Most Overrated Player?

[marc71178]

Agreed they're better than us, but certainly this summer, the commentators kept talking Laxman up as a major danger man, when the truth is, he's not that good a player (relative to others) and I would ditch him for a younger batsman, start to rebuild.

 

[full_length]

You clearly don't know much about Laxman then.

The guy scored century after century on the trot for Hyderabad to get selected. Nobody performed better in the domestic arena. To select a 'youngster' over this 27-28 year old trump card would immediately relegate the selectors to a laughingstock for all of India (and I think Australia). And you'd come back saying Laxman should be picked

He has turned in stellar performances since his comeback in test arena too.
His average before his comeback was 26.31 . Point to note: he opened in a good many of these tests. Infact I don't remember him not opening in this period.
His averages in the last three years:
2000: 52 (5 inn)
2001: 54.31 (16 inn)
2002: 53.92 (17 inn)
Average since comeback: 49 odd
Overall average: 40.96

Again, all those who missed it: average this year 53.92 . That means his form has NOT dipped. If you want to say that he didnt play a matchwinning knock, he saved matches for us with Ganguly in WI.

The others ahead of him have simply turned in brilliant performances, including Ganguly (who ensured all of last year that Laxman would get a role to play by getting out cheaply so often).

This guy is rated highly, yes. Overrated, no. Unless you mistook him for God.

[Edited on 25/10/2002 by full_length]

 

[marc71178]

About time we had some debate on here.

Personally i feel that be retainig him India are going to have te problem England are about to experience.

I don't think he'd be in the team if it wasn't for that 1 innings, and by allowing a youngster a chance now, there won't be an entire middle order going all within a year or so of each other.

 

[V Reddy]

But its difficult to drop him now as he was India's best player in WI and in England he performed quite ok avg around 40

 

[full_length]

Marc,
I usually like to participate in debates that actually progress. Quoting myself:

The guy scored century after century on the trot for Hyderabad to get selected. Nobody performed better in the domestic arena. To select a 'youngster' over this 27-28 year old trump card would immediately relegate the selectors to a laughingstock

Let me repeat myself.
First, it's not like you're talking about a 35 year old failure that you want a 'youngster' in the team.
Second, Laxman has averaged over 50 in each of the last three years.
Third, it's a myth that Laxman's only good performance for India has been that 281. He raised the stakes by doing that early in his comeback: people expect that every match. But he's been one of the world's leading batsmen since that innings too.
Finally, he earned his place in the side the hard way and has NOT failed so far. You're asking the selectors to do something very silly when you say that he should be kicked out so some youngsters who did well in ODIs can walk into the team when Laxman has proved to be the best batsman in domestic arena and one of the top international test players too. After VVS' performances in the last few years, I would wait for him to fail for three or four series before dumping him.

I have a feeling that you are judging him based purely on the one series against England (I said earlier that you didnt seem to know much about Laxman at all), where also he didnt do badly- Rahul Sachin and Saurav came up with mamoth scores, giving Laxman a lesser opportunity to play long innings, except in the odd innings.

People who remember his earlier stint in international cricket will marvel at the way he's improved. It's not all because he's batting down the order now. He has ironed out several weaknesses in his defense and effectiveness of his attacking shots. I will say that he's ironed out everything for sure only when he gets the chance to play Akram again who exposed them last time round.

Now let's hear you.

[Edited on 25/10/2002 by full_length]

 

[marc71178]

3 centuries in 41 games - outstanding record.

I have actually never liked him as a player, even after that one innings on which he still survives IMO (which incidentally lifts his average by 5)

Maybe if the rest of the middle order weren't all of a similar age and all a lot better than him, he would stay in the team.

I'd level the same sort of criticsm to him as I used to Vaughan, he often gets a start, but doesn't capitalise on it.

