Laxman has lost it

[masterblaster]

But there's always a huge degree of risk when going for a six. Not everybody can effectively hit sixes all the time. Laxman's batting is relatively free of this unneeded risk, since he does tend to drive on the up and square cut on the up too. If he's not comfortable with it, he shouldnt in test cricket. Sometimes perhaps yes, when the situation demands it, but its nothing for him to lose sleep over.

 

[Sudeep]

This is what's wrong with cricket in India. In New Zealand, SA, or England, one good performance out of 8 won't keep a player in the team. Consistency will. The same standards should be applied to the Indian team, who are crashing downward in the scene (their fourth position is too high) while these teams are on their way up.

Again, a match-losing problem with Indian cricket. Do you know the value of a six in Test cricket? The number one team hit a lot of sixes and win tournaments. SL hit sixes when they dominated Test cricket. NZ are also a good Test batting side, and they too don't mind hitting the big ones.

Sixes add more runs to a partnership. They add weight to a good batting performance. They keep up the run rate. They cannot be stopped and have a demoralising effect on bowlers, except the more adventurous ones. Most of all, they give the batting side enough time, as a fielding side, to bowl the opposition out.

Besides, this idea has been misunderstood. He does not have to hit 14 sixes, but ust a few. He's good enough to hit sixes. He has the right build- his height is above six! He has hit a lot of sixes in Ranji innings. If he wasn't so apprehensive of going over the top, unlike other stylists, he would be a certainty in ODI's and would have all those critics off his back.

You don't seem to see the point. What difference does a six in one ball against a four and two in two balls make? It's not like you've only 20 overs to bat every innings...

 

[SJS]

.

Sixes add more runs to a partnership. They add weight to a good batting performance. They keep up the run rate. They cannot be stopped and have a demoralising effect on bowlers, except the more adventurous ones. Most of all, they give the batting side enough time, as a fielding side, to bowl the opposition out.

.

I have heard many ridiculous arguments on this forum. This one must challenge for the top spot !!

Once upon a time there was a man called Donald George Bradman.
He managed 6996 runs in 52 tests at a 'reasonable' 99.94 runs per innings, scored at a rate good enough to get a triple century in a day in a test match, and of all the batsmen who have scored as many runs in test matches or more, he hit, by far, the fewest number of sixes !!

I have heard some criticism of it, mostly out of jealousy and mostly about his being selfish or mean spirited, but I do not have any recollection of ever hearing/reading about him that :-

- he did not add weight to a good batting performance (whatever that means) although I agree Dr WG Grace added more weight to any batting side than the diminutive Don.

- he did not add more runs to a partnership. Well he has more records inpartnerships in all forms of the game than any other cricketer and to the best of my knowledge he was always the dominant partner in all of them...by far. Yes I do concede that one additional six per partnership would have added more (six more) runs to each of his partnership. Good deductive work here.

- he could be stopped (since he did not hit enough sixes). Cardus once described Bradman as an immovable object. I supose that means that he did not HAVE to be stopped. He just stopped and refused to be removed !! Interesting. Never thought of it like that .

- that he did not have a demoralising effect on bowlers except on the more adventurous ones . I dont know of many bowlers who actually committerd suicide because they had to bowl to him but from whatever I have read writen of him by those who bowled to him , they were driven pretty close to that stage. Now whether they were those that could be termed adventurous or not, I am afraid my research doesn't say

- his batting did not give the side enough time to bowl the opposition out. Interesting proposition that. There is a very interesting stat about Bradman, not often discussed. In 52 tests he played ony 80 innings (70 completed). A bit few you would say, considering that he batted at number 3 and a large number of matches he played in actually had a result.

Ever wondered why, of a possible 104 innings (52 multiplied by 2 for the arithmaticaly-challenged) why did he play only 80 ? Could it be that he scored so many runs that his team never needed to play a second time

And why did so many matches have a result when he was playing? What makes you think I have an answer to everything.

