The VVS Laxman legacy thread


Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 80 of 86
  1. #1
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The VVS Laxman legacy thread

    As India succumbed to another 4-0 whitewash, fans and critics are trying to figure out who to blame for this miserable performance. A lot of the focus has been on the performances of VVS Laxman, who is considered to be Indiaís all-time greats, and part of the ďbig threeĒ.

    Team mates and coaches have stepped in on his defence, saying that just like any other great player Laxman will bounce back when it matters most. The fact that the team has failed as a whole has also helped Laxman, since there are people who suggest that the team should be blamed as a whole and not one person.

    The true question, however, is that should Laxman be considered as a batting great of his generation? Here at CricketingMinds, we believe that Laxman is just an average batsman in the context of other great players, and we have the numbers to prove it.
    Some of the standards shared by the greats of the game:

    1 - Minimum of 20 test centuries
    2 - A century against all test playing nations
    3 - High rate of scoring centuries
    4 - Low rate of scoring ducks
    5 - Away average of > 40
    6 - Overall average of > 50
    7 - Consistent performance

    A first look at Laxmanís statistics shows that he is below the mark in 5 of the first 6 criteria listed above. Letís look at each piece one by one.


    Minimum of 20 Test Centuries - FAIL
    A great batsman is one who is able to convert starts into big valuable knocks. Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis and Dravid have over 35 Test centuries.

    Laxman has played 134 test matches and scored only 17 centuries. Rahul Dravid, on the other hand, has scored 36 centuries and has only 33 more matches. Laxman will have to score a century in less than every 2 matches just to equal that number. In fact, even Virender Sehwag, who has only played 96 test matches, has scored 22 centuries in a relatively shorter career.

    A century against all Test playing nations - FAIL

    Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting and Kallis have all scored big in all conditions against all Test playing nations. Laxman on the other hand has failed to score a century against England (Hs: 75 in Ahemadabad) and minnows Bangladesh (Hs: 69* in Chittagong). Note that some of the greats like Matthew Hayden, Sehwag and Inzamam fail to satisfy this criterion but do well on the other criteria Ė all of them have more than 20 test centuries.

    High rate of scoring centuries - FAIL

    Laxman takes approximately 13.11 innings to score every century. This happens to be almost twice as many innings per century than some of the following players:




    As can be seen by the table above, the number of innings that Laxman takes to score a century is really high. In fact, amongst the top 66 Test centurions, only Alec Stewart does worse than Laxman Ė scoring a century every 15.7 innings.

    This begs the question then, why do the so called experts of the game (and fans alike) talk about Laxman as being a batsman who ďmakes big scoresĒ and punishes the opposition when heís on song, when heís only scored 17 centuries in 134 test matches? Itís simple; he has done it when the spotlight was on him.

    Laxman has happened to have made a couple of big scores against Australia at times when he was about to get the axe. The media starts talking about the end of Laxman, and in his last chance, he happens make a big score in an innings which is nothing short of commendable. When this happens, it seems that the cricket experts are willing to forgive the number of times Laxman has failed to live up to the expectations. No one remembers his repeated failures and instead choose to focus on his heroics of one innings. Itís just part of human nature, everyone likes a comeback.

    Low rate of scoring ducks - FAIL

    A great batsman is one who is considered a prize wicket by his opposition, and one who knows how to put his opposition on the back foot early on. VVS Laxman, however, knows how to give his opponents an early drinks break and happens to be quite kind to the scorers as well. Laxman has a really low number of innings per duck, and compared to some of the top batsmen of his generation, heís known to make quiet exits on a frequent basis.

    On average, Laxman registers a duck every 15.9 innings.



    Overall Away Average of > 40 - PASS

    Laxman passes the criterion of an overall away Test average of over 40 to be a great batsman. He has scored heavily against the mighty Australians in Australia where he averages 44.14. He averages the most in Sri Lanka (48.18) and West Indies (47.75).
    What is notable is that Laxman doesnít average more than 50 in any country except at Home and he averages only 39 in Bangladesh. This shows he hasnít been able to capitalize against weak oppositions.

    Overall Average of > 50 - FAIL.

    This is perhaps the most arguable of the points we are seeking to make. Yet, it is the most critical one in this argument, since it ties in very closely with the most subjective criteria
    A great player is known to be consistent, and can cash in with a run of big scores when in form. The batting greats from Laxmanís era, such as Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Jacque Kallis, Rahul Dravid, all have had not just good series, but great years when theyíve made bucket load of runs.
    Ponting during his golden run had back to back years with averages of over 70 during 2002-2003 and scored over 1000 runs in 2005-2006.

    Kallis averages the most amongst these great batsmen (57.02 from 150 Test matches).

    Dravid has averaged over 50 in Tests for 5 continuous years (2002-2006). This speaks volume about Dravidís class. In 2003 Dravid averaged over a 100 including a match winning 233 and 72* vs Australia at Adelaide.

    Using numbers to prove Tendulkarís greatness would be just waste of space.
    VVS Laxman, on the otherhand, has not managed to achieve an average of 50 despite playing 134 Test matches, a mark that top players have been able to maintain despite extended patches of poor runs in their careers.

    Consistency

    (a) Runs scored: Year-by-Year

    Only once during his 17 year career has Laxman hammered over 1000 runs in a calendar year (2008). To prove the point of Laxmanís lack of consistency, in 2007 and 2009 Laxman couldnít even score 500 Test runs.
    Tendulkar has pounded over 1000 Test runs in a calendar year 6 times in his career. Tendulkar was most consistent between 1997 and 2002, when he scored 1000 or more runs 4 times.
    Dravid on the other hand has worked hard to score 1000 or more Test runs in a calendar year 3 times in his career.
    Kallis and Ponting have achieved this 5 times in their careers; With Ponting scoring back-to-back 1000+ runs in 2002-2003 and again in 2005-2006.




    (b) Average (Home, Away and Overall): Year-by-Year

    The table below shows that Laxman has averaged a mere 24.06 for the first four years of his career, spanning from 1996-1999. It was only after this point that he started making meaningful contributions to the team. In 2000, his away average spiked to 87, but that was not a result of consistency, but rather one good performance against australia where he scored a century. Even then, he was unable to get his team over the line.

    A more general observation, Laxman during the peak of his career, never seemed to have a purple patch where he would be on a tear of scoring runs at an average of 70+ for a couple of years. His best year was in 2003, where he averaged 85, but that was followed by an out of form calendar year performance with an average of 32.06. His average at home was 18.88, which is more significant because India played more matches at home that year.

