Battle of the Middle Orders

[capt_Luffy]

Clarke is a bit overrated against spin tbh

No I meant overall. Overall Laxman is comparable to Clarke and Mark to Pujara.

 

[Thala_0710]

SA > Windies easily

I won't say easily but yeah

 

[subshakerz]

Laxman 96 vs SA clears everything he did to pace and no way you think they are on the same plane to spin. Laxman is comparable to Clarke (can go either way) not Mark. Pujara is comparable to Mark (and I will take Pujara).

Sorry but Mark Waugh has tons against Ambrose Walsh, Donald Pollock and Wasim Waqar. He is on another level when it comes to pace.

He also was an excellent player of spin.

Honestly you don't seem familiar with Mark Waughs career in the 90s and how highly rated he used to be.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Dude every bat has a formative phase where they are finding their step. Removing that for Laxmans convenience makes no sense especially when Steve Waugh gets critiqued for failing on the few occasions he batted up the order.

Just admit this is an advantage for Mark Waugh who batter no.4 in a more competitive era.

11 years. He played for 11 ****ing years!! Wowza. Formative years and batting so out of position are 2 very different things. Any era and batting position advantage isn't making Mark better than VVS by a long shot. Mark isn't even better than Pujara, or Amarnath. Very arguable with Vengsarkar.

 

[Thala_0710]

Sorry but Mark Waugh has tons against Ambrose Walsh, Donald Pollock and Wasim Waqar. He is on another level when it comes to pace.

He also was an excellent player of spin.

Honestly you don't seem familiar with Mark Waugha career in the 90s and how highly rated he used to be.

Yeah but he used to be rated that highly because of his talent and how classy he looked while batting, not necessarily because of how good a career he had.

 

[Johan]

Yeah but he also played his home games on the tough SA pitches.

Lloyd was more dominant in Australia and India, also, longevity, 18 year career vs 11 years with years dropped cuz he was saving batting average.

 

[subshakerz]

11 years. He played for 11 ****ing years!! Wowza. Formative years and batting so out of position are 2 very different things. Any era and batting position advantage isn't making Mark better than VVS by a long shot. Mark isn't even better than Pujara, or Amarnath. Very arguable with Vengsarkar.

I don't see how playing over a decade and 128 games isn't sufficient enough of a career sample.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sorry but Mark Waugh has tons against Ambrose Walsh, Donald Pollock and Wasim Waqar. He is on another level when it comes to pace.

He also was an excellent player of spin.

Honestly you don't seem familiar with Mark Waughs career in the 90s and how highly rated he used to be.

Sorry his output talks for himself. Sub 42 average and 11 year career. I have never seen a single performance rating him over VVS.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah but he used to be rated that highly because of his talent and how classy he looked while batting, not necessarily because of how good a career he had.

Totally untrue. Go through his tons and you will see how many of them were crucial to wins.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't see how playing over a decade and 128 games isn't sufficient enough of a career sample.

11 years vs 16 years. You will be lying if you say that isn't extremely significant.

 

[Coronis]

I won't say easily but yeah

Gaps between Richards and Kallis and AB and Lloyd are relatively close and cancel each other out imo. (I know most might disagree on that)

But still, Amla >> Richardson easily covers it.

 

[subshakerz]

Sorry his output talks for himself. Sub 42 average and 11 year career. I have never seen a single performance rating him over VVS.

Yeah because he played in the 90s and didn't get the flat era boost that Laxman did who averaged only 45 despite the era and batting down the order.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Totally untrue. Go through his tons and you will see how many of them were crucial to wins.

While you are at it, why don't you go through Laxman's innings list and see how crucial some of those were?? 73*, 96, ****ing 283*

 

[Thala_0710]

Lloyd was more dominant in Australia and India, also, longevity, 18 year career vs 11 years with years dropped cuz he was saving batting average.

Lloyd also has major holes in his record whilst ABD has a well rounded, complete record. Also, at his best ABD was a certain ATG level batter who just quite didn't fulfil his whole potential, which is quite an insane thing to say about a top 25-30 test batter of all time.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah because he played in the 90s and didn't get the flat era boost that Laxman did who averaged only 45 despite the era and batting down the order.

*46. 50 while not opening. Over 5 more years.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lloyd also has major holes in his record whilst ABD has a well rounded, complete record. Also, at his best ABD was a certain ATG level batter who just quite didn't fulfil his whole potential, which is quite an insane thing to say about a top 25-30 test batter of all time.

I don't know if I will say Lloyd has many major holes in his record really.

 

[Johan]

Lloyd also has major holes in his record whilst ABD has a well rounded, complete record. Also, at his best ABD was a certain ATG level batter who just quite didn't fulfil his whole potential, which is quite an insane thing to say about a top 25-30 test batter of all time.

what holes does Lloyd have in his record? New Zealand?

 

[Thala_0710]

Nz and even Pakistan to an extent. This is compared to ABD ofc.

 

[subshakerz]

While you are at it, why don't you go through Laxman's innings list and see how crucial some of those were?? 73*, 96, ****ing 283*

I'm familiar with Laxmans standout innings. You aren't with Mark Waughs though or his career which is why you are responding with raw average arguments.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nz and even Pakistan to an extent. This is compared to ABD ofc.

Yeah, but his India and Australia record are ATG