 

[full_length]

You're not really listening are you

I would be the first to say he didnt really take the world by storm in his first seasons. When he came back it was another story altogether.
At no. 6 mostly, he's got 3 centuries and 10 fifties in 38 innings since Jan 1st 2000. (yes there were a couple of games earlier since he made his comeback so it's like maybe 27 -29 matches/perhaps some 5 or six more innings.)
Very importantly, he's a classy player who can take on any kind of bowling anywhere, play a big knock for his team, and win/save matches.
He's had a really big impact on maybe 7 or 8 tests that I can recall.
At age ~28 he's *exactly* at the point where you expect the maximum out of him and you dont want to drop a player then!
Given his ability to dominate and play long innings, and his record over the last three years (you completely ignore the averages, while you quote other statistics that have far lesser significance), I can say that he can end up as a truly great player at age 34 or 35.

This Indian middle order will be pretty much a constant for the next four or so years, if the selectors have any sense at all.
The new comers will be 27-28 then and we'll know who's fit enough to fill the shoes of the big four. till then they will get the odd test match or so.
They= Yuvaraj, Kaif, Badani, Mongia IMO. Sehwag is young, and already in.

 

[marc71178]

What's all this guff about a comeback. Since his debut, he missed a spell of 7 games in 97/8, and since then has not missed more than 3 games in a row. So what comback are you talking about?


As for most of his knocks coming from 6, that's utter rubbish as well. 1 of his 3, yes that's 3 in 66 innings centuries has come at number 6.


So what do you base his ability to play long innings on then, his 3 centuries?

As I said earlier he is one of those players that gets a start, but rarely makes it a decent score.

Talking of averages, I pointed out how one innings has had a major impact on his average, making it 5 runs higher.

Finally your excuse of him not having time to score runs in the England series is wrong. In all but one of the innings in which he batted, the rest of the side added over 100 more runs after he fell - so there was time, he just did his get in and get out trick.

 

[full_length]

Originally posted by marc71178
What's all this guff about a comeback. Since his debut, he missed a spell of 7 games in 97/8, and since then has not missed more than 3 games in a row. So what comback are you talking about?

lol. OK, I don't expect you to know everything about every international player, but then you shouldn't make sweeping statements about what you dont know either! People who have followed VVS' career will tell you which comeback I am talking about.

He was kicked out after the Asian test championship. He was already under fire for poor performance when he failed at home against Pakistan and in Lanka against Lanka what with Akram totally destroying his confidence and showing up flaws in his technique (don't bother to look up the stats. I know Akram didnt get him all the time).
Nobody thought he'd ever make a comeback given that he'd already played many tests for India and had a pathetic average.

Everyone 'knew' he wouldbt be picked again. Back to the Hyderabad team, he transformed himself totally, sharpened up his defense, and became a competely different player scoring heavily in the domestic arena. He was picked for Australia (after being overlooked against NZ) where he scored a brilliant century, an outstanding attacking 167 in a team total of 261. Now since this knock was made at the top of the innings, it was immediately a license for the selectors to keep picking him as an opener! I remember he showed very good touch in the first innings of the first match at no. 3 scoring 41. But then he was asked to open in the next match. His game was distinctly better than his earlier stint in the international arena but he was still not comfortable opening the innings. That 167 however was simply outstanding- a top quality knock.

Again, after that inspirational innings in Australia he was picked and dropped again as the selectors dabbled with what options they had. What does he do? He scored heavily in the domestic arena again, even more than the last time round till the selectors were forced to pick him in the side against Australia at home. This time round he made it clear that he wasn't available to open.

So there were two turning points for him. The first one was after the Asian test championships when he went back to the basics and pushed his game up a few notches, and the second when he finally got rid of the opening spot.

He scored 10 centuries in domestic cricket on the trot. Those 12 months saw him score 1,884 runs in Ranji, Duleep and Irani Trophy matches at an average of 134. He played a couple of tests in between as the selectors continued their little game..
This was when he gained a repute of playing long innings
oh that was about this:

So what do you base his ability to play long innings on then, his 3 centuries?

BTW, the highest score in India stands at 281 (VVSL), the previous best was 256, and then it probably goes down to the 230s.)

Laxman earned accolades for scoring those huge knocks match after match, but more importantly people saw that he seemed to go on and on, without tiring which is not an easy thing to do in India. You saw that in the 281 he scored. This is one of the reasons I expect him to establish himself as an alltime great in the next four or five years.

Another piece of trivia: he was the first ever batsman to score two triple hundreds in the Ranji.