    His next best year was in 2009, but once again, it wasnít because Laxman played spectacularly throughout the year and dominated oppositions repeatedly, but rather because of a condensed schedule where he played only six matches in the entire year. This good year came for him after a gap of 6 years; again showing his lack of consistency. It also shows that he has never really been a threat to his opposition on a regular basis.

    Note that we have saved Laxman from some embarrassment by excluding his performance in the 3 Tests he has played so far in 2012.



    (c) Percentage of runs scored in last 6 series:




    In Indiaís last 6 series, Dravid has been their main man Ė scoring 16.09 % of the team runs. Whereas Laxmanís contribution is worth just 12.24% which is lower than both Sachin & Dravidís contribution.
    NOTE: These stats take into account all the innings played which resulted in India being all out, chased a score successfully in the 3rd or 4th innings or the case where the batsman was dismissed. There was a case or two where India just played out 30 overs to secure a draw.



    In Indiaís last 6 series, on 20 occasions Laxman has scored less than 10% of the team total which is the highest compared to Dravid (15) and Sachin (14).
    Note that Sachin played less games than Dravid or Laxman and hence he has scored less than 10% runs of the team 14/28 times, Dravid 15/35 times, and Laxman 20/33 times.
    These stats reflect the mediocrity of Laxman and why he is the likeliest candidate, amongst Indiaís big 3, to be shown the exit door.


    (d) 4th innings analysis






    Laxman can be considered Indiaís most dependable when it comes to 4th innings despite his recent slump. He averages more than Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly and is par with Dravidís 4th innings efforts. What is notable is Laxmanís performance in the 4th innings when India has won Ė he averages over 100 which is much better than Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly and Sehwag. This would give the reader an impression that Laxman plays crucial match winning knocks in the 4th innings.

    But how true is this statement?


    (e) Laxman in Match-Winning Innings

    For all the 50+ scores of Laxman, a match winning innings is one in which:
    India has won and either:

    (i) Laxman has scored more than 25% of the teams runs in 1st, 2nd or 3rd innings, or

    (ii) scored a 50+ 4th innings total in a successful run chase.
    Laxman has batted 259 times in Test cricket and only 17 times he has managed to produce a Match-Winning knock satisfying the above criteria.

    This translates to show that when Laxman goes out to bat, the probability of him scoring a match winning 50+ score is 0.065 (6.5%)

    (f) Laxman in Match-Saving Innings

    For all the 50+ scores of Laxman, a match saving innings is one in which:
    India has drawn and either:

    (i) In 1st or 2nd innings: Laxman has batted during a crisis (collapse) OR

    (ii) In 1st or 2nd innings or 3rd innings: Laxman has scored a 100 which is more than 25% of the teamís total OR

    (iii) In 1st or 2nd innings: Laxman has scored a 50 which is more than 40% of the teamís total OR

    (iv) In 3rd innings: Laxman has batted during a crisis (Note: There should be an attempted 4th innings chase by the opposition) OR

    (v) In 3rd innings: Laxman has scored a 50 which is more than 30% of the teamís total (Note: There should be an attempted 4th innings chase by the opposition) OR

    (vi) In 4th innings: Laxman has scored 50 or more which is more than 30% of the teamís total in order to save India from a loss.

    Out of the 259 times Laxman has batted, he has produced a match saving innings only 11 times which satisfies the above criteria.
    This translates to show that when Laxman goes out to bat, the probability of him scoring a match saving 50+ score is 0.042 (4.2%)

    (You can contact us to see the full list of these match winning and match saving innings)

    Conclusion

    Contrary to popular belief that Laxman is a great batsman, the numbers in this article argue that Laxman might have shown glimpses of greatness but has failed to live up to the standards set by the great batsmen of his generation.
    The table below summarizes Laxmanís failure to grab the chance of being named amongst legendary batsmen like Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis and Dravid.



    CricketingMinds: www.cricketingbrains.blogspot.com - Would like to thank PakPassion for giving us the opportunity to showcase our Analytic Talent and Passion for Cricket.
    Last edited by James; 19th May 2022 at 01:17.

  2. #2
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I didn't want first feedback to be negative. but left with no option as I waited few days for someone to write something...

    So here is my feedback
    100 marks for hardwork
    -100 for not using brain

    so in total you got zero

    and there are two reasons:

    A) Your case for the criteria is very weak
    B) You failed to create fair conditions for compassion

    I will talk about B first.

    B) Laxman bats at #5 and #6 most of the time.
    you failed to compensate his numbers with respect to his batting positions!
    (Ask and i will tell you how to do that)

    you calculation of igh rate of scoring centuries is also flawed

    it's 11.47 and not 13.1
    you failed to understand his NOs (he was NO 34 times and 30 innings should not be included in calculation, he also got 6 50+ scores when he was not out 69,65,50,61,73 and 58 so potential to cross 100 but that's topic for another discussion)


    A)

    1-Minimum of 20 test centuries
    Why?????
    How you come up with number 20? why not 21 or 19? you failed to back this criteria with some number.
    Have you ever thought about his batting position and trying to determine his "number of 100s" had he batted at #3/#4 all his career?


    Rest of criterion are also seem made-up and meaningless unless you base your criteria and create a fair ground for comparison with different batting positions.
    Last edited by Black Zero; 12th February 2012 at 11:06.

  3. #3
    Debut
    Dec 2011
    Runs
    1,714
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One cannot give the excuse of batting at Number 5/6 to be averaging 30 against England and no centuries in England. Fact is VVS was very good against certain teams and very average against rest of them .

    He is an Indian Legend but not an ATG .

  4. #4
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by King Cobra View Post
    One cannot give the excuse of batting at Number 5/6 to be averaging 30 against England and no centuries in England. Fact is VVS was very good against certain teams and very average against rest of them .

    He is an Indian Legend but not an ATG .
    Why not? care to explain?

    If wicket is dead, he wont get much of a chance
    If wicket is testing, he would fail like others.

  5. #5
    Debut
    May 2005
    Runs
    22,090
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    Dear lord, I agree with BZ on this one. You are confusing "great" with "legend." Laxman undoubtedly is a modern day great. Some of your criteria is fluffy as you take a number six batsmen and compared it to a number 3 or 4 batsmen. Compare him to other number sixes and he stacks up quite favourably.

