VVS Laxman...is he really that good?

[Tom Halsey]

its better that he bats under minimal pressure at the top of the order.

Just to accomodate his average and make it look better, even though it's better for the team when he's at 4?

 

[marc71178]

I've said I would prefer him to bat four.
You are talking about what some others think, and saying I should automatically think that because they do - I am talking about why I think the way I think.

You said that "plenty of people" think that way, and when challenged as to why nobody on here had said it, said well nobody had said he should open in this thread.

I pointed out that in other threads, several had.

So you're now retracting what you said about "plenty of people" then, seeing as that is the point I was trying make, not what you think.

 

[Nate]

IMO he became that by batting at four in Test-matches - and IMO he's not the best ODI batsman in The World, Michael Bevan is.

by far the smartest thing youve ever said. i agree completely.

 

[delkap]

IMO he became that by batting at four in Test-matches - and IMO he's not the best ODI batsman in The World, Michael Bevan is.

I never said move Dravid away from five! How many times to people have to think I've said something I haven't?
Ganguly has shown, in his many many excellent innings at the top of the order that his fallibility against pace is purely theoretical. IMO he's best opening with Sehwag.

First of all, I absolutely disagree with you in that Bevan is the best ODI batsman, Sacin will go down as an ODI legend for very very obvious reasons. Just because Bevan finished matches doesn't make him more important than Tendulkar who most of his career has "set up victories" for India.

I simply cant get why finishing is seen as a benchmark? That is the job of no.5 and 6 batsman, not openers !!!

IMO, Sachin is the best ODI batsman there ever was.. and prolly will never be bettered..

Now to your second comment:
I didnt imply u said to move Dravid. I simply said it makes more sense to hv Ganguly at 4, as he is a better player of spin than pace. And Tendulkar has been sensational at top, to say the least. On top of that, the kind of role you want Tendulkar to be performing at no.4, is already done by Dravid at no.5 .. So why duplicate it ?

 

[Sudeep]

First of all, I absolutely disagree with you in that Bevan is the best ODI batsman, Sacin will go down as an ODI legend for very very obvious reasons. Just because Bevan finished matches doesn't make him more important than Tendulkar who most of his career has "set up victories" for India.

I simply cant get why finishing is seen as a benchmark? That is the job of no.5 and 6 batsman, not openers !!!

IMO, Sachin is the best ODI batsman there ever was.. and prolly will never be bettered..

Now to your second comment:
I didnt imply u said to move Dravid. I simply said it makes more sense to hv Ganguly at 4, as he is a better player of spin than pace. And Tendulkar has been sensational at top, to say the least. On top of that, the kind of role you want Tendulkar to be performing at no.4, is already done by Dravid at no.5 .. So why duplicate it ?

I agree 100%. Tendulkar = GOD

 

[delkap]

I agree 100%. Tendulkar = GOD

Nice to hv someone agreeing with me

Also nice to see a signature inspired from my collection

 

[tooextracool]

And the apparrent inbalance is cancelled-out by the better roles played by players in certain positions - and more importantly the lack of any players to play a certain role.

no its not cancelled out for 3 reasons....
1) the batsman himself isnt happy batting there, why you want to force someone as good as tendulkar to bat at 4 when he prefers to open i dont know..
2)if hes averaging more at the top while ganguly is averaging higher at 3 how is that not contributing to the teams cause?
3)he gets the opportunity to bat the full 50 overs at the top and thats what you want your best batsman to do......

Because it's not best for the team for him to bat there.

if hes scoring more far more runs at the and is happier there then its not best for the team to bat at 4.....

 

[marc71178]

It's interesting to note that SRT averages a touch under 50 when opening the batting in ODI's - That's from 228 innings with only 16 not outs.

That is an outstanding record, and every bit as creditable as Bevan's record IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

Just to accomodate his average and make it look better, even though it's better for the team when he's at 4?

how has it been better for the team at 4, when the facts that he gets to bat for longer periods of time and averages far higher only benefits the team?

 

[tooextracool]

It's interesting to note that SRT averages a touch under 50 when opening the batting in ODI's - That's from 228 innings with only 16 not outs.

That is an outstanding record, and every bit as creditable as Bevan's record IMO.

yea but the team is better off having its best batsman bat in a position in which he doesnt like batting in and averages considerably less at.....
regardless if you look at bevans average at 4(although hes only played 53 games) its just a touch under 60 which is quite brilliant and IMO makes him better than sachin.

 

[tooextracool]

Tendulkar is perfectly capable of playing just about any innings as far as I'm concerned - just because he hasn't done so - yet - that doesn't mean he can't.

and the same argument can be used to argue the fact that he would be capable of opening the batting in test matches too.....

 

[tooextracool]

Not just run-chases. Also applies to batting first when early wickets have been lost and when they haven't.

"Personally I don't think it's any coincidence that they looked near enough unbeatable, like they could chase down anything you set them - until Tendulkar got injured and missed the West Indies series."

interesting that when you say that they 'looked like chasing down anything you set them' when tendulkar was batting at 4 would have to say that tendulkar has actually been involved in some of those run chases!
and if he were batting at the top there probably wouldnt be early wickets lost and he would also get more overs to bat.

 

[viktor]

[/QUOTE]
so all the selectors are fools then?[/QUOTE]
NOW THATS A BRILLIANT QUESTION AND DESEREVES A THREAD OF ITS OWN

 

[Richard]

First of all, I absolutely disagree with you in that Bevan is the best ODI batsman, Sacin will go down as an ODI legend for very very obvious reasons. Just because Bevan finished matches doesn't make him more important than Tendulkar who most of his career has "set up victories" for India.

