Combined XI

[Prince EWS]

Lol at you copying and pasting your exact post in the Prior vs. Dhoni thread here.

I meant to delete the post from here. Will do now.

 

[vcs]

FWIW I'd be taking Laxman ahead of Pietersen if I were selecting a combined XI.

It's nice to see KP's form sprouting the green shoots of recovery, but he did still manage to piss away what looked a nailed on ton against an attack that's flattered by comparisons with pop guns.

However I don't think it's outrageous to suggest KP could be picked ahead of Laxman (let's not forget that VVS's own coach selected a tyro Pietersen ahead of Graham Thorpe, a man of different MO but very similar vintage and quality to Laxman, for the 2005 Ashes) as I wouldn't think it disgraceful to take (say) Gambhir ahead of Cook.

Honest man can differ, etc...

Pretty much this...

It's clear that going for KP over Laxman would be a bold, gut-feel pick rather than the one based on recent form over a decent number of matches. That's fair enough, but saying Laxman only has 2 hundreds or whatever over the past couple of years is missing the point a bit.

 

[TumTum]

Propose all lengthy, circular arguments in this subforum are to be ended with mutual laughing at the Australians.

Those in favour?

Aye, as long as they are all directed at Steve Smith

 

[ankitj]

4 reasons why one might reasonably pick KP ahead of Laxman, irrespective of nationality:

- Better Test average
- Scores more centuries
- Scores more quickly
- Home town advantage

I've no particular desire to get involved in a tedious statsfight, btw.

Home town advantage? Is this series going to be played in South Africa?

 

[Jono]

but saying Laxman only has 2 hundreds or whatever over the past couple of years is missing the point a bit.

Haha so true. Baffling.

Acceptable if you choose KP because he dominates more or can score at a faster rate. But saying Laxman doesn't score enough centuries as a knock on him being in the team is crazy and screams of choosing a player based on StatsGuru. Especially when the guy has three innings from last year alone which can be argued as the best innings from any batsman in 2010.

There is a strong argument that Laxman was India's MVP in 2010.

 

[Teja.]

My point is that Laxman has 2 hundreds in 2 years which doesn't exactly count as unanswerable form. Which you would appreciate had you read my post.

Not sure if someone else replied to this but Laxman's three best knocks last year were not tons. They were a 73* from 120-8 in Mohali to win against Australia, A 91 when Indian were 15-5 against NZ in Ahmedabad and 96 in Durban. If one actually appreciates the context of those knocks, I don't think this debate would exist. It's undoubtedly unanswerable form he is in.

Essentially, If you believe that KP will have a better series good on you but having KP over Laxman in a Combined XI is about as reasonable as having Sreesanth over Tremlett in it, IMO.

 

[vcs]

Not sure if someone else replied to this but Laxman's three best knocks last year were not tons. They were a 73* from 120-8 in Mohali to win against Australia, A 91 when Indian were 15-5 against NZ in Ahmedabad and 96 in Durban. If one actually appreciates the context of those knocks, I don't think this debate would exist. It's undoubtedly unanswerable form he is in.

Essentially, If you believe that KP will have a better series good on you but having KP over Laxman in a Combined XI is about as reasonable as having Sreesanth over Tremlett in it, IMO.

Yeah, and Sreesanth has been in decent form recently as well, if two matches is your sample size.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Aye. Maybe with specific laughing at the Chappell brothers.

That's so unfair. What did poor Trevor ever do to you? Never even bowled a lethal delivery in his life.

 

[GIMH]

Essentially, If you believe that KP will have a better series good on you but having KP over Laxman in a Combined XI is about as reasonable as having Sreesanth over Tremlett in it, IMO.

This would be true if Sreesanth had KP's reputation prior to his form 'slump'.

As it is, he doesn't and is a rididiculous comparison. You're better than that.

 

[Teja.]

This would be true if Sreesanth had KP's reputation prior to his form 'slump'.

As it is, he doesn't and is a rididiculous comparison. You're better than that.

Nope, I'm not saying Sreesanth is KP's equivalent as a cricketer or was. However Laxman is so good right now that the extent of difference between the 2 sets of cricketers is about the same, currently, in my opinion.

I've always been wary of the cricketing phenomenon of form and even more wary of using how a batsman looks aesthetically to determine whether he is back in form. It has failed numerous times in the past for many players.

 

[GIMH]

No, the point is, there's zero argument for picking Sree over Tremmers because Sree has never been as good as him.

KP could be selected ahead of Laxman for large parts of his career. So if someone backs KP to do better than Laxman, it can feasibly be based on the basis of what KP has previously achieved.

Of course Pietersen has to do more than look good to show he's back to himself, but as I said yesterday, for his whole career when KP has played in the way he did on Saturday he's been a routine 50 average player. It's fair enough if you don't want to base your judgements on what a player looks like, but with Pietersen I have always trusted what I see.

All that being said, I did put Laxman in my XI because I picked on the 'then and now' basis. I am confident that KP will score a run or two against you lot though.