    Also centuries not always the mark of true "greatness." Case and see point Inzi's average in winning matches. That is what Laxman also brought, scored many vital 50s which helped India win (that too in SA and AUS).

    Anyone who thinks LAxman is truly ordinary, is truly stupid.


    No one likes me cause I am a Paul Heyman guy.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    PUNJAB
    Runs
    55,255
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Thread - FAIL


    Laxman truly ordinary? You need to start watching Cricket.

  7. #7
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Note: I never rated any indian player except Sidhu and Mahinder Singh

    My objection is about the analysis ...I careless if Laxman is great/legend or not.

  8. #8
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Runs
    889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  9. #9
    Debut
    Feb 2006
    Venue
    USA
    Runs
    26,635
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    So here is my feedback
    100 marks for hardwork
    -100 for not using brain
    Wow..... not using brain???

    I guess, since you always use your brain, why wouldn't you question other people? Here is the proof.....specially the praise by other posters;
    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=6166



    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero
    1-Minimum of 20 test centuries
    Why?????
    How you come up with number 20? why not 21 or 19? you failed to back this criteria with some number.
    Aren't you the same guy who threw all your toys out the pram when I picked list of scores from 0-9 and you wanted it to be 0-10?

    Care to explain why 10 in your case ... and not 9 or 11.... Mr. Black "I can't hide my jealousy for any good work" Zero???
    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=6238

    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=6243



    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero
    Rest of criterion are also seem made-up and meaningless unless you base your criteria and create a fair ground for comparison with different batting positions.


    All of us have seen your intellectual, meaningful & fair comparisons in "Malik Support Thread" thread.

    Here is one little example.... and the praise from the posters;
    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...&postcount=729

  10. #10
    Debut
    Oct 2007
    Venue
    Milwaukee
    Runs
    4,012
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    Wow..... not using brain???

    I guess, since you always use your brain, why wouldn't you question other people? Here is the proof.....specially the praise by other posters;
    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=6166




    Aren't you the same guy who threw all your toys out the pram when I picked list of scores from 0-9 and you wanted it to be 0-10?

    Care to explain why 10 in your case ... and not 9 or 11.... Mr. Black "I can't hide my jealousy for any good work" Zero???
    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=6238

    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...postcount=6243







    All of us have seen your intellectual, meaningful & fair comparisons in "Malik Support Thread" thread.

    Here is one little example.... and the praise from the posters;
    http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...&postcount=729
    offtopic and be careful your bias is showing

  11. #11
    Debut
    Mar 2010
    Runs
    12,585
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    as far as i'm concerned, he was truly ordinary.

  12. #12
    Debut
    Oct 2004
    Runs
    192,755
    Mentioned
    2999 Post(s)
    Tagged
    22 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Desi View Post
    offtopic and be careful your bias is showing
    Objection over-ruled!

    I would like people to apply the same criteria for criticism that they apply to other stats.

    I would suggest though that we keep this discussion limited to VVS and the analysis in OP


    For the latest updates on Cricket, follow @PakPassion on Twitter

  13. #13
    Debut
    Oct 2007
    Venue
    Milwaukee
    Runs
    4,012
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the only thing OP has succeeded in is showing how statistics fail to tell the whole story.

    statistics say sachin is better than inzi, however most of us wouldn't trade inzi for sachin because we know just how many matches inzi has single handedly won for us.

    disregarding laxman's most recent results since he should have retired by now, whenever india has needed him to stand up, he has. statistics don't really tell you that.

  14. #14
    Debut
    Nov 2008
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    7,464
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think its a very very good analysis.

    It covers almost everything you want in a batsman, and the Indians can cry about it as much as
    they want.

    We've all thought about it for years. The stats now show it. Laxman is very ordinary, and that is saying something for a player who has played more then half of his career on the tracks of India.


    I also don't agree with the excuse of batting at 5 which reduces his centuries. How many times have India actually declared at XXX-2 or XXX-3? Batsmen at no.5 almost get as much opportunity as the first few, and don't play the new ball first thing.

    Most times, they get a lot of overs to get used to pitch, and get in before the 2nd new ball.


    Batting at 5 or even 6, also gives him a lot more chance to finished Not Out which would further increase average.

    To not average 50+ in the era he has played, on the pitches, India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka for most of his career, and infinite chances for not outs, with India focussing only on scoring 500-600, so they don't have the bowlers do any work.....is poor.


    Verdict? Laxman is TRULY ORDINARY.



    P.S: OP for POTW?
    Last edited by Blitz; 12th February 2012 at 14:48.


    Batsmen of Avg 50+ Pakistan=4 India=6
    Bowlers of Avg 25- Pakistan=8
    India=1

  15. #15
    Debut
    Nov 2011
    Runs
    3,212
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Desi View Post
    the only thing OP has succeeded in is showing how statistics fail to tell the whole story.

    statistics say sachin is better than inzi, however most of us wouldn't trade inzi for sachin because we know just how many matches inzi has single handedly won for us.

    disregarding laxman's most recent results since he should have retired by now, whenever india has needed him to stand up, he has. statistics don't really tell you that.
    awwww then why did match winner Inzy always performed so poorly against Sa and Aus which were the top bowling sides during his era ?

    Atleast Laxman can boost about performing best against the best that were Aussies .

  16. #16
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Venue
    Mississauga, the best city in the world.
    Runs
    2,459
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post

    A) Your case for the criteria is very weak
    B) You failed to create fair conditions for compassion

    I will talk about B first.

    B) Laxman bats at #5 and #6 most of the time.
    you failed to compensate his numbers with respect to his batting positions!
    (Ask and i will tell you how to do that)

    you calculation of igh rate of scoring centuries is also flawed

    it's 11.47 and not 13.1
    you failed to understand his NOs (he was NO 34 times and 30 innings should not be included in calculation, he also got 6 50+ scores when he was not out 69,65,50,61,73 and 58 so potential to cross 100 but that's topic for another discussion)


    A)

    1-Minimum of 20 test centuries
    Why?????
    How you come up with number 20? why not 21 or 19? you failed to back this criteria with some number.
    Have you ever thought about his batting position and trying to determine his "number of 100s" had he batted at #3/#4 all his career?


    Rest of criterion are also seem made-up and meaningless unless you base your criteria and create a fair ground for comparison with different batting positions.
    I agree with this.

  17. #17
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Venue
    Mississauga, the best city in the world.
    Runs
    2,459
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitz View Post
    I think its a very very good analysis.

    I don't think this is CLOSE to a good analysis.


