Rahul Dravid - What would you do? Is he still one of India's 6 best batsman?

[Jono]

Yeah they're both awesome. Very close and the debate can go either way.

 

[vcs]

Sehwag's better than Laxman, IMO.

Laxman can play a specific sort of Innings on a difficult pitch which only very very few from his era can but players are products of their eras and can only be rated based on overall performance in their eras and considering about 90% of the 00s pitches are Sehwag friendly, Sehwag is a more valuable asset. Not very much in it though.

Inclined to agree. Laxman is a very special batsman who at times can do things in difficult conditions that Sehwag can only dream of, but I would imagine Sehwag has won just as many games for India as Laxman. Just not as memorably.

 

[vcs]

Yep, they certainly do. My main point is, On most modern day tracks, Sehwag can give you a huge advantage in the first Innings itself by scoring a big hundred fast, He has a very high 50 to 150 conversion rate. That is a huge gamebreaker IMO and he has been consistently doing it for a long while. It surely is close enough that it boils down to personal preference though. They both satisfy two completely different facets of a batting line-up in exceptional ways. India have been amazingly lucky to have both in the post-2000 era, The opener who scores the big hundreds and the No.5 who saves our arses every time and that's before we get started talking about our two best batsmen of the period.

This!

 

[silentstriker]

Laxman's better than Sehwag.

Nah, no way. I don't think it's close either.

 

[silentstriker]

Basically if you put them in a lineup and had me pick one of the two, Sehwag would be picked 10/10 times. He sets up the match, demoralizes the opposition, and as an opener, can completely takes the game away in the first two hours of a five day Test match. It's an extremely rare player in history who can do that.

 

[Howe_zat]

10 times out of 10? Even if one of those times was an overcast morning in Nottingham or a Wanderers greentop?

I have enourmous respect for Sehwag but the kind of innings that Laxman is capable of on a day when no-one else is that makes the difference for me.

If you listed the 10 best innings by either of them, Laxman would have all 10.

 

[Jono]

To deny its close is ridiculous.

Our last two test match wins in SA have been thanks to Laxman.

And his stats are very comparable to Sehwag when he hasn't opened the batting.

So basically it comes down to Sehwag's dominance and setting up matches vs. Laxman's match-winning and match-saving performances.

That makes it very close.

 

[Cevno]

10 times out of 10? Even if one of those times was an overcast morning in Nottingham or a Wanderers greentop?

I have enourmous respect for Sehwag but the kind of innings that Laxman is capable of on a day when no-one else is that makes the difference for me.

If you listed the 10 best innings by either of them, Laxman would have all 10.

That is not true at all.

Sehwag is capable of playing innings which no one else is capable of too.
And he has played some incredible innings when others have failed too.

For example that innings at Kandy against Srilanka when everyone was failing to Mendis or the innings against South Africa at Nagpur when everyone else was falling to Steyn.

He is also capable of playing monster big knocks that have resulted in matches won too.

It is very close between the 2 actually.

 

[Teja.]

If you listed the 10 best innings by either of them, Laxman would have all 10.

Nope, Sehwag's double in Sri Lanka on a turner against Murali and Mendis(Both averaging 20 in the series) which pretty much single-handedly won the match for India would defo. feature in the 10. Imagine the three 290+ knocks deserve a mention too. I get your general point though.

 

[Jono]

If you listed the 10 best innings by either of them, Laxman would have all 10.

Nah, I understand your point... but...

2nd Test: Sri Lanka v India at Galle, Jul 31-Aug 3, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

One of the best knocks of the last decade.

 

[Teja.]

Our last two test match wins in SA have been thanks to Laxman.

Know your point is in the spirit of the debate but India's first win in SA is largely down to a certain genius bowling them out for 80.

 

[Howe_zat]

Nah, I understand your point... but...

2nd Test: Sri Lanka v India at Galle, Jul 31-Aug 3, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

One of the best knocks of the last decade.

Nope, Sehwag's double in Sri Lanka on a turner against Murali and Mendis(Both averaging 20 in the series) which pretty much single-handedly won the match for India would defo. feature in the 10. Imagine the three 290+ knocks deserve a mention too. I get your general point though.

Yeah, think all 10 was hyperbole. Maybe 7 or 8 of the top 10.