As an aside, I feel it's worth pointing out that zaremba only mentioned Laxman's number of hundreds because Bun specifically brought up something about comparing their number of hundreds in the last two years. He wasn't talking him down.

 

[Teja.]

No, the point is, there's zero argument for picking Sree over Tremmers because Sree has never been as good as him.

KP could be selected ahead of Laxman for large parts of his career. So if someone backs KP to do better than Laxman, it can feasibly be based on the basis of what KP has previously achieved.

Of course Pietersen has to do more than look good to show he's back to himself, but as I said yesterday, for his whole career when KP has played in the way he did on Saturday he's been a routine 50 average player. It's fair enough if you don't want to base your judgements on what a player looks like, but with Pietersen I have always trusted what I see.

All that being said, I did put Laxman in my XI because I picked on the 'then and now' basis. I am confident that KP will score a run or two against you lot though.

As an aside, I feel it's worth pointing out that zaremba only mentioned Laxman's number of hundreds because Bun specifically brought up something about comparing their number of hundreds in the last two years. He wasn't talking him down.

Fairy nuff. Worth pointing out anyway that Sree was an awesome bowler when he played about as many tests as Tremlett. Cbf checking but in his first year, He played 7-8 tests, 3 series' and averaged 23-24 despite bowling some awesome spells for no reward.

Also, I know of KP's exploits against Austarlia but I'll still take Laxman of last year over KP at any point in his career.

What I took objection in zaremba's post was him questioning Laxman's form based on him scoring only two tons. It might have been in the spirit of debate but it was weak logic nevertheless.

 

[zaremba]

As an aside, I feel it's worth pointing out that zaremba only mentioned Laxman's number of hundreds because Bun specifically brought up something about comparing their number of hundreds in the last two years. He wasn't talking him down.

TBF, I was the one who brought up the number of hundreds ITFP. But you're right that I wasn't trying to do Laxman down, I simply tried to suggest that his form wasn't unanswerable. And in that respect I made two points.

First, that Laxman hasn't played a Test (or any first class cricket at all) since early January. Which means by the start of the England tour he won't have played a proper game of cricket for about 6 months. (I know he played in the IPL, fwiw, but he didn't get any runs). So is it really meaningful to talk about him being in great nick?

And second, that he only has 2 hundreds in the last 2 years, which is not suggestive of unanswerable form. Granted, it's only one measure, and by itself it may be misleading. Perhaps it is here.

Haha so true. Baffling.

Acceptable if you choose KP because he dominates more or can score at a faster rate. But saying Laxman doesn't score enough centuries as a knock on him being in the team is crazy and screams of choosing a player based on StatsGuru.

Well let's be careful not to set up too many straw men.

In response to Bun's suggestion that there is no reason other than nationalism why anyone would choose KP over Laxman, I gave 4 reasons why that choice might reasonably be made. I wasn't arguing the case that KP should be selected over Laxman (although fwiw I included him in my team, but that's my choice). In that list of four reasons I didn't mention how many hundreds he has over the last 2 years, that was very much an afterthought in a later post. But one of those reasons I did give in that list was indeed, as you suggest, that KP scores at a faster rate. This is not an unimportant distinction between the two.l He is a different animal to Laxman: it seems to me that in terms of role, the obvious comparison with Laxman is Bell.

One might add to the list that Laxman hasn't tended to do all that well against England. Which maybe is also the reason why I tend to under-rate him. As I said before, if I were Australian and seen him succeed time and again against my team, I'd doubtless rate him more highly.

 

[Daemon]

First, that Laxman hasn't played a Test (or any first class cricket at all) since early January. Which means by the start of the England tour he won't have played a proper game of cricket for about 6 months. (I know he played in the IPL, fwiw, but he didn't get any runs). So is it really meaningful to talk about him being in great nick?

Isn't he playing later on today?

 

[Cevno]

Yes he is.

 

[zaremba]

There you go - we'll see how he gets on!

(cue 281 from VVS...)

 

[Jono]

Does VVS' record matter against England in a combined XI considering Anderson and Tremlett will be in his team?

 

[weldone]

Because I am always for picking '2 best pacers, 1 best spinner and one best bowler from the rest' over '3 best pacers and 1 best spinner' and because I think at the moment Harbhajan Singh is a better bowler than Tremlett overall (considering we don't know where the imaginary test match is going to be played), my India+England XI will be as follows:

Alastair Cook
Virender Sehwag
Jonathan Trott
Sachin Tendulkar
VVS Laxman
Ian Bell
Mahendra Dhoni*+
Harbhajan Singh
Graeme Swann
Zaheer Khan
James Anderson

 

[zaremba]

Does VVS' record matter against England in a combined XI considering Anderson and Tremlett will be in his team?

Good point!

 

[Jacknife]

Does VVS' record matter against England in a combined XI considering Anderson and Tremlett will be in his team?

Yes it does, KP all the way.