    It covers almost everything you want in a batsman, and the Indians can cry about it as much as
    they want.

    It does not cover anything you want in a batsman apart from meaningless, shallow and unreasonable stats and milestones. Any proper cricket follower would not call Laxman ordinary, Indian or not. Theres too many things to list here but the most important being Laxman batting at 5-6 most of his career unlike the others who all batted at 3 or 4. BIG difference.

    We've all thought about it for years. The stats now show it. Laxman is very ordinary, and that is saying something for a player who has played more then half of his career on the tracks of India.

    Who has thought this for years? Not me...speak for yourself. Saying he is "very ordinary" is so OTT its not even funny. I don't think he's a legend but he is certainly a very good player.
    .

  18. #18
    Debut
    Jan 2006
    Venue
    England
    Runs
    48,193
    Mentioned
    469 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Laxman is a top quality player who has performed in the tightest and most difficult of situations many a time. His case is probably the best example available of why the mathematicians, statisticians and various other individuals who are blind to context will never understand the great game of cricket.

  19. #19
    Debut
    Oct 2010
    Runs
    2,940
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So it has to be truly great or truly ordinary?it cant be very good or good or average?


    Why do we fall?

  20. #20
    Debut
    Dec 2008
    Runs
    55,657
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    he is truly great.

    one cannot break down his contributions into mere stats and numbers.

    see how he stood up and fought for India countless times, home and away.

    played one of the greatest Test knocks in the history of the game, was a key pillar of India's rise to the top in the mid Noughties.


    Proud Shehri of Misbah Ka Pakistan

  21. #21
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Venue
    India
    Runs
    8,388
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Comparison fail.

    Kallis, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Lara. All batted either at no.3 or no.4

    Laxman used to come in at no.6 mostly batting with 7,8,9 and yet averaged 45+ and has won India so many games while batting 4th.

    He is definitely one of finest no.6 players. Not many players have had success in that position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whippy View Post
    Laxman is a top quality player who has performed in the tightest and most difficult of situations many a time. His case is probably the best example available of why the mathematicians, statisticians and various other individuals who are blind to context will never understand the great game of cricket.
    Summed it up pretty well.

  22. #22
    Debut
    Dec 2008
    Runs
    55,657
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    ^ exactly, I would like to see the stats of other highly regarded number 6 batsmen.


    Proud Shehri of Misbah Ka Pakistan

  23. #23
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Laxman is now finished at the top level.

    At his prime, he was a very talented, World Class batsman. Calling him ordinary is unfair. He WAS world class.... without any doubt. Not an all time great by any means - but comparable to the best batsman of the current generation.

    However, I repeat... he is now finsished at the tope level.

  24. #24
    Debut
    Feb 2010
    Venue
    Chandigarh
    Runs
    18,882
    Mentioned
    528 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ View Post
    ^ exactly, I would like to see the stats of other highly regarded number 6 batsmen.
    http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=batting

  25. #25
    Debut
    Dec 2011
    Runs
    1,894
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    BTW, Why are Lara and Kallis missing? They fail atleast 2 criterias in the OP. Is that why?

    This tour for VVS reminds me of Brian Charles Lara. Failed VS Aus in 95 home series(that series), 97 away,2000 away (last 2 series he was quite miserable just managing couple of good scores). Had a great 99 series at home which ironically overshadows the others. Failed miserably in South Africa and (yes) against Pakistan from 1995-99 in tests.Loved playing England even in his worst form though.
    After the 153* , Lara again had a rough patch Aus tour mentioned above (Pak fans , remember a certain series around 2000? : Doctrove). Then,took a Sabbatical ,then came his career defining series in Srilanka and rest is history. Lara's awful record against Pollock,Donald, Wasim,Waqar would be quite shocking for his fans here but not me. He had a way better Odi record against them at that time.
    Dravid has well and truly matched and overtaken Lara's overall bad patch. 4 Tons have hidden his pathetic 2nd innings performances this whole year and last 5 years except 2009.
    While VVS matched that awful 2000 series in Aus for Lara - 5-0 it was.He is not an an all time great But an 'Indian' Great.

    Being a Saffer fan, Kallis being a super failure in Eng and Aus has been dissapointing .I know even his 'maiden' and only ton in Aus (like Dravid in SA, lol) seems an aberration. I trusted him in 2005 vs England but was so dissapointed and ended up being a Flintoff fan till today. Infact, Kallis is the only Saffer I dislike. That Capetown test vs India has not changed my opinion too much.

  26. #26
    Debut
    Dec 2011
    Runs
    1,894
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    vvs was an opener in the first 4 years- 1997-2000. (terrible years for openers , it can be easily confirmed ,check it).his 167* of 262 is highly regarded though.

  27. #27
    Debut
    Nov 2011
    Runs
    3,212
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So Chanderpaul , Waugh and Flower have done better than Laxman while batting at 5 and 6 .

  28. #28
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    8,271
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Statistics fail in the case of Laxman.

    I think he was more unlucky than the other greats of this age and made the scapegoat for India debacles in the past and also in the present.

    Comparing the ducks made by a player to others is certainly not a good yard stick of measuring greatness- make it 25 runs. Any good player is vulnerable early on and hardly makes any difference to the team's cause if it is 0, 2, 5 ,8 or 12.

    Laxman, shines well in his successful fourth innings average and he is more special than other Indian greats in this regard. He has the shots that many others can only dream of.

  29. #29
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Runs
    2,557
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Any special reason this thread is sticky?

  30. #30
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    1,962
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not ordinary and not a great either . I keep hearing about his extraordinary knocks mostly against the Australians. But atleast against Pakistan , am yet to see Laxmans magic that everyone goes gaga about.

    I remember Dravid 270 and a couple of other hundreds against us , Sachins 136 and 194 ( mainly due to Sehwag ) but dont remember a single great knock played by laxman against us , leave alone a breathtaking one.

    You cant be a great if you bash some side and fail against others .
    Last edited by boomboomcheema; 12th February 2012 at 18:56.

  31. #31
    Debut
    Nov 2006
    Runs
    2,447
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One knock or one team you perform against does not make you a great, Statistically a Indian great,other wise the position he was batting at 5 he should have had much higher average and run due to his ability to stay not out, compare to some one like Steve Waugh who batted in similier position for Australia, VVSL is very ordinary.

    He has consistently failed to play great innings, out side subcontinent he is non existent just another Indian media hype!

