Is Laxman a great batsman?

[honestbharani]

No matter how flat the Aussie pitches can get, they will still have more bounce and pace for the quicks compared to SC pitches.

Why are only "quicks" being counted as bowlers???

 

[honestbharani]

No matter how flat the Aussie pitches can get, they will still have more bounce and pace for the quicks compared to SC pitches.

The real greats don't need pace and bounce.. all they need is "reverse swing"..

 

[tooextracool]

Look at the end of the day, if India were chasing 200 on the final day of a test match and I had to put my life on either Laxman or Tendulkar, I would put it on Laxman. I have no problems saying that Tendulkar is great but I suspect that a lot of people would do the same. It just seems messed up to me that a) the latter isnt considered great inspite of this and b) the former is considered to be the greatest since sliced bread.

 

[aussie]

Because Australian pitches don't offer a great deal of assistance to bowlers.

It fluctuates every year in all the grounds in AUS this decade really. Although alot of flat pitches where seen:


- Basically every Brisbane test since 2000s, seam bowler get enough assistance to keep them interested.

- While the likes of MCG, SCG, Perth, Hobart fluctuated every season between being flat & bowler friendly.

- Only adelaide was always a batting beauty (unhelpul to fast bowlers).

 

[Jono]

Look at the end of the day, if India were chasing 200 on the final day of a test match and I had to put my life on either Laxman or Tendulkar, I would put it on Laxman. I have no problems saying that Tendulkar is great but I suspect that a lot of people would do the same. It just seems messed up to me that a) the latter isnt considered great inspite of this and b) the former is considered to be the greatest since sliced bread.

Laxman isn't considered a great, but Dravid is alongside Tendulkar. It's because consistency is something that is required to be a great, as well as scoring a lot of runs.

I won't disagree with those that say Laxman is a great. As I said I may just have him below, but he's damn close. But let's not pretend there are times when Laxman hasn't failed India and Sachin has performed. There are many times Laxman has thrown away starts when passing 50 which are bloody annoying, and come back to bite the team.

If you argue that Laxman is better in 4th innings chases than Sachin, I wont' disagree. If you argue that makes Laxman a better batsman than Sachin solely because of this, I will most definitely disagree.

Sometimes for you to make an argument about in your favour, you go so over the top in your criticism for Sachin because he is overrated by some fans (which I completely accept), and it ruins the credibility of some of your posts on the subject. So does your signature, and recently you made up for that. But your last original posts in this thread are hyperbole at best, a joke at worst.

 

[Prince EWS]

I also don't understand how people make an assumption that only non-subcontinent pitches are pace friendly and If a player does not do well there he is automatically considered an average player.

Indeed.

Thilan Samaraweera and Mike Hussey's Test careers make for an interesting comparison. I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[TumTum]

Why are only "quicks" being counted as bowlers???

The real greats don't need pace and bounce.. all they need is "reverse swing"..

lol why did you quote me twice?

Not only counting quicks. Just saying if there was a very flat Aussie pitch vs a typical SC pitch, the Aussie pitch will still have more pace and bounce. For the spinners it is much more complicated, less spin in Aussie pitches compared to SC ones but still the slow pitches in SC can be detrimental to spinners as well.

Reverse-swing is definitely a handy thing to have, you could get it anywhere in the world but it usually lasts only for a limited amount of time.

 

[tooextracool]

Laxman isn't considered a great, but Dravid is alongside Tendulkar. It's because consistency is something that is required to be a great, as well as scoring a lot of runs.

I won't disagree with those that say Laxman is a great. As I said I may just have him below, but he's damn close. But let's not pretend there are times when Laxman hasn't failed India and Sachin has performed. There are many times Laxman has thrown away starts when passing 50 which are bloody annoying, and come back to bite the team.

If you argue that Laxman is better in 4th innings chases than Sachin, I wont' disagree. If you argue that makes Laxman a better batsman than Sachin solely because of this, I will most definitely disagree.

Sometimes for you to make an argument about in your favour, you go so over the top in your criticism for Sachin because he is overrated by some fans (which I completely accept), and it ruins the credibility of some of your posts on the subject. So does your signature, and recently you made up for that. But your last original posts in this thread are hyperbole at best, a joke at worst.

I dont think that Laxman is a greater batter than Sachin. My point is just that out of the 2, Id almost always choose Laxman to deliver under pressure or during a big match situation. Ultimately cricket isnt just about averages or volume of runs, its about winning matches for your team. I should think Laxman has performed adequately at that in comparison to any other great batsman.

Sachin cant break every single record in the score book, but the bottom line is that when it comes to delivering when it matters most, almost everyone on this forum would pick someone else. Does that make him 2nd only to Bradman as most people claim him to be? You answer that one yourself.

 

[Jono]

Most people on here don't claim him to be the 2nd best to Bradman ftr. You're putting up a straw-man argument. Don't bring up people who post comments on Cricinfo or the media or whatever. This thread asked people of CW if they felt Laxman was a great. Most people think he didn't quite make that mark, but most here would say Sachin does. So debate about the opinions of CWers, not some random folk.

If you think Laxman has won enough matches for India in the 4th innings to make him a great, that is your opinion, and I don't necessarily disagree vehemently with it.

The counter would be there are times when India needed a score in the 1st or 2nd innings and he went missing.

Unless you believe matches are won and lost in the 4th innings, which is silly to say the least.

 

[vcs]

I dont think that Laxman is a greater batter than Sachin. My point is just that out of the 2, Id almost always choose Laxman to deliver under pressure or during a big match situation. Ultimately cricket isnt just about averages or volume of runs, its about winning matches for your team. I should think Laxman has performed adequately at that in comparison to any other great batsman.

