wellington, Dec 26-30, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com


And These are not the innings I am just picking because he scored 100s, but because these were really awesome innings Azza played way before Laxman dazzled us with 167 in Sydney.

Im not saying that he failed every single time, I said that he almost always failed. His record in WI, SA, England and Australia is there for everyone to see. I think if you give any test class batsman enough tests abroad, eventually hes likely to score the odd century, see Chris Gayle. Point is that Azhar didn't win test matches abroad, in fact he rarely did much of note abroad, and to put him in the category above Laxman who has is beyond me.

 

[Furball]

One of the greats of his era, but a rung below true greatness.

 

[sledger]

One of the greats of his era, but a rung below true greatness.

Yeah I'd go along with this. His double century whilst following on against Australia that time will mean I always love him though. Such a gun.

 

[Furball]

Has always been my favourite Indian batsman to watch as well. Laxman on song is just dreamy.

 

[thierry henry]

Always regarded him as overrated. I suppose this is yet more evidence that I see cricket almost exactly the opposite to everyone else.

Then again, I've always had the impression watching him that he was particularly poor on pace-bowler friendly surfaces (as in, poorer than his more highly regarded contemporaries), but I can't say I've broken the numbers down to investigate, and from skim-reading this thread it appears his numbers are actually very consistent across the board.

It's really just his technique, people say he's a lovely batsman to watch but to me his technique has always appeared poorly suited to playing really good quick stuff.

 

[Jono]

Did you watch the Mohali innings?

Did not edge the ball at all. Did not waft. Barely played and missed. Played the pull absolutely superbly. Pitch was up and down. Was quite frankly astonishing cricket.

Thought you were a guy who didn't rate players on looks anyway?