As for most of his knocks coming from 6, that's utter rubbish as well. 1 of his 3, yes that's 3 in 66 innings centuries has come at number 6.

All his recent innings were in no. 6. His 281 was at no. 3. He played the first innings of that match at no. 6. That was the number he was playing in the earlier match. That was also a period when Dravid wasn't playing very well. Ganguly and Wright decided to play Laxman at no. 3 in the second innings of that test. He did make some good scores at no. 3, the double, a couple of very important sixties...
Dravid later turned that around and made no. 3 his own again, I think in the SA tour. Laxman played at 3 in one match in that tour but that was because Dravid had to open. After that, Laxman has played at 6. That's quite a few series. So he's not really got a very long stint at 3. On the other hand he's usually played at 6.

I said "at six mostly". So what's your point? Or is it just the usual- playing around with words, like the (most part of) decade = six years joke in another thread?

btw, 3centuries in 66 you say, 3 centuries and 10 fifties in 27 matches I say..time and again. Both are right ofcourse, but most people that have seen more of his career than one series in England would recognise the validity of my choosing these particular number of matches. I've more than adequately explained it too.

As I said earlier he is one of those players that gets a start, but rarely makes it a decent score.

If you'd said "he has a tendency to throw away his wicket after getting set" I would have agreed. He did show that in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere. However, he has also shown the ability and courage to save/win matches for India, and you don't recognise that. Maybe this is the reason

I have actually never liked him as a player

and you are making up arguements to back that. Methinks you kinda reversed cause and effect here.

Talking of averages, I pointed out how one innings has had a major impact on his average, making it 5 runs higher.

So you did. What's the point? Wasn't that a big innings? :rolleyes: Just like a duck hurts your average, a century helps it! I don't care enough to check if it;s indeed 5. It doesnt matter.

Finally your excuse of him not having time to score runs in the England series is wrong. In all but one of the innings in which he batted, the rest of the side added over 100 more runs after he fell - so there was time, he just did his get in and get out trick.

It's you who has been dishing out excuse after excuse to cover up a very poorly made arguement based on a prejudiced view of an excellent player.

For instance, you seem to have totally forgotten about your insistance that a 28 year old be replaced with a youngster :rolleyes:
Or your harping on the 3 centuries in 66 matches even while very conveniently ignoring the fact that he has had a 50 + average in the last three years.

BTW, he averaged 79 in the WI tour, and played some stellar knocks there.

In England, he scored 43 and 79 in the first test when the rest didnt do exceptionally well.
He failed in the first innings of the next test and wasnt required todo much in the second innings- Sachin Rahul and Saurav did all the work.
In Headingly big three scored huge centuries leaving very little for Laxman to do.
In the Oval, Dravid scored a double; Sachin, Saurav and Laxman made 54 51 and 40.
None of this is an 'excuse' for Laxman's average not being over the 45 run mark that we've come to expect of him. It is however one reason. In the midst of all the myriad excuses you come up with from time to time, you seem to have forgotten the distinction between those two words

In just the earlier series he had scored at an average of 79 and was in prime touch. The batsmen ahead of him simply performed brilliantly. In the Windies, that wasn't necessarily the case. He did have to bat out time as well as score runs, and he did both very well.

I dont know about you, but I am happy with a batsman with the stats I posted here playing for India.
It's kinda strange that people come out dissing Laxman just because the scored that 281.

 

[royGilchrist]

I have been a bit of a Laxman fan, mostly becasue of his awesome talent, and the courage against exterme adversity he has shown in a couple of his innings (in Aus, and in Calcutta), which I have really not seen in a long time. Especially in his innings in Aus, when McGrath hit him in the head earlier, and young batsmen from India rarely show any kind of courage. There is no way this guy can be written off as being ordinary.

Now, his current batting spot of 6 is seriously restricting his performance, there is no denying that. The argument you gave Marc about others scoring many runs after he was out, is just not strong enough. A batsman will obvioulsy score many more runs and centuries if he is sent at 3 or 4 than if he is sent at 6, if he is in good form.

The only thing that I disagree with FL is:

If you'd said "he has a tendency to throw away his wicket after getting set" I would have agreed

becasue earlier Marc had said:

As I said earlier he is one of those players that gets a start, but rarely makes it a decent score

So Marc had essentially said the same thing earlier.