    In plain terms a FAILURE!

    For that amount of test played it is expected to score minimum of that many runs by VVSL and the pitches he played on should have made hay of opposition bowling!

    But some how his statics justify his talent which is very ORDINARY!
    Last edited by DOOSRA95; 12th February 2012 at 19:39.

  32. #32
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    Wow..... not using brain???

    Aren't you the same guy who threw all your toys out the pram when I picked list of scores from 0-9 and you wanted it to be 0-10?

    Care to explain why 10 in your case ... and not 9 or 11....
    Actually its other-way around.
    I was asking failure %age to reach double digit. (and naturally it's 0-9) and that answers why only 0-9 and not 10, 11, or 12.

    (Pay attention to details)

  33. #33
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Desi View Post
    the only thing OP has succeeded in is showing how statistics fail to tell the whole story.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whippy View Post
    His case is probably the best example available of why the mathematicians, statisticians and various other individuals who are blind to context will never understand the great game of cricket.
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianWillow View Post
    Statistics fail in the case of Laxman.
    I beg to differ.
    This is a simple case of the failure of a statistician (not a failure of Statistics)

  34. #34
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    1,962
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cricfan4eva View Post
    Comparison fail.

    Kallis, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid, Lara. All batted either at no.3 or no.4

    Laxman used to come in at no.6 mostly batting with 7,8,9 and yet averaged 45+ and has won India so many games while batting 4th.

    He is definitely one of finest no.6 players. Not many players have had success in that position.
    Yes . But his Batting average and Hundreds / Innings ratio is just as good as someone like Matt Prior . Certainly not a Legend or a great .

  35. #35
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Amir View Post
    Dear lord, I agree with BZ on this one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inziquicksingle View Post
    I agree with this.
    I want similar statements from both of you in other thread also.

  36. #36
    Debut
    Feb 2009
    Runs
    17,787
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Good but not great Batting low down is no excuse There are many players who batted at 5/6 who did much better in terms of making hundreds and avging higher

    S Waugh, M hussey, chanderpaul, flower etc etc Heck even gilly did better batting as low down as 7


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  37. #37
    Debut
    Nov 2011
    Runs
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DOOSRA95 View Post
    One knock or one team you perform against does not make you a great, Statistically a Indian great,other wise the position he was batting at 5 he should have had much higher average and run due to his ability to stay not out, compare to some one like Steve Waugh who batted in similier position for Australia, VVSL is very ordinary.

    He has consistently failed to play great innings, out side subcontinent he is non existent just another Indian media hype!

    In plain terms a FAILURE!

    For that amount of test played it is expected to score minimum of that many runs by VVSL and the pitches he played on should have made hay of opposition bowling!

    But some how his statics justify his talent which is very ORDINARY!
    So will your rule apply for all cricketers, irrespective of their nationalities? I mean almost everyone knows Inzamam's record against the Aussies and Saffers.

  38. #38
    Debut
    Jan 2006
    Venue
    England
    Runs
    48,193
    Mentioned
    469 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ View Post
    ^ exactly, I would like to see the stats of other highly regarded number 6 batsmen.
    Don't be silly, batting at six in test cricket is easy.

    Laxman 281 is indeed one of the best innings in test history. Lara's 150, Botham's Headingley and Gooch against West Indies are probably the only better ones.

  39. #39
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    9,653
    Mentioned
    2317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Laxman - Good not but Great

  40. #40
    Debut
    Feb 2010
    Venue
    Chandigarh
    Runs
    18,882
    Mentioned
    528 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Whippy View Post
    Don't be silly, batting at six in test cricket is easy.

    Laxman 281 is indeed one of the best innings in test history. Lara's 150, Botham's Headingley and Gooch against West Indies are probably the only better ones.
    Lara's 150 wasnt better IMO.yes he won it singlehandedly,but he was dropped atleast 2-3 times IIRC.Laxman's innings was in a hopeless situation against a team on 16 match winning streak.

  41. #41
    Debut
    Dec 2008
    Runs
    55,657
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Whippy View Post
    Don't be silly, batting at six in test cricket is easy.

    Laxman 281 is indeed one of the best innings in test history. Lara's 150, Botham's Headingley and Gooch against West Indies are probably the only better ones.
    by that token they should have the highest Test averages?


    Proud Shehri of Misbah Ka Pakistan

  42. #42
    Debut
    Jan 2006
    Venue
    England
    Runs
    48,193
    Mentioned
    469 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I love it when people talk like batting at any position is easy. Lolwhut

  43. #43
    Debut
    Dec 2008
    Runs
    55,657
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    yeaaaaa...see the quoted post, first line.


    Proud Shehri of Misbah Ka Pakistan

  44. #44
    Debut
    Dec 2011
    Runs
    1,894
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    Good but not great Batting low down is no excuse There are many players who batted at 5/6 who did much better in terms of making hundreds and avging higher

    S Waugh, [B]M hussey, chanderpaul, flower[/B] etc etc Heck even gilly did better batting as low down as 7
    Are you sure about that? Only Steve Waugh is right . he was consistent in one position no.5 most part of his career, not no.6. chanderpaul was a no.3,4 for a long time. Hussey actually had a stronger tail with Gilchrist ,hence bigger scores you are ignoring that?
    I agree with the first line though.

  45. #45
    Debut
    Jan 2010
    Runs
    43,503
    Mentioned
    898 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Good post.

    A test average of 45 says it all really. Good batsmen over his career but imo not a great one.


    Lions don't lose sleep over the opinions of Sheep

  46. #46
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    40,139
    Mentioned
    1981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    11 Thread(s)
    Laxman is a great not a legend.

    The last series in SA.where India tied the series with SA.Laxman scored 90 0dd to win the test.then there is the Adelaide test of 2003.Then the mohali test.If i am not mistaken he didnt do bad in 2007 in england either.But at age 37 he has become slower hence failed in the last 2 series in Eng and Aus.

    I wont even talk about the legendary 281.

    Anyone saying he is ordinary has pretty ordinary cricketing knowledge.

  47. #47
    Debut
    Feb 2006
    Venue
    USA
    Runs
    26,635
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    Actually its other-way around.
    I was asking failure %age to reach double digit. (and naturally it's 0-9) and that answers why only 0-9 and not 10, 11, or 12.

    (Pay attention to details)
    .....HENCE my question to you....same one you asked OP...

