Is Laxman a great batsman?

[Dissector]

Laxman's latest effort is another reason to consider him a great. While batting was probably not that difficult on day 5, Laxman had to withstand the carnage on day 4 under huge match pressure. For a while it looked like India would be blown away before the end of the day. He is truly an extraordinary player and without him India would certainly not be no.1.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Laxman---extremely classy player, performs in countless crunch situations, for which he deserves huge credit and gets it. Unfortunately he's on a level below the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Dravid simply because he isn't a run machine to their extent. This could be blamed on his batting position, but I feel he isnt as ruthless as those players.

I have noticed this forum loves to try and value the quality of runs and wickets, which of course is necessary, but sometimes there can be over analysis and people can forget that in most situations runs are neccessary.

I think what I'm trying to say is that while Laxman has played some great innings, when compared to a batsman like say Yousuf who is accused of not playing as many, I would still have Yousuf over Laxman. Sure Laxman is way better against the Aussies, but the team does not always play Australia, so that fact should elevate a player like Laxman, but not too much.

 

[Dissector]

It's a myth that Laxman performs only against Australia. From 2000-2010 he averages 50 if you remove Australia as well as Zim/BD. Over the last 11 years he has been very consistent both home and away against most teams. He doesn't hit as many hundreds as some of the other greats but that is largely because of his batting position. And many of his gritty fifties low down the order have been really useful for India.

 

[TumTum]

No he isn't. And neither is Dravid.

 

[Teja.]

No he isn't. And neither is Dravid.

Laxman isn't but it's downright ridiculous not to call Dravid a great batsman unless you're defining only 4-5 batsman from 1950 onwards as greats.

 

[TumTum]

Laxman isn't but it's downright ridiculous not to call Dravid a great batsman unless you're defining only 4-5 batsman from 1950 onwards as greats.

Nah. Tendulkar and Ponting are the only 2 true great batsmen currently playing. Kallis probably being a great all-rounder.

Really it is a joke calling Dravid a great.

 

[M0rphin3]

Obviously he's an ATG.

 

[Shri]

Nah. Tendulkar and Ponting are the only 2 true great batsmen currently playing. Kallis probably being a great all-rounder.

Really it is a joke calling Dravid a great.

would have been considered a great if he had retired 2-3 years back.

 

[Xuhaib]

Laxman is the best clutch batsman in the world atm but I think he is rung or two below to being an ATG.

 

[Jono]

Nah. Tendulkar and Ponting are the only 2 true great batsmen currently playing. Kallis probably being a great all-rounder.

Really it is a joke calling Dravid a great.

Give some reasoning mate

 

[TumTum]

Give some reasoning mate

Reasoning is over-rated

Ok because I really don't want to get into a long winded discussion, i'll want to make it brief and to the point. Dravid (like Laxman) is not a complete enough player to ever be considered an ATG, despite how good they were at their specialties. And to cut it short even more, we all know what those specialties are.

 

[Prince EWS]

Give some reasoning mate

I honestly think it'd be very hard to explain why you drew the line at a certain level for the ATG label; it's very arbitrary. It'd be different if he came out and said that Kallis, Hayden and Sangakkara were ATG batsmen and Dravid wasn't, but he didn't. He obviously just puts less players into that category than most.

 

[TumTum]

He obviously just puts less players into that category than most.

I only put players there that can be with the best of them across the different eras (Bradman, Viv, Greg, Sunny, Sobers, Hutton etc)

If you start calling everyone "great" then it just becomes stupid.

 

[Jono]

Why is Greg Chappell and Sunny that much better than Dravid? I don't mind saying he's better, but why is he in another category?

So easy to discount Dravid because of his last 3 years, but that's silly, and just as easy to do it with Viv.

He averages a whopping 55.43 outside of India! That's amazing.

To put that in perspective, Lara averages 47.80 outside of the West Indies.

 

[TumTum]

For the record, Dravid isn't in their league because of his slow scoring. Yeah you can say the same for Sunny, but he played in a different era.

 

[weldone]

For the record, Dravid isn't in their league because of his slow scoring.

I don't remember a test match which India should have won, but drew due to Dravid's slow batting.

I remember many tests which India should have lost, but drew due to Dravid's batting.

I remember a few tests which India should have lost, but won due to Dravid's batting (some of them coming against tough opponents and/or in tough conditions).

 

[Prince EWS]

For the record, Dravid isn't in their league because of his slow scoring. Yeah you can say the same for Sunny, but he played in a different era.

*stops defending your opinion*

 

[weldone]

He averages a whopping 55.43 outside of India! That's amazing.

To put that in perspective, Lara averages 47.80 outside of the West Indies.

Amazing stat that. I always had the feeling that in the period 1996-2006, Dravid was at least as good as Tendulkar in away test matches.

 

[honestbharani]

Amazing stat that. I always had the feeling that in the period 1996-2006, Dravid was at least as good as Tendulkar in away test matches.

It is not about away or home.. There was a period of time when Dravid was the #1 batsman in the world in tests alongside Ponting and Kallis.. You don't get there if you are not great, IMO.

 

[weldone]

It is not about away or home.. There was a period of time when Dravid was the #1 batsman in the world in tests alongside Ponting and Kallis.. You don't get there if you are not great, IMO.

Even Chanderpaul was the best batsman in the world for a small period, arguably. I don't think that matters too much for all-time greatness, more important is for how long one was there.

I have shown a time period of a mindboggling 11 years (1996-2006). Being at least as good as (and arguably better than) Tendulkar in away test matches for more than a decade in itself puts someone into contension for AT greatness.