I simply cant get why finishing is seen as a benchmark? That is the job of no.5 and 6 batsman, not openers !!!

IMO, Sachin is the best ODI batsman there ever was.. and prolly will never be bettered..

I really wish people would get away from this stupid notion that Bevan is a "finisher" and nothing else.
Bevan has proved many, many times (more often at domestic level than international, but he's taken most of the few chances he's got) that he's a starter, continuer and finisher. He can hammer the bowling in the first 15 overs, he can pace a run-chase brilliantly from any situation, he can do just about anything the one-day game demands.
Michael Bevan is a massively underrated, misunderstood player.

I didnt imply u said to move Dravid. I simply said it makes more sense to hv Ganguly at 4, as he is a better player of spin than pace. And Tendulkar has been sensational at top, to say the least. On top of that, the kind of role you want Tendulkar to be performing at no.4, is already done by Dravid at no.5 .. So why duplicate it ?

Because Dravid isn't going to succeed every time - in any case, Tendulkar can play innings Dravid cannot.
And this fantasy about Ganguly being less than brilliant against pace - then why on Earth has he been so succesful at the top of the order for such a long time? The sight of Ganguly waltzing down the wicket to The World's most overrated quick-bowlers and smacking them is one of the most thrilling sights in cricket as far as I'm concerned.
There is little I would enjoy more than seeing Ganguly opening against Australia in the near future and smashing Brad Williams all over whatever ground they're playing on. Don't know when Australia and India will next face-off in an ODI, though.

 

[Richard]

You said that "plenty of people" think that way, and when challenged as to why nobody on here had said it, said well nobody had said he should open in this thread.

I pointed out that in other threads, several had.

So you're now retracting what you said about "plenty of people" then, seeing as that is the point I was trying make, not what you think.

Believe it or not, this board, good as it is, doesn't actually contain everyone who knows much about cricket in The World.
I'll be quite surprised if the majority of learned cricket followers wouldn't prefer Tendulkar opening. Even so, there will still be plenty who would prefer him at four.
I am one of them. And just because I think it likely we're outnumbered, doesn't mean I'll assume the higher number must be right and change my mind.

 

[Richard]

no its not cancelled out for 3 reasons....
1) the batsman himself isnt happy batting there, why you want to force someone as good as tendulkar to bat at 4 when he prefers to open i dont know..
2)if hes averaging more at the top while ganguly is averaging higher at 3 how is that not contributing to the teams cause?
3)he gets the opportunity to bat the full 50 overs at the top and thats what you want your best batsman to do......

if hes scoring more far more runs at the and is happier there then its not best for the team to bat at 4.....

You want your best batsmen to bat in the position where the widest range of innings are likely to have to be played.
Yes, Tendulkar is very, very good at flaying the bowling in the first 15, and when 2 early wickets are lost, he'll also have the chance to do that. Equally, if the situation demands, he'll have the chance to shut-up shop and rebuild. His chances of batting in the middle and at the end, which he is also very, very good at, are increased rather than decreased.
You have two players in Ganguly and Sehwag who are equally proficient at flaying the bowling in the first 15, even if they won't do it quite as frequently. I guess the only average which would demonstrate this is one of each, when opening only, with an average score at the end of the 15 overs.
IMO you don't need Tendulkar to play that sort of knock, but you do need him to have the highest chance of batting later, because there are less players in the side who are good at that - Yuvraj can, Dravid is improving all the time.
Just because Tendulkar prefers to score as many runs as he can, doesn't mean this is the best thing for the team.
And IMO if he plays his role at four as best he can, his average will eventually go up to at least 45 in that role.

 

[Richard]

and the same argument can be used to argue the fact that he would be capable of opening the batting in test matches too.....

Can it now? Despite the fact that Tests and ODIs have been proven time and again to show nothing with any certainty in terms of the other.

 

[Richard]

"Personally I don't think it's any coincidence that they looked near enough unbeatable, like they could chase down anything you set them - until Tendulkar got injured and missed the West Indies series."

interesting that when you say that they 'looked like chasing down anything you set them' when tendulkar was batting at 4 would have to say that tendulkar has actually been involved in some of those run chases!
and if he were batting at the top there probably wouldnt be early wickets lost and he would also get more overs to bat.

Chasing down anything you set them was only one part - they also looked like they could set you something no-one could get more often than not.
Tendulkar made 2 centuries in NWS 2002 - both set targets that the opposition would likely have and did struggle to reach.
India's batting looked near enough invincible, that's the gist - the same has certainly not applied since Tendulkar has been put back at the top of the order.

 

[tooextracool]

Chasing down anything you set them was only one part - they also looked like they could set you something no-one could get more often than not..

how could it possible be one part when he wasnt even involved in that part???

Tendulkar made 2 centuries in NWS 2002 - both set targets that the opposition would likely have and did struggle to reach.
India's batting looked near enough invincible, that's the gist - the same has certainly not applied since Tendulkar has been put back at the top of the order.

oh wow 2 centuries batting at 4...quite brilliant compared to the 30 odd centuries hes scored batting at the top.....and the batting lineup looked just about as invincible in the wc where he batted at the top and got 6 50s and a 100.

 

[tooextracool]

Can it now? Despite the fact that Tests and ODIs have been proven time and again to show nothing with any certainty in terms of the other.

im sorry what?the point im making is that you cant condemn him from opening the batting in tests when he hasnt had the opportunity to do so.