Kevin Pietersen vs VVS Laxman

[subshakerz]

You backed the claim that VVS didn't have a 5th gear. This is where the discussion streamed from. This is false. No two ways about this.

Did I say that? Please highlight where I did because if I did it was a mistake.

 

[Daemon]

Why stop at 3?

Agreed, don't stop at 3, go all the way to 11 and then refer to the average I calculated for you earlier

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why stop at 3?

Top order. Openers and number 3s are the true Chads of a lineup. Everyone knows this.

 

[trundler]

Feels great. But its not all of CW. Only a certain contingent.

You annoy every contingent with delusional claims detached from reality presented with a misplaced confidence. I could do a top 5.

 

[subshakerz]

"Can't just ignore the times Laxman opened the batting"

*promptly ignores that he opened the batting when convenient*

Sure lets just ignore where he batted the majority of his career.

 

[cnerd123]

Top order. Openers and number 3s are the true Chads of a lineup. Everyone knows this.

Aakash Chopra is a chad confirmed

 

[BazBall21]

And how do you think, and feel, about CW having a different opinion to you like 70% of the time?

Subs has built up a pantomime villain arc but he knows his stuff. Puts more emphasis on strike rate in tests than I do but he sticks to that.

 

[trundler]

Sure lets just ignore where he batted the majority of his career.

Straw man. Nobody is doing this. You are pushing contradictory arguments though.

 

[subshakerz]

Straw man. Nobody is doing this. You are pushing contradictory arguments though.

We agree on this point though. Why do you just want to argue for the sake of it?

Let's focus on aggressive batting point where we disagree.

 

[Coronis]

Why stop at 3?

Because you’re using “batting up the order” as an argument. 1-3 is regarded as top order and 4-6 (sometimes 7) is regarded as middle order. 4-5 isn’t that big of a diff for me, plus didn’t KP’s career coincide with one of England’s most productive top order groups in the past what, 50 years? (not as good as India obviously, but using the coming in with a cushion argument is pretty poor in this case)

 

[subshakerz]

Because you’re using “batting up the order” as an argument. 1-3 is regarded as top order and 4-6 (sometimes 7) is regarded as middle order. 4-5 isn’t that big of a diff for me, plus didn’t KP’s career coincide with one of England’s most productive top order groups in the past what, 50 years?

KP was a solid number 4 whereas Laxman was mostly 5/6. That in itself is a minor plus for KP but when you add the batting cushion that Laxman had it is more noticeable.

 

[anil1405]

plus didn’t KP’s career coincide with one of England’s most productive top order groups in the past what, 50 years?

Conveniently ignored (while pointing out the same for VVS) along with the fact that KPs majority of career coincided in a batting friendly era.

 

[trundler]

We agree on this point though. Why do you just want to argue for the sake of it?

You are both marking him down for being a #5 generally and also downgrading him based on his opener face (yet claiming not to do so). Pick one. If you pick the former, VVS still has a much longer career as a MOB and averaged much higher. If you pick the latter then KP batting higher up isn't a valid criticism.

Let's focus on aggressive batting point where we disagree.

It matters but is a tie breaker for me. The ability to play quickly or defensively matters more to me than a higher career strike rate.

 

[h_hurricane]

With Border (and to a lesser extent Waugh) their batting positions advantages are reduced somewhat by the era they played in compared to a Laxman who played no5/no6 in a strong batting lineup on a lot of flat wickets.

Batting at 5/6 can on most times be an advantage on juicy decks as you get to face bowlers who have already bowled 10-15 overs and not that fresh plus an older ball. Batting on flat tracks at 5/6 is only an advantage if you get to bat for a substantial duration of time. On a lot of occasions, the players up the order do all the creaming and you get only some declaration overs. That explains why Laxman has so few hundreds in those many matches.

 

[subshakerz]

You are both marking him down for being a #5 generally and also downgrading him based on his opener face (yet claiming not to do so). Pick one. If you pick the former, VVS still has a much longer career as a MOB and averaged much higher. If you pick the latter then KP batting higher up isn't a valid criticism.

Laxman was a 5/6, not a 5. If he was just a 5 then it would be a more minor difference. I pick the latter but KP batting higher is still valid since Laxman batting 5/6 is a high proportion of his career. I don't consider longer career in years to be a factor compared to games.

It matters but is a tie breaker for me. The ability to play quickly or defensively matters more to me than a higher career strike rate.

General aggressiveness matter more to me.

 

[BazBall21]

Batting at 5/6 can on most times be an advantage on juicy decks as you get to face bowlers who have already bowled 10-15 overs and not that fresh plus an older ball. Batting on flat tracks at 5/6 is only an advantage if you get to bat for a substantial duration of time. On a lot of occasions, the players up the order do all the creaming and you get only some declaration overs. That explains why Laxman has so few hundreds in those many matches.

For me, it's like a double whammy; older ball and tiring bowlers are obvious advantages. And as you've specified, the ceiling of your impact on games is also reduced. There are a couple of noteworthy caveats to batting lower than 4, but overall it's a net positive.

 

[cnerd123]

You can't both discredit VVS for both being an opener and batting at 5 wtf.

What a weird thread. Glad y'all got your own subforum.

 

[Coronis]

I don't consider longer career in years to be a factor compared to games.

So English players are inherently better cos they can spam more tests during their peaks?

 

[h_hurricane]

I don't consider longer career in years to be a factor compared to games.

Most CWers would disagree with you on this. And the reason is obvious. A player with a longer career has to fight injuries, advanced age etc. A player with a shorter career but a similar no. of games can simply take advantage of his peak and test spamming

 

[anil1405]

I don't see any reason why a test batter gets extra points for batting at no.4. A position where the top order makes the job easy for him while he knows he has the cushion of 2-3 proper batters still to follow. Especially in this case where he is pitted against a batter who batted almost everywhere in the top 6.