But otherwise, FL is correct about most other things (never thought I'd ever say that ), Laxman is really re-invented himself after the disastrous series with Pak, when I thought the other opener Ramesh was much better. And the latter part of his career has been very impressive, coming lower in the order is not easy, and averaging 50 for three cnsecutive yrs is indeed awesome. He will go on to do special things.

 

[masterblaster]

Really, Really Well Said Full_Length

Really well said Full_Length, I have admired Laxman for a long time, and one cannot expect this guy to make 200+ everytime he gets a 50, he is a fine player, one of India's very best, and I agree with you 100% on everything you have said.

Highest Indian Individual Scores
VVS Laxman 281
SM Gavaskar 236

You cannot drop a guy who saved you from following on and losing a series 2-0 against the World Champions. It is because of him, Dravid and Harbhajan that we won.

His current test average is 41, which is very decent, it is 6 points higher than Nasser Hussain's, and the same as Mark Waugh, (if averages count). His domestic average is 60, you cannot drop this guy.

 

[Tim]

You can argue that Laxman's average has come about because of 3 very big scores and little scores of 20-30, its the exact same thing with Mathew Sinclair who averages 45 and has had the same problem as Laxman. So really both these batsmen would be averaging around 28 or 30 if it hadn't been for these big innings.

 

[royGilchrist]

First of all, it doesnt matter if it was 3 special innings or ten ordinary innings that made the average. It would only matter if these 3 innings were against Zimb or Bang. but that is not the case with Laxman.

Secondly, Sincalir's average of 43 is after only 18 matches, if he can maintain that after 41 matches, like Laxman has after that many, he would be considered good. It wont matter if he plays another 3 big innings to boost the average or many ordinary innings (as long as they are against extraordinarily weak opposition).

 

[masterblaster]

but he did achieve those 3 big scores didnt he? Other batsman in the world dont get mentioned as "overrated" and they havent made 3 big scores.

One should thank the good lord that he made those 3 big scores, otherwise he wouldnt have had a career.

and those 3 big scores tell you that he is a very good player

 

[Tim]

But...3 big scores and nothing else in 41 matches is really not that good. That 281 he scored saved his average for about 5 or 6 test matches. He'll eventually become a Stephen Fleming at the rate he is going and average in the mid 30's I reckon.

 

[marc71178]

I'd like to know what these other 2 "big" scores are - 281, and then?...

As for all this about his comback, I again point out his comeback is surely in 97/98 when he missed 8 matches, not after he missed 3 matches?

Finallly on domestic averages, there's a lot of Indians with high career averages because of the standard of a lot of the first class cricket over there - so I don't see that as an argument.

 

[royGilchrist]

His three big scores are the three centuries, 281, 167, 130.

But I noticed earlier, you had only mentioned the 281 as being responsible for inflating his average, so I guess 3 big scores was the wrong term to use.

BTW, you wrote that his average increased by 5 points. That is not accurate, its 4 points. And I really dont know what u r trying to prove by this anyway. For example after 41 tests, Jutin Langer had an average of 39 but if u remove his 179*, his average is brought down by 3 points. Is it a bad thing to play big innings?

The domestic scores, in my opinion also dont account for very much. But as far as ur argument about Laxman not scoring big innings, and throwing his wkt away after getting in, u have to consider that playing at 6 he is at a clear disadvantage, and this position is not conducive to playing big innings; India doesnt even have a particularly strong tail. The mindset playing down the order is totally different.

He was in good touch in WI and Eng for example, and had he been coming in earlier in the order, he definetely would have played bigger innings.

 

[marc71178]

And I think it's called sods law that he respnds to criticism with a match saving innings!

 

[Anil]

Hey, Marc, you must be really happy that Laxman made another of those "terrible" big scores.(I mean the ones with which you're trying to prove that he shouldn't be in the team). How dare he increase his average with a few big scores and a lot of 20's and 30's. right?

I guess according to you, he should be thrown out of the team right about now, shouldn't he?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Interesting to note that all four of his Test Centuries have been at Kolkata.

(If that's wrong, blame Ceefax).