    Why 10..... why not 09 or why not 11 or 12.... ?
    If you are throwing toy out of the pram for double digits, the 11-99 are also double digits. .... and I think, all posters will agree that a double-digit-50 or double-digit-99 is much bigger and better than 10. How many of those your hero has? Better yet, how triple-digit scores your hero has as compare to YK?
    Last edited by W63L35; 12th February 2012 at 23:53.

  48. #48
    Debut
    Nov 2006
    Runs
    2,447
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    So will your rule apply for all cricketers, irrespective of their nationalities? I mean almost everyone knows Inzamam's record against the Aussies and Saffers.

    I'm not a blind Inzi supporter,Even though he had short coming but not as much as this over the top and only against one country Australia, no need to create a cricket myth of VVSL.

    For you'r information inzi scored runs England , South Africa, Newzeland, Westindies out side Asia.

    VVSL is a Indian Myth after 134 test he is like KAPIL the cry baby!

  49. #49
    Debut
    Jul 2011
    Runs
    17,945
    Mentioned
    825 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    laxman is one of the most delightful batsmen to watch when in touch. his 281 is the best innings i have witnessed apart from sehwag's galle epic. to watch his "ordinariness" as you call it watch his 96 at durban. an ordinary guy wouldnt score 96 on that pitch where even greats like dravid, sachin failed not to mention pretty much the whole saf team.

    while stats do state how a player has performed over his career, they are not the only parameter. you gotta watch the bloody game and make up your mind. tbh, lax has saved india's *** many times away and home. for that alone, he deserves to be called a great. he should have retired after saf series. shame to see him fail like this. in his prime, he would have eaten the aussie bowlers alive.


    2 possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are terrifying.

  50. #50
    Debut
    Oct 2010
    Venue
    London
    Runs
    4,155
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very good analysis.

    Though I would say he is neither.

    He is a top player, class act but not great. The stats don't tell the whole story though they do show he isn't great. For instance if he comes in against Pak, we know he's a prize scalp and will be estatic if he's gone early, not if he was an ordinary player.

  51. #51
    Debut
    Feb 2009
    Runs
    17,787
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    ^against pak laxman is nowhere near a prize scalp In tests itd probably be sehwag, dravid, teenda then probably laxman

    Hes never done well against us and weve never feared him


    If pakistan cricket is to move forward they need to stop going back

  52. #52
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    PUNJAB
    Runs
    55,255
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaz View Post
    ^against pak laxman is nowhere near a prize scalp In tests itd probably be sehwag, dravid, teenda then probably laxman

    Hes never done well against us and weve never feared him




  53. #53
    Debut
    Mar 2004
    Venue
    Manchester, UK
    Runs
    109,497
    Mentioned
    692 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Laxman is an Indian great but overall just a good player whose played some historical knocks. Against high quality fast bowlers who can swing ball both ways hes always been found wanting!

  54. #54
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    40,139
    Mentioned
    1981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    11 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DOOSRA95 View Post
    I'm not a blind Inzi supporter,Even though he had short coming but not as much as this over the top and only against one country Australia, no need to create a cricket myth of VVSL.

    For you'r information inzi scored runs England , South Africa, Newzeland, Westindies out side Asia.

    VVSL is a Indian Myth after 134 test he is like KAPIL the cry baby!
    South Africa.29 isnt a great avg tbh.

  55. #55
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    40,139
    Mentioned
    1981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    11 Thread(s)
    VVS's away avg isnt that bad as people here are calling it

    Have a look

    Australia: 44.Before last series the avg was 54

    SA: 40

    NZ: 40

    WI: 48

    SL: 48

    ENG: 35 before last series the avg was 45

    Its not as bad as people say they are.His avg in SA and AUS is better than most SC batsmen.

  56. #56
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    40,139
    Mentioned
    1981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    11 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Amjid Javed View Post
    Laxman is an Indian great but overall just a good player whose played some historical knocks. Against high quality fast bowlers who can swing ball both ways hes always been found wanting!
    Thanx for telling me that Mcgrath Lee Gillespie Kasper arent high class bowlers.Neither were Morkel or Steyn.

  57. #57
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    14,429
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cricketjoshila View Post
    VVS's away avg isnt that bad as people here are calling it

    Have a look

    Australia: 44.Before last series the avg was 54

    SA: 40

    NZ: 40

    WI: 48

    SL: 48

    ENG: 35 before last series the avg was 45

    Its not as bad as people say they are.His avg in SA and AUS is better than most SC batsmen.
    yeah recent tours have really dented his reputation. Little unfortunate.

    Personally I do consider him a great.

    As you said people talk about struggling against high quality bowling, but he succeeded against the top Australian attack in their backyard.

  58. #58
    Debut
    Oct 2010
    Runs
    8,654
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Who has ever argued that laxman is an all time great of the game?

    But he wasn't a bad player, played some good innings and one legendary innings. I found him quite pleasing to watch when in form for his fluidity and grace whilst batting, something stats cannot highlight.

    Is he truly great, no, is he truly ordinary, definately not, does the statistical analysis highlight much that a regular cricket fan with some knowledge of the game would be surprised by, nope.

    How did this topic become a sticky???

  59. #59
    Debut
    Mar 2011
    Runs
    40,139
    Mentioned
    1981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    11 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ads101 View Post
    yeah recent tours have really dented his reputation. Little unfortunate.

    Personally I do consider him a great.

    As you said people talk about struggling against high quality bowling, but he succeeded against the top Australian attack in their backyard.
    His avg of 41 in SA is bettter than most SC batsmen and people ten to forget that SA always 1 or 2 very high class bowlers.

  60. #60
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    14,429
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cricketjoshila View Post
    His avg of 41 in SA is bettter than most SC batsmen and people ten to forget that SA always 1 or 2 very high class bowlers.
    Yeah.

    In my opinion he Dravid and Tendulkar. And he's worse than non indian players like Ponting, Lara, Kallis. But still a great.

  61. #61
    Debut
    Nov 2005
    Runs
    4,839
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    His stats are poor, the lad just didn't go on. Id say above ordinary because of his class of play but would stop there.

  62. #62
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    .....HENCE my question to you....same one you asked OP...

    Why 10..... why not 09 or why not 11 or 12.... ?
    If you are throwing toy out of the pram for double digits, the 11-99 are also double digits. .... and I think, all posters will agree that a double-digit-50 or double-digit-99 is much bigger and better than 10. How many of those your hero has? Better yet, how triple-digit scores your hero has as compare to YK?
    third time, it's 0-9. and not 10. (as 10, 11, 12 .... > n are not single digit numbers)

  63. #63
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    I didn't want first feedback to be negative. but left with no option as I waited few days for someone to write something...