PS Ever heard of the all time great batsmen :
Okay, here is a comprehensive list :-

JT Brown, Salim Durrani, EAV Williams, Bruce taylor.
WHAT ?? You have never heard of them ? You must be kidding. These four scored the fastest 50's in tests ever (by time).

Okay, so you think time is not a good criteria. Fine. How about ?
Botham, Kapil Dev and Hansie Cronje as the three greatest test batsmen of all time ?? They scored the fastest fifties in ternms of balls faced.
Not enough. ?

Okay here is another list :-
Viv Richards, Jack Gregory, Roy Fredricks, Kapil Dev, Azharuddin, Majid Khan and Jessop. The seven greatest test batsmen ever. They scored the fastest hundreds. What ?? You are sympathetic to the first name but havent heard of most of the others ?? Come on, there mustbe some way to prove your hypothesis correct

Okay. I got it. How about Wasim Akram as the greatest ever test batsman ?? What ? You think its not off the mark but a bit far fetched ? My dear fellow, do you know he once hit an all time record 12 sixes in one test innings ??

I am sorry I give up.

 

[thirdumpire]

Again, a match-losing problem with Indian cricket. Do you know the value of a six in Test cricket? The number one team hit a lot of sixes and win tournaments. SL hit sixes when they dominated Test cricket. NZ are also a good Test batting side, and they too don't mind hitting the big ones.

Sixes add more runs to a partnership. They add weight to a good batting performance. They keep up the run rate. They cannot be stopped and have a demoralising effect on bowlers, except the more adventurous ones. Most of all, they give the batting side enough time, as a fielding side, to bowl the opposition out.

.

glad you wont be coaching laxman... the need of the day (at least in this series) was for staying at the middle longer without risks, build a partnership etc and instead you prefer him to try out a few sixers against mcgrath and gillispie on fast tracks ....

for the record, in the Mumbai test Australia had 6 sixers compared to India's 2 in the match - yet India Won and in Nagpur Australia (2) compared to India's(3) yet Australia Won

 

[masterblaster]

SJS, thats a classic post mate.

 

[Eclipse]

VVS does not need to hit sixes not in test's anyway.. I dont think he can.

It would really improve his ODI game though if he was capable of going over the top.

 

[marc71178]

Do you know the value of a six in Test cricket?

Yes, 6 runs.

The number one team hit a lot of sixes and win tournaments.

There are no Test Tournaments.

And in their last 10 games (6 wins, 3 draws, 1 defeat) - they've hit in order 2 (D), 4 (W), 6 (W), 6 (D), 1 (W), 7 (W), 7 (W), 3 (D), 2 (W), 6 (L)

Bear in mind that apart from that loss - when the policy was clearly to get runs before getting out (and they in fact lost) - 23 of those 6s have come from players making tons, and 8 from players making half centuries.

Now, is this the case of the 6 winning the game or the volume of runs scored by the batsmen?

SL hit sixes when they dominated Test cricket.

When have SL ever dominated Test Cricket?

NZ are also a good Test batting side, and they too don't mind hitting the big ones.

I wouldn't say they're necessarily a good batting side - they have a fairly long line up, but nowhere near the top-order quality of some of the top sides.

Incidentally, in their last 10 Tests, they've hit 44 sixes, but about half of them seem to have come from Chris Cairns - and that is the way he plays. Are you suggesting he's a better batsman than VVS because he plays that way?

 

[SJS]

SJS, thats a classic post mate.

Thanks MB. But some of these guys really get my goat
So a spot of good old sarcasm cools me off

 

[Neil Pickup]

SL hit sixes when they dominated Test cricket.

This has never happened.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't understand what Arjun's point here is. Sachin and Rahul have not played all that well either. Should they be dropped? If anything, Rahul is a more sedate player than VVS. Doesn't that mean he should be dropped? What is the point of hitting sixes? It is always more risky. Plus, he has hit the odd six when the team was looking for quick runs. Sure, he is not as comfortable doing it and certainly has lesser chance of succeeding in hitting sixes than fours, but he has still hit a few sixes. And he is amongst the best middle order bats in India. Dropping him would be ridiculous.