Mark Waugh vs Laxman

[mr_mister]

The way he gets hyped, Maugh must be the greatest ever test batsman in the 41 and below average bracket.

He's certainly up there for me. 75% of his test tons were under 130, he missed out on so many junk runs to boost average. However, it's not a huge mark against him since a lot were still match winning knocks

 

[anil1405]

He's certainly up there for me. 75% of his test tons were under 130, he missed out on so many junk runs to boost average. However, it's not a huge mark against him since a lot were still match winning knocks

Apparently it's those junk runs that indicates a sign of consistency and separates good batsmen from very good batsmen and great batsmen.

It's the same junk runs that puts a team in a position of strength in the first place.

His career indicates a lack of hunger for scoring big runs and junk runs, something that all great batsmen have in common....

...which is why he is a level below VVS despite Laxman also playing a good number of pressure knocks.

 

[Flem274*]

is this national mark waugh get rekt day?

obv laxman but mark waugh could play. not his fault his batting looked ***ier than it was, and it was still pretty ****ing hot.

 

[mr_mister]

Apparently it's those junk runs that indicates a sign of consistency and separates good batsmen from very good batsmen and great batsmen.

It's the same junk runs that puts a team in a position of strength in the first place.

His career indicates a lack of hunger for scoring big runs and junk runs, something that all great batsmen have in common....

...which is why he is a level below VVS despite Laxman also playing a good number of pressure knocks.

All true of course, runs are runs and we can't boost his average just because he didn't knuckle down and convert some tons into doubles

However I think the fact he never scored a ton in a loss (I think) indicates that his centuries were impactful enough and often put his side into winning positions or at least unloseable ones

Helps that Slater, Taylor and his brother often contributed as well with tons of their own when he got one so him getting doubles was never really necessary for the team.

A 41 average looks like an underachievement due to his talent but there was no real downside to it results wise

 

[TheJediBrah]

If he played in the 00s he could might have averaged nearly 50 tbh

but almost everyone who could hold a bat in the 00s averaged almost 50 so

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The way he gets hyped, Maugh must be the greatest ever test batsman in the 41 and below average bracket.

WG Grace and Victor Trumper have him easily covered there. Bert Sutcliffe would edge him too.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If he played in the 00s he could might have averaged nearly 50 tbh

but almost everyone who could hold a bat in the 00s averaged almost 50 so

He played 29 tests in the 00s and scored 1658 runs at 42.5 (3 100s).

 

[subshakerz]

If he played in the 00s he could might have averaged nearly 50 tbh

but almost everyone who could hold a bat in the 00s averaged almost 50 so

Honestly think the 3 run difference in average is accounting for the disparity in votes.

 

[vicleggie]

Laxative man takes a dump on Waugh in the batting stakes.

 

[Burgey]

top quality German car,

Questionable tbh

 

[TheJediBrah]

He played 29 tests in the 00s and scored 1658 runs at 42.5 (3 100s).

Come on brah don't be facetious. He finished in 2002 and half of that was his end-of-career bad form run, it was also before the pitches really flattened out and there were still some good fast bowlers around.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Come on brah don't be facetious. He finished in 2002 and half of that was his end-of-career bad form run, it was also before the pitches really flattened out and there were still some good fast bowlers around.

In the same time Andy Flower (admittedly a couple of tiers above Waugh and VVS and was the best batsman in the world at the time) also played his last test in 2002. He played 24 tests in the 2000s for 2214 runs @ 63.25 (6 100s).

 

[TheJediBrah]

that's great

 

[Fuller Pilch]

that's great

And you're calling me facetious?
That's a big word for an Australian too, btw.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And you're calling me facetious?
That's a big word for an Australian too, btw.

My ancestor was the prison librarian

 

[anil1405]

All true of course, runs are runs and we can't boost his average just because he didn't knuckle down and convert some tons into doubles

However I think the fact he never scored a ton in a loss (I think) indicates that his centuries were impactful enough and often put his side into winning positions or at least unloseable ones

Helps that Slater, Taylor and his brother often contributed as well with tons of their own when he got one so him getting doubles was never really necessary for the team.

A 41 average looks like an underachievement due to his talent but there was no real downside to it results wise

Not having a ton in a losing cause is more an indication of Australia being a more all rounded side than the player himself. Scoring runs and putting teams in winning positions is something that all good batsmen in 40 average bracket do. Great players do it more often than the number of times Maugh did.

With better bowlers for support and lower order batsmen who knew how to score runs, Laxman would've had more centuries and knocks that resulted in victories.

It's funny how in a poll where a batsman is trailing 20-2, two posters are using "more impactful" knocks as a point to prove Maugh was better than Laxman when in reality both played clutch knocks.

When it comes to Maugh, his flamboyance and fielding skills precedes his actual performance as a test batsman. Not that he is bad but the hype he gets indicates he averages close to 50.

 

[mr_mister]

Personally I'm just providing some light counter points rather than a vicious argument I'd like to think. Unless the thread was made just to have Laxman be unanimously labelled better I see no harm in it

My main argument is that despite the average, Waugh's rate of hundreds (and therefore impactful knocks) is within the ball park of many batsmen from the era who averaged higher. And the bar for an impactful knock was a bit lower than 150 for him due to his teammates. Someone like Lara had to go on with it because a flashy 110 or so in a team total of 250 or so was unfortunately not enough. Look at his 80 ball ton in the final test of the '99 series. Amazing but ultimately fruitless as nobody else could reach 50.

I accept Laxman would have scored more tons if he didn't have to bat 6 so often. Were unbeaten 60s and 70s while the tail got demolished common feature of his career?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not having a ton in a losing cause is more an indication of Australia being a more all rounded side than the player himself. Scoring runs and putting teams in winning positions is something that all good batsmen in 40 average bracket do.

It's funny, but not really in Mark Waugh's case. A high proportion of his match-winning hundreds were, well, match-winning. The team didn't win because everyone did well, they won because he did it.

 

[subshakerz]

Come on brah don't be facetious. He finished in 2002 and half of that was his end-of-career bad form run, it was also before the pitches really flattened out and there were still some good fast bowlers around.

As further proof he forgot how to catch too

 

[TheJediBrah]

**** I think I remember that too. That was the Pak series in UAE/SL wasn't it. Should have been dropped at least 6 months before that. 37 years old, not making runs, looks terrible at the crease and they had at least half a dozen absolute gun domestic batsmen who would come in and average 45.