    So here is my feedback
    100 marks for hardwork
    -100 for not using brain

    so in total you got zero

    and there are two reasons:

    A) Your case for the criteria is very weak
    B) You failed to create fair conditions for compassion

    I will talk about B first.

    B) Laxman bats at #5 and #6 most of the time.
    you failed to compensate his numbers with respect to his batting positions!
    (Ask and i will tell you how to do that)

    you calculation of igh rate of scoring centuries is also flawed

    it's 11.47 and not 13.1
    you failed to understand his NOs (he was NO 34 times and 30 innings should not be included in calculation, he also got 6 50+ scores when he was not out 69,65,50,61,73 and 58 so potential to cross 100 but that's topic for another discussion)


    A)

    1-Minimum of 20 test centuries
    Why?????
    How you come up with number 20? why not 21 or 19? you failed to back this criteria with some number.
    Have you ever thought about his batting position and trying to determine his "number of 100s" had he batted at #3/#4 all his career?


    Rest of criterion are also seem made-up and meaningless unless you base your criteria and create a fair ground for comparison with different batting positions.

    Hey BlackZero...with all due respect what would your criteria be then for a "GREAT" batsman?
    1- Avg of >40?
    2- Min of 10 Test Centuries since u are not happy with 20?
    3- Away Avg of > 30?

    In that way every other batsman can enter the "great" category right?

    Shouldn't the GREAT league be difficult to enter and not for everyone? And hence the criteria to enter it is very difficult.

    This is analogous to for e.g. entering Harvard Law School. Not everyone can enter that program unless you are truly genius (or son/daughter of some american politican )
    but jokes aside. Laxman has been a GREAT "INDIAN" batsman but he is levels below the class of Dravid or Sachin or Ponting.

    Your objection of comparing him to players who have played at positions 3 & 4 in Test cricket is NOT valid my friend.

    Laxman has played 47 matches at positions 1-4. Now, if he was truly a "GREAT" he would have excelled at those positions many times during those 47 Matches right?
    He was given the opportunity to excel at 1-4....Laxman could have scored more than 6 centuries in those 47 matches that he played at pos 1-4.
    but did he? NO he didn't. whats worse is he could only manage 16 half-centuries when he batted 47 times at pos 1-4.

    so my point is Laxman was certainly given a lot of chances at pos 1-4 but being "ordinary" he couldn't make them count and didn't score big.

    That my friend is the difference between a Good batsman and a Great batsman....when given the opportunity, they make the best of it and Laxman failed to do so in 47 games (6 100s and 16 50s)

  64. #64
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    I didn't want first feedback to be negative. but left with no option as I waited few days for someone to write something...

    So here is my feedback
    100 marks for hardwork
    -100 for not using brain

    so in total you got zero

    and there are two reasons:

    A) Your case for the criteria is very weak
    B) You failed to create fair conditions for compassion

    I will talk about B first.

    B) Laxman bats at #5 and #6 most of the time.
    you failed to compensate his numbers with respect to his batting positions!
    (Ask and i will tell you how to do that)

    you calculation of igh rate of scoring centuries is also flawed

    it's 11.47 and not 13.1
    you failed to understand his NOs (he was NO 34 times and 30 innings should not be included in calculation, he also got 6 50+ scores when he was not out 69,65,50,61,73 and 58 so potential to cross 100 but that's topic for another discussion)


    A)

    1-Minimum of 20 test centuries
    Why?????
    How you come up with number 20? why not 21 or 19? you failed to back this criteria with some number.
    Have you ever thought about his batting position and trying to determine his "number of 100s" had he batted at #3/#4 all his career?


    Rest of criterion are also seem made-up and meaningless unless you base your criteria and create a fair ground for comparison with different batting positions.
    Secondly, batting at no.5 or 6 should NOT be an excuse to not score big.

    Steve Waugh batted at no.5 - scored a century against ALL test playing nations ...32 Test Centuries at 5,6 and 7 positions.
    an Away avg of 55 !!
    I mean here I am giving u a prime example of a GREAT batsman who has proved himself and scored big against every1 while batting at no. 5 6 and 7.
    (btw, Waugh avged lowest vs Pak 34)

    Gilchrist is another example - he avged 50+ in away games even though he mostly batted at no.7


    Laxman might have been GOOD but certainly NOT a GREAT.

  65. #65
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketingMinds View Post
    Hey BlackZero...with all due respect what would your criteria be then for a "GREAT" batsman?
    1- Avg of >40?
    2- Min of 10 Test Centuries since u are not happy with 20?
    3- Away Avg of > 30?

    In that way every other batsman can enter the "great" category right?

    Shouldn't the GREAT league be difficult to enter and not for everyone? And hence the criteria to enter it is very difficult.

    This is analogous to for e.g. entering Harvard Law School. Not everyone can enter that program unless you are truly genius (or son/daughter of some american politican )
    but jokes aside. Laxman has been a GREAT "INDIAN" batsman but he is levels below the class of Dravid or Sachin or Ponting.

    Your objection of comparing him to players who have played at positions 3 & 4 in Test cricket is NOT valid my friend.

    Laxman has played 47 matches at positions 1-4. Now, if he was truly a "GREAT" he would have excelled at those positions many times during those 47 Matches right?
    He was given the opportunity to excel at 1-4....Laxman could have scored more than 6 centuries in those 47 matches that he played at pos 1-4.
    but did he? NO he didn't. whats worse is he could only manage 16 half-centuries when he batted 47 times at pos 1-4.

    so my point is Laxman was certainly given a lot of chances at pos 1-4 but being "ordinary" he couldn't make them count and didn't score big.

    That my friend is the difference between a Good batsman and a Great batsman....when given the opportunity, they make the best of it and Laxman failed to do so in 47 games (6 100s and 16 50s)
    as i said, i careless if he is great or not.

