VVS Laxman v M Waugh v Gower

[vic_orthdox]

Got his NO in the end too...

Is that an Ian Botham "NO!" to Geoff Boycott, or a Not Out at the end of the innings?

I know what you mean, before you say anything...

 

[honestbharani]

I think all 3 was extremely elegant to watch. I would even add Carl Hooper and Damien Martyn and Mike Vaughan to that group. NOW, that is a top 6 you can pay to watch IF they will all make a 100. IT will be the most elegant display of batting from any top 6 ever.

 

[Salamuddin]

VVS is a batsman who when the dust settles on his career (i.e. in 20 years' time) will be remembered for one innings rather than his whole career - granted, that innings can lay a legitimate (if sketchy) claim to being the greatest of all time, but if he was averaging, say, 50 rather than 44, he'd probably be remembered as a great batsman. As it is, he's just be the guy who played THAT innings. Which is still a pretty damn good way to be remembered.

I think Laxman's average is skewed by the fact that he was forced to open the batting for the early part of his career.

What would surprise some people on this board, I think, is the fact that he averages over 50 since Calcutta 2001 - including a period of 30 tests where he averaged 60.
What would also surprise some people is the fact that he averages 40 in England, 48 in RSA, 53 in the WI and 60 in Australia, given that he is sometimes cast as a subcontinental track batsman.

 

[sledger]

To me it seems as if Kallis is often batting only for himself, rather than the team.

thats a very good point actually, its noticeable that when fielding kallis attitude to bowling suggests that he doesnt have the teams intrest at heart as most of the time he obviously bemoans graeme smith calling him over.

 

[marc71178]

What would also surprise some people is the fact that he averages 40 in England, 48 in RSA, 53 in the WI and 60 in Australia, given that he is sometimes cast as a subcontinental track batsman.

What surprises me more than that is how he can be so superb against Australia, but enever reach those heights against weaker sides!

 

[C_C]

Laxman IMO has been terribly used by India and despite the overall average, is a much better Test batsman than Ganguly.

He is a bona fide middle order bat and loves to indulge in wristy shotmaking.
As a result, he isnt the perfect Test opener, when the ball is new and three slips + gully are in place- indeed, he averages an excellent 48.60 as a middle order batsman.
Whether he can average in the high 40s or not only time will tell but rest assured he is one of the most stylish batsman to've played the game- i consider him to be more stylish than Junior and Gower and Vaughan are in the same ballpark as Laxman as well,even though i consider Laxman ahead of Vaughan by a little and Vaughan ahead of Gower by a little.
Rarely do we see a truly elegant batsman also being the most prolific - Greg Chappell is the only one that comes to mind ( Viv, Tendulkar, lara, Border, Tugga, Miandad, Dravid, Ponting, Gillchrist etc. are all either extremely destructive or extremely compact technically or a mixture of both).

 

[Mister Wright]

What surprises me more than that is how he can be so superb against Australia, but enever reach those heights against weaker sides!

He recently scoredf a 100 against Zimbabwe.

 

[Slow Love™]

Jacques? He doesn't deserve to be grouped with the others. There is nobody in the history of the game who shows up - every time - willling to absolutely put everything on the line, like Jacques does.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic, or the most loving fanboy post ever.

 

[Slow Love™]

I suppose that Gower, Laxman and Waugh are similar in that they are all blessed with an elegancy and degree of talent that suggests their averages should be higher. In Laxman's case, it may well be that the best is yet to come - and he has certainly been a regular scapegoat for when India hasn't done so well, and often extremely quickly, too.

One thing that distinguishes Mark Waugh a little was the position he held in one-day cricket, where for quite a period he was the backbone of the batting order and the Australian team's success virtually seemed to depend on his performance.

 

[howardj]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic, or the most loving fanboy post ever.

The latter

It's bloody true though mate. For instance, if everyone in the World XI team showed up with the same commitment and determination Kallis did (and displays in every match) then it would have been one hell of a series. As for being selfish, I would say his selfishness (which I'd label more as singlemindedness) does the South African team more good, than harm.

 

[honestbharani]

The latter

It's bloody true though mate. For instance, if everyone in the World XI team showed up with the same commitment and determination Kallis did (and displays in every match) then it would have been one hell of a series. As for being selfish, I would say his selfishness (which I'd label more as singlemindedness) does the South African team more good, than harm.

I don't think you can question Lara's commitment. He was done in by very good deliveries in both innings and was looking good till that time.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

When we talk about elegance, it would be a grave injustice not to mention Marvan Atapattu and Damien Martyn.

Atapattu, especially is someone, who does not compromise on style even in one-dayers.

 

[Jono]

I think Laxman's average is skewed by the fact that he was forced to open the batting for the early part of his career.

What would surprise some people on this board, I think, is the fact that he averages over 50 since Calcutta 2001 - including a period of 30 tests where he averaged 60.
What would also surprise some people is the fact that he averages 40 in England, 48 in RSA, 53 in the WI and 60 in Australia, given that he is sometimes cast as a subcontinental track batsman.

Ahh lovely, I thought I was going to have to point that out. Brilliant post.