I'm not knocking anyone who disagrees, by the way. Just my perspective talking. I'd always rather watch Laxman bat, so I think that creeps into my assesment a bit.

Just love VVS.

 

[hang on]

regarding the sehwag vs laxman debate, to put a slightly different spin on it:

would laxman figure in the past decade's world team? would sehwag?

even more expansively, would sehwag make the short(ish) list of all time openers (and i am no ian chappell, btw) for an all time team a la the cricinfo one? would laxman make the middleorder one for the same team? different skills, of course, but still a good back of the envelope way of guesstimating the esteem in which either is/should be/shouldn't be held.

 

[vcs]

Can you all stop conceding points to each other so I know who is on which side of the argument? FFS.

 

[Jono]

Know your point is in the spirit of the debate but India's first win in SA is largely down to a certain genius bowling them out for 80.

I obviously meant out of the batsmen

 

[Teja.]

regarding the sehwag vs laxman debate, to put a slightly different spin on it:

would laxman figure in the past decades world team? would sehwag?

even more expansively, would sehwag make the short(ish) list of all time openers (and i am no ian chappell, btw) for an all time team a la the cricinfo one? would laxman make the middleorder one for the same team? different skills, of course, but still a good back of the envelope way of guesstimating the esteem in which either is/should be/shouldn't be held.

My opinion on the 'good'-ness of a batsman is defined by the direct value he adds though, not how close he is to making an AT XI. Sehwag's much closer to making an AT XI than Dravid is due to the obvious lower amount of choices available for openers but yet based on their output till this point of time, I'd consider Dravid the superior batsman.

 

[Teja.]

I obviously meant out of the batsmen

Won't stand any minor injustice done to my hero itbt.

 

[Howe_zat]

regarding the sehwag vs laxman debate, to put a slightly different spin on it:

would laxman figure in the past decade's world team? would sehwag?

even more expansively, would sehwag make the short(ish) list of all time openers (and i am no ian chappell, btw) for an all time team a la the cricinfo one? would laxman make the middleorder one for the same team? different skills, of course, but still a good back of the envelope way of guesstimating the esteem in which either is/should be/shouldn't be held.

On your latter point - the Indian all time XI - I don't think that's very indicative, because it's often a statement of India's typical strength in the middle order rather than opening.

Take for example the West Indian all time XI, which usually includes Hunt or Haynes opening, but is often forced to omit Weekes and Walcott. does that mean Hunt is better than Weekes? Of course not.

You could make a similar argument with bowlers. Zaheer Khan or Javagal Srinath, or both, would definately make the side as the best pacers, whereas some great spinners like Bedi would struggle. It doesn't make them the weaker bowlers.

Your first point makes a bit more sense but still the same principle applies.

(Edit: And you lose all your points by using the word "guesstimate".)

 

[hang on]

My opinion on the 'good'-ness of a batsman is defined by the direct value he adds though, not how close he is to making an AT XI. Sehwag's much closer to making an AT XI than Dravid is due to the obvious lower amount of choices available for openers but yet based on their output till this point of time, I'd consider Dravid the superior batsman.

not sure i agree about dravid having a lower chance of making such lists. also, let's, for argument's sake, consider laxman's most played spots of 5 or 6 for such an hypothetical selection. would he make such a list? those who select all time teams must surely consider the value, direct or indirect, the chosen players would bring to the team.

btw, it's not that i am plumping for sehwag in this regard...just wanted to look at the debate from another angle ie a different one from a the great knocks played.

wasn't sehwag a middle order player initially? not sure, but i think that that needs to be factored in as well, if one is to discount laxman's opening stints.

 

[hang on]

On your latter point - the Indian all time XI - I don't think that's very indicative, because it's often a statement of India's typical strength in the middle order rather than opening.

Take for example the West Indian all time XI, which usually includes Hunt or Haynes opening, but is often forced to omit Weekes or Walcott. does that mean Hunt is better than Weekes? Of course not.

You could make a similar argument with bowlers. Zaheer Khan or Javagal Srinath, or both, would definately make the side as the best pacers, whereas some great spinners like Bedi would struggle. It doesn't make them the weaker bowlers.

Your first point makes a bit more sense but still the same principle applies.

(Edit: And you lose all your points by using the word "guesstimate".)

actually had the world team in mind. to make it as extreme as possible.

guesstimate was used to pander to the youthful demotic on here....given that i am emoticonically challenged!