Sachin cant break every single record in the score book, but the bottom line is that when it comes to delivering when it matters most, almost everyone on this forum would pick someone else. Does that make him 2nd only to Bradman as most people claim him to be? You answer that one yourself.

Not getting into the whole "Sachin is not a matchwinner" argument, but if you compare their respective fourth-innings records, there actually isn't much in it. Both have delivered when it matters about the same number of times (Tendulkar and Laxman). I'd pick someone else like Gavaskar if it was just about fourth innings performances.

The funny thing is, runs are runs no matter when they come, they count the same, and that is precisely why piling them on when your team isn't exactly staring down the barrel is equally valuable.

 

[tooextracool]

Most people on here don't claim him to be the 2nd best to Bradman ftr. You're putting up a straw-man argument. Don't bring up people who post comments on Cricinfo or the media or whatever. This thread asked people of CW if they felt Laxman was a great. Most people think he didn't quite make that mark, but most here would say Sachin does. So debate about the opinions of CWers, not some random folk.

If you think Laxman has won enough matches for India in the 4th innings to make him a great, that is your opinion, and I don't necessarily disagree vehemently with it.

The counter would be there are times when India needed a score in the 1st or 2nd innings and he went missing.

Unless you believe matches are won and lost in the 4th innings, which is silly to say the least.

You dont think he has? He has 11 centuries out of 16 in the 1st and 2nd innings. I suspect you are overly critical off him. You are putting too much off an emphasis on his average and then making an assumption about his overall career. I can assure you if he was averaging 50+ (which he probably does when you remove bangladesh and zimbabwe) we wouldnt be having this argument even if his career panned out exacly the same way.

 

[TumTum]

The funny thing is, runs are runs no matter when they come, they count the same, and that is precisely why piling them on when your team isn't exactly staring down the barrel is equally valuable.

Exactly. Only exceptions being against the opposition they come against and the pitch conditions.

 

[Jono]

Not getting into the whole "Sachin is not a matchwinner" argument, but if you compare their respective fourth-innings records, there actually isn't much in it. Both have delivered when it matters about the same number of times (Tendulkar and Laxman). I'd pick someone else like Gavaskar if it was just about fourth innings performances.

The funny thing is, runs are runs no matter when they come, they count the same, and that is precisely why piling them on when your team isn't exactly staring down the barrel is equally valuable.

Yep.

Also purely a coincidence that Sachin's renaissance has also coincided with India rising to the #1 ranking. I'm sure he has nothing to do with it, and the fact he struggled from 2004-2007 and India were losing reasonably often had nothing to do with it.

I mean India have lost Kumble, Dravid is barely half of what he used to be, India have basically not had a 2nd seamer for two years, but India are still winning. Sehwag and Sachin's first innigns runs obviously irrelevant

 

[TumTum]

Yep.

Also purely a coincidence that Sachin's renaissance has also coincided with India rising to the #1 ranking. I'm sure he has nothing to do with it, and the fact he struggled from 2004-2007 and India were losing reasonably often had nothing to do with it.

I mean India have lost Kumble, Dravid is barely half of what he used to be, India have basically not had a 2nd seamer for two years, but India are still winning. Sehwag and Sachin's first innigns runs obviously irrelevant

Sehwag and Gambhir IMO.

 

[Jono]

You dont think he has? He has 11 centuries out of 16 in the 1st and 2nd innings. I suspect you are overly critical off him. You are putting too much off an emphasis on his average and then making an assumption about his overall career. I can assure you if he was averaging 50+ (which he probably does when you remove bangladesh and zimbabwe) we wouldnt be having this argument even if his career panned out exacly the same way.

This is pretty weird because I adore Laxman. Don't think I'm overly-critical really. There are times when we've needed runs and he's scored them. There are times when we've needed runs and he did not deliver, and Sachin scored them. Chennai 2008 a great example, where when Laxman went out and we had Yuvraj and Dhoni left, I thought we were goners.

 

[tooextracool]

Not getting into the whole "Sachin is not a matchwinner" argument, but if you compare their respective fourth-innings records, there actually isn't much in it. Both have delivered when it matters about the same number of times (Tendulkar and Laxman). I'd pick someone else like Gavaskar if it was just about fourth innings performances.

The funny thing is, runs are runs no matter when they come, they count the same, and that is precisely why piling them on when your team isn't exactly staring down the barrel is equally valuable.

They maybe the same 'statistically'. But scoring 100 when the team has 600 quite clearly has a different context from scoring 100 when the team has 200. Im not saying that Sachin is guilty of either but the point that you make that all runs are equal is only really relevant when you are looking at things from a statistical standpoint.

 

[Jono]

Sehwag and Gambhir IMO.

Gambhir did crap all vs. South Africa, Lanka away and Australia tbh.

 

[TumTum]

Gambhir did crap all vs. South Africa, Lanka away and Australia tbh.

But before that he was the main reason India did so well.

 

[Jono]

They maybe the same 'statistically'. But scoring 100 when the team has 600 quite clearly has a different context from scoring 100 when the team has 200. Im not saying that Sachin is guilty of either but the point that you make that all runs are equal is only really relevant when you are looking at things from a statistical standpoint.

But you're forgetting that the more runs you score in the first dig, the less you have to score in the second dig.

India almost lost in Mohali because the lower order folded. If they had put on 500, Laxman probably would have not needed to bat, let alone play such a magnificent innings.

Take out Sachin's partnership with Raina in that match and I reckon we're in strife.

 

[Jono]

But before that he was the main reason India did so well.

The reason India have done well is that throughout the last three years, Sehwag, Sachin, Gambhir and Laxman have all done well.

But in the matches that have been most critical (i.e. against Australia, England, Sri Lanka and South Africa) Sachin has outperformed Gambhir convincingly.