VVS Laxman v Graham Thorpe

[Hicheal Michael]

Thorpe

M: 100
Av: 44.66
100: 16
50: 39
Hs: 200*

Laxman

M: 134
Av: 45.97
100: 17
50: 56
Hs: 281


Laxman has a superior average when batting between 4-6 (48.70) compared to Thorpe (44.38), whilst Thorpe has a superior average away from home (44.16), compare to Laxman (42.49). Both average 45+ against Australia and average 40+ in the majority of conditions - Thorpe everywhere bar SA and Zim, Laxman everywhere bar Bng, Eng, Pak. Neither suffered any notable statistical decline towards the end of their careers. Lamxan with more 150+ scores (6), than Thorpe (1), though Thorpe with a better test per 100 ratio (6.25 v 7.8).

 

[Jack1]

Laxman edges it for me.

 

[fredfertang]

I liked Graham Thorpe enormously but he was bloody frustrating at times - he did get better but the sense of foreboding every time he resumed an innings after an interval or the next day was justified far too often - should've averaged north of 50

 

[Xuhaib]

Vvs by quite a bit though Thorpe was pretty good too.Both were pretty clutch aswell.

 

[Shri]

Thorpe never tried to hit a tailender in the middle of the pitch was almost getting run out, so Laxman.

 

[harsh.ag]

VVS. Aesthetics count for a lot.

 

[a massive zebra]

VVS Laxman was much better on the eye and played a number of unforgetable matchwinning innings that were leagues ahead of anything Thorpe ever did. Laxman's overall figures are negatively impacted by a relatively unsuccessful stint as opener. If one was to purely compare their performances as middle order players, I don't think their records were as similar as the opening post implies.

 

[Xuhaib]

I have massive respect for Thorpy efforts in Pakistan and srilanka on the 2000 tours the way he handled Saqlain and Murali was a masterclass

 

[AndrewB]

Overall batting average in Tests involving Laxman = 34; in Tests involving Thorpe = 30. (The gap's about the same if you only consider runs scored by/against India/England, or only consider runs scored by top 7 batsmen).

 

[a massive zebra]

Overall batting average in Tests involving Laxman = 34; in Tests involving Thorpe = 30. (The gap's about the same if you only consider runs scored by/against India/England, or only consider runs scored by top 7 batsmen).

Isn't this primarily a product of the relative strengths of the two teams? For most of their careers, India definitely had a stronger batting lineup and England were probably a stronger bowling unit. Therefore, all things being equal, one would expect the overall batting average in matches played by Laxman to be higher.

 

[Pratters]

Those thirty or extra tests.. Laxman was really good for a period at the end of his career where he played crucial knocks in series defining knocks. Laxman for me.

 

[AndrewB]

Isn't this primarily a product of the relative strengths of the two teams? For most of their careers, India definitely had a stronger batting lineup and England were probably a stronger bowling unit. Therefore, all things being equal, one would expect the overall batting average in matches played by Laxman to be higher.

But surely it's easier to score more runs when batting alongside Dravid and Tendulkar than (say) Butcher and Crawley.

One curiosity about Thorpe's figures - since you mentioned Laxman's average taking a hit from a stint as an opener - is that while Laxman did well at any position from 3 to 6 (average 44-50), Thorpe had a great record batting at 5 (56.21), an OK record at 3 or 4 (41.88), and a miserable record batting at 6 (18.80). It's less easy to explain this than Laxman's lower average opening.

 

[Jack1]

I liked Graham Thorpe enormously but he was bloody frustrating at times - he did get better but the sense of foreboding every time he resumed an innings after an interval or the next day was justified far too often - should've averaged north of 50

His knock to deny Tudor of a hundred is the most disgraceful innings I've ever seen in an England shirt. Thorpe's whole career has a mark against it because of that innings. He ruined the greatest nightwatchman knock ever played (in my opinion) and should be ashamed.

 

[AndrewB]

Doesn't seem like Tudor's that bothered about it..

 

[Top_Cat]

VVS was lovely to watch and did play one if the greatest ever Test knocks but overall, I’d give it to Thorpe as the better pure Test match bat.

 

[Jack1]

Doesn't seem like Tudor's that bothered about it..

Whatever Tudor says, or feels, isn't that relevant. I didn't listen to that as a result as it won't change how I feel. It was a very selfish act by Thorpe. No matter what Tudor had said to me, or whatever he had been like, I would have made sure I didn't score a run until he made the hundred. Humble, and modest, individuals don't actively seek fame or individual success. Tudor deserved it for that knock and Thorpe denied him of it.

 

[cnerd123]

Humble, and modest, individuals don't actively seek fame or individual success.

You seem to care a lot about it...

Laxman for me. Played more magical innings. Thorpe was quality too though.

 

[Jack1]

You seem to care a lot about it...

Laxman for me. Played more magical innings. Thorpe was quality too though.

English doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. Your comment makes zero sense in reply to me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

English doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. Your comment makes zero sense in reply to me.

lol Johnny in fine form today

btw that's my line

 

[OverratedSanity]

Definitely laxman for me. Much longer career and the opening stint is what caused him to end with an average below 50.

Thorpe was damn good too though. Imo better than the likes of azharuddin.