Kevin Pietersen vs VVS Laxman

[BazBall21]

Yeah. I think the most would say it's close.

 

[trundler]

I watched Laxman's entire career and I never got the impression he is vastly better than someone like KP.

Wouldn't be the first time you are way off base. You rate cricketers almost entirely on their best few performances and seem to ignore all the most important bits of context around their careers (while pushing analysis by checklist as if numbers exist in a vacuum). But even by this spurious methodology of rating cricketers, VVS is ahead of KP (equal at worst, and ahead by most sensible criteria). In all likelihood, KP's best just sticks out in your memory more because a) it was more recent and b) it came in more marquee series, neither of which has any bearing on the quality of an innings. The latter will obviously (and unjustly) influence the media hype generated by an innings but you blindly accept that as peer reputation. By the same metrics, Stuart Broad is a much greater bowler than Shaun Pollock but you wouldn't entertain this thought because you like Pollock more and you are more aware of his best (especially in Asia, which hasn't the media hype as an Ashes 8fer but you will account for this because you like Pollock more).

would hesitate to say that about Dravid or Tendulkar even. I find that idea ridiculous.

And this wouldn't be the second. There is a reason why KP averaged 47 in an exceptionally short career, not having debuted too young or playing past his best, and in an era that was the batting friendliest of all time. If we disregard everything else and stick to the highlight reels, maybe then KP has a case to be a great batsman but no one else besides you will do this and even then VVS is better.

It is closer between them than you want to admit.

I don't think so.

 

[honestbharani]

KP is more destructive in general style of play. That has always been my main point. Please refute that.

Umesh Yadav is more destructive than both. So obviously all captains and legends of the game would prefer to have him over KP.

 

[honestbharani]

You must be watching a different version of cricket to everyone else.

He wears a special type of goggles that somehow always make it seem like the Indian players are playing worse.

 

[trundler]

Obviously they are much better. KP is still a worldclass bat.

'Vastly' suggests we are comparing Laxman with Mike Gatting.

Semantics. There are clearly very many levels between Laxman and a mediocre batsman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I watched Laxman's entire career and I never got the impression he is vastly better than someone like KP. I would hesitate to say that about Dravid or Tendulkar even.

Ok, now that is completely unhinged. You were trolling better when you kept it subtle.

 

[anil1405]

I watched Laxman's entire career and I never got the impression he is vastly better than someone like KP. I would hesitate to say that about Dravid or Tendulkar even. I find that idea ridiculous.

It is closer between them than you want to admit.

Obviously they are much better. KP is still a worldclass bat.

'Vastly' suggests we are comparing Laxman with Mike Gatting.

The stark contrast in matter of minutes.

 

[trundler]

Vastly ≠ much, and standout ≠ clutch. One may call that arguing semantics for the sake of doing so.

 

[honestbharani]

Ok, now that is completely unhinged. You were trolling better when you kept it subtle.

The stark contrast in matter of minutes.

Desperate times, Desperate posts.

 

[BazBall21]

Pietersen's favourable career conditions is part of why I tend to be very skeptical when people say he could have averaged a lot more. Objectively, that applies better to David Gower who played for a worse England team in a worse batting era. That's luck. About the only thing that Pietersen can complain about in terms of external factors is the Achilles injury. I am not too informed on how much that affected him, it is talked about much less with KP than a good few other things. I guess Subs would argue though that his resume is bolstered by strike rate. I recognise the great innings' point more. I'm not a great fan of elevating someone in tests because they were destructive tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

KP and Mussey are two guys who were lucky enough to play international cricket exactly only during the prime of their careers, I feel.

 

[BazBall21]

I have considered voting for Kevin because Laxman batting 5/6 in kind conditions just doesn't sit right even if it wasn't his fault and just a function of team circumstances. Can accept it in a poor side or in a spicier era but with externals predominantly already stacked in your favour, it is taking the piss a bit. It adds nuance to Laxman's superior areas to Pietersen also as one can argue that is a function of Laxman's (even) better conditions/cushion to at least some extent. KP's eight and a half year career though is a huge problem imo and unlike if we were comparing Laxman to a top 3 bat in a tougher era, Pietersen had pretty kind externals too so the Laxman batted 6 in a robust batting lineup caveat does lose some muscle in this comparison. Kevin played a uniquely high percentage of tests during traditional prime batting years (27-32). That's why years played does matter.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah. I think the most would say it's close.

Yup. Even though I think KP is noticeably slightly better.

 

[subshakerz]

Pietersen's favourable career conditions is part of why I tend to be very skeptical when people say he could have averaged a lot more. Objectively, that applies better to David Gower who played for a worse England team in a worse batting era. That's luck. About the only thing that Pietersen can complain about in terms of external factors is the Achilles injury. I am not too informed on how much that affected him, it is talked about much less with KP than a good few other things. I guess Subs would argue though that his resume is bolstered by strike rate. I recognise the great innings' point more. I'm not a great fan of elevating someone in tests because they were destructive tbh.

I think the destructive/attacking part is to differentiate between cricketers who are close in terms of records. Laxman averaged less but it balances out if we consider other factors. The great innings thing to me applies to roughly both of them but aggressive style of play, which applies to most innings they bat, is a far more important factor objectively speaking.

 

[BazBall21]

What some people don't realise about Kevin Pietersen is he was actually very consistent. Very high rate of averaging 40 per series. His hundred to innings ratio is fine too. He just never had THAT golden run to get his average up to a figure that wasn't underwhelming for his reputation. Consistently inconsistent almost.

 

[subshakerz]

The stark contrast in matter of minutes.

Yeah much better is not vastly better. I wanted to be precise with my words.

 

[h_hurricane]

I agree with everything subz said above and giving KP a vote.

 

[trundler]

Career averages ≠ records especially when comparing one who played 4+ years more than the other.

 

[BazBall21]

Career averages ≠ records especially when comparing one who played 4+ years more than the other.

I know. But his average being fundamentally underwhelming for his career length and career conditions/circumstances is a noteworthy feather in your cap within the debate.

Other things that stick with me on KP:

2010 summer. The only bowler-friendly home summer (or certainly the most) and he flopped.

Away record. Gower and Thorpe have better away averages. Cook too technically, but Kevin is better than him.

 

[honestbharani]

To put things in perspective, I am one of the biggest KP fans here and have argued against English fans about the way he was treated and how his career ended.

He had a great career but VVS had a greater career. Its that simple, for me.