Laxman's hasn't underachieved anywhere near to the degree Mark Waugh did. Laxman has been treated extremely poorly by India and too often used as a scape goat. Since his brilliant knock in 2001 has been awesome for India, in not only tests but ODIs too (but that's another story for another day). He was forced to open early on in his career, something he himself said he did not want to do, but since he's received that slot in the middle order he has flourished. He won't go down as an all-time great, and he will most likely be remembered for that absolutely magnificent 281 (along with his stylish technique) but I think he's overly criticised for not meeting his potential. The criticism of his inconsistencies is sometimes fair enough, but you can't fault his overall test performances since 2001. His amazing trait of always performing against Australia (until Aus tour of Ind 2004) sometimes makes it look like he underachieves against the other nations. Where in fact, as jamesrflyer pointed out, he doesn't really. He's just not AS spectacular.

 

[Jono]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic, or the most loving fanboy post ever.

Whilst it was a bit of hyperbole, his point is true. When it comes to HIS innings, only Dravid comes close IMO in terms of concentration. Kallis isn't exactly the biggest team player though, and most Kallis fans (like myself) are willing to acknowledge it.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Whilst it was a bit of hyperbole, his point is true. When it comes to HIS innings, only Dravid comes close IMO in terms of concentration. Kallis isn't exactly the biggest team player though, and most Kallis fans (like myself) are willing to acknowledge it.

I would readily agree. there have been so many instances where SA had lost because of Kallis. One classic example would be a one-day match between India and SA in the ICC Champions Trophy held in Srilanka, where he completely miscalculated the chase , batted on and on without any regard to the asking run rate and SA lost the match despite having some 5 wickets in hand.

 

[Slow Love™]

Whilst it was a bit of hyperbole, his point is true. When it comes to HIS innings, only Dravid comes close IMO in terms of concentration. Kallis isn't exactly the biggest team player though, and most Kallis fans (like myself) are willing to acknowledge it.

Yeah, my response was mainly 'cause of the "Oh, Jacques!" tone of it all.

And I appreciate that his concentration is excellent - but the whole "There is nobody in the history of the game who shows up - every time - willling to absolutely put everything on the line, like Jacques does" bit is a little hard to stomach. I (and I think, many people) associate putting everything on the line with putting the team above individual achievement, ie if the team needs quick runs, you go for it, even if it's at the expense of your own individual figures.

Kallis' reputation is antithetical to that.

 

[Slow Love™]

As for being selfish, I would say his selfishness (which I'd label more as singlemindedness) does the South African team more good, than harm.

That probably has more to do with his undeniable talent.

 

[howardj]

Yeah, my response was mainly 'cause of the "Oh, Jacques!" tone of it all.

And I appreciate that his concentration is excellent - but the whole "There is nobody in the history of the game who shows up - every time - willling to absolutely put everything on the line, like Jacques does" bit is a little hard to stomach. I (and I think, many people) associate putting everything on the line with putting the team above individual achievement, ie if the team needs quick runs, you go for it, even if it's at the expense of your own individual figures.

Kallis' reputation is antithetical to that.

I was more referring to his total commitment, rather than total commitment to the team. I mean, cricket has always been a game, as far as batting is concerned, where self-interest more often than not co-incides with the team's interests anyway. And, when discussing players, I always talk in terms of Test Cricket - where there is rarely a need, in this day and age, for the quick runs that you speak of. There aren't too many draws.

Certainly I'd rather have someone like Kallis as a batsman in my side - who you know has unconditional determination and focus - than someone who is equally talented, puts the team first while they are batting, but only really shows up when he feels like it - perhaps like the aforementioned Gower, Waugh and Laxman.

 

[Slow Love™]

I was more referring to his total commitment, rather than total commitment to the team. I mean, cricket has always been a game, as far as batting is concerned, where self-interest more often than not co-incides with the team's interests anyway. And, when discussing players, I always talk in terms of Test Cricket - where there is rarely a need, in this day and age, for the quick runs that you speak of. There aren't too many draws.

Certainly I'd rather have someone like Kallis as a batsman in my side - who you know has unconditional determination and focus - than someone who is equally talented, puts the team first while they are batting, but only really shows up when he feels like it - perhaps like the aforementioned Gower, Waugh and Laxman.

So would I, probably, if those were my choices (although as I said, I still wonder at what Laxman might be capable of) - ultimately, though, I'd prefer somebody with excellent concentration and comparable skill who also puts the team's interests first.

Scoring quick runs is often still relevant to chasing victory in terms of setting a reasonable target that the opposition won't make, but that will let you have enough time to bowl your opponents out - which, if successfully done, usually results in winning a match, rather than drawing it. Draws still occur reasonably regularly though. Kallis' refusal to play according to his team's needs when these quick runs are needed (such as at Centurion earlier this year) may well have cost South Africa a series. And I guess when we're talking about a player's character, I don't see why their performances in one-day cricket should be excluded.

I don't want to rip the guy to shreds though - he's clearly an extremely talented and impressive batsman, who I'd have no hesitation in playing if I was a South African selector. Just was surprised at the "putting it all on the line" description (and the sheer, unabashed love ).

 

[Dasa]

So would I, probably, if those were my choices (although as I said, I still wonder at what Laxman might be capable of) - ultimately, though, I'd prefer somebody with excellent concentration and comparable skill who also puts the team's interests first.

Dravid's your man. Supremely talented, always gives 100% for the team, excellent concentration and very elegant when in full flow.