    What %age of his career he played at #3/4?
    (and as again piling up openers with #3/4 shows your lack of appreciation for batting positions)

    comparing #6/5 player with #3/4 without creating a fair conditions, is no comparison at all and hence devalued all your effort.

    lastly, even your calculation was flawed (as i provided by one example)

    (i could have fixed both flaws and re-presented your analysis, but not motivated enough)

  66. #66
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post

    you calculation of igh rate of scoring centuries is also flawed

    it's 11.47 and not 13.1
    you failed to understand his NOs (he was NO 34 times and 30 innings should not be included in calculation, he also got 6 50+ scores when he was not out 69,65,50,61,73 and 58 so potential to cross 100 but that's topic for another discussion)


    Laxman has played 225 innings, and has 34 Not outs so thats a total of 225+34 = 259 times he has batted. and scored 17 centuries
    i.e. 259/17 = 15.23 Innings per 100.
    When i did not include his not outs I saved him some embarrassment because this number then becomes 13.25

    and saying that "MAYBE" those not outs would have gone on to be big 100's is ridiculous. there should be no excuse ... and no space for ifs and buts in the game of cricket.

    are you one of those who always say "IF SACHIN HAD SCORED A 100 in 2003 WC Final, INDIA WOULD HAVE WON" ???

  67. #67
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketingMinds View Post
    Secondly, batting at no.5 or 6 should NOT be an excuse to not score big.

    Steve Waugh batted at no.5 - scored a century against ALL test playing nations ...32 Test Centuries at 5,6 and 7 positions.
    an Away avg of 55 !!
    I mean here I am giving u a prime example of a GREAT batsman who has proved himself and scored big against every1 while batting at no. 5 6 and 7.
    (btw, Waugh avged lowest vs Pak 34)

    Gilchrist is another example - he avged 50+ in away games even though he mostly batted at no.7


    Laxman might have been GOOD but certainly NOT a GREAT.
    here is my question:
    Q:How many 100s SW would have had made had he batted at #3/4 instead?

  68. #68
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitz View Post


    Batting at 5 or even 6, also gives him a lot more chance to finished Not Out which would further increase average.

    To not average 50+ in the era he has played, on the pitches, India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka for most of his career, and infinite chances for not outs, with India focussing only on scoring 500-600, so they don't have the bowlers do any work.....is poor.


    Verdict? Laxman is TRULY ORDINARY.



    P.S: OP for POTW?

    I couldn't agree more with you here. batting at no. 5 and 6 means u have more chances of remaining not out. and hence increase ur avg and yet Laxman couldn't avg above 50.
    Still a great? Lol

  69. #69
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    here is my question:
    Q:How many 100s SW would have had made had he batted at #3/4 instead?
    I don't know the exact number but SURELY Waugh would have scored more 100s than Laxman

  70. #70
    Debut
    Feb 2006
    Venue
    USA
    Runs
    26,635
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero
    How you come up with number 20? why not 21 or 19? you failed to back this criteria with some number.
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    third time, it's 0-9. and not 10. (as 10, 11, 12 .... > n are not single digit numbers)
    For 5th time.... 11, 12, 13, 14, ...........97, 98, 99 are also a double-digit number ... How did you come up with 10? Why not 11, 12, 13, 14, ...........97, 98, 99???

    made-up and meaningless ? Or brainless?
    Last edited by W63L35; 13th February 2012 at 04:13.

  71. #71
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketingMinds View Post
    I couldn't agree more with you here. batting at no. 5 and 6 means u have more chances of remaining not out. and hence increase ur avg and yet Laxman couldn't avg above 50.
    Still a great? Lol
    and less chance to score 100s? agree?

    and hence two of your criterion just go "phooo"

    and if you don't agree (after accepting yourself that more chances for him to remain NO at #6 as compared to #3/4) then you are not very honest in your thinking :WL

  72. #72
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    What %age of his career he played at #3/4?
    (and as again piling up openers with #3/4 shows your lack of appreciation for batting positions)
    As i mentioned in my post,, Laxman has batted at positions 1-4 in 47 tests - scored only 6 centuries. POOR

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    comparing #6/5 player with #3/4 without creating a fair conditions, is no comparison at all and hence devalued all your effort.
    Just for your sake i compared him to another batsman (Steve Waugh) who has batted at no.5 and 6. and done A LOT better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    lastly, even your calculation was flawed (as i provided by one example)
    I just re-did the calculation and it made Laxman look worse.


    How about you do your analysis for VVS and prove to me that he is a great batsman with your own criteria ? Fair enough?

  73. #73
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Runs
    708
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    For 5th time.... 11, 12, 13, 14, ...........97, 98, 99 are also a double-digit number ... How did you come up with 10? Why not 11, 12, 13, 14, ...........97, 98, 99???

    made-up and meaningless ? Or brainless?
    Agreed. Especially because you can't argue with numbers. NUMBERS DONT LIE sir!


    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    and less chance to score 100s? agree?
    No. Why less chance? If laxman could only bat at a better strike rate, had more guts and bravery to play shots like Sehwag i am sure he would have scored more 100s at 5 and 6....Again: Waugh and Chanderpaul have scored more 100s at those positions



    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    and if you don't agree (after accepting yourself that more chances for him to remain NO at #6 as compared to #3/4) then you are not very honest in your thinking :WL
    Read my sentence again:
    IF LAXMAN HAS BATTED MOSTLY AT 5 OR 6, i.e. HE HAS MORE CHANCE OF STAYING NOT OUT AND HENCE ACHIEVE A HIGH AVG.
    But laxman fails to achieve an avg of 50. hence FAIL
    Last edited by CricketingMinds; 13th February 2012 at 04:21.

  74. #74
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketingMinds View Post
    As i mentioned in my post,, Laxman has batted at positions 1-4 in 47 tests - scored only 6 centuries. POOR



    Just for your sake i compared him to another batsman (Steve Waugh) who has batted at no.5 and 6. and done A LOT better.



    I just re-did the calculation and it made Laxman look worse.


    How about you do your analysis for VVS and prove to me that he is a great batsman with your own criteria ? Fair enough?
    - that's a very small sub-set of his career, he played mainly at #5/6
    - out of total possible 268 innings, he didn't bat 15 times(I guess) so thats 253 not 258 ...and so many 50+ NOs at #5/6 surely increased his average but reduced his chance to cross 99
    (If you want to compare with Steve, thats fine at both played at similar positions, but if you insist upon comparing with #3/4 batsmen, you need to tackle the issue first (mentioned in post 2)

    - As i said above, I could have done the re-analysis but I am not motivated enough for Laxman. (I do not rate any Indian player, my personal opinion)

  75. #75
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    For 5th time.... 11, 12, 13, 14, ...........97, 98, 99 are also a double-digit number ... How did you come up with 10? Why not 11, 12, 13, 14, ...........97, 98, 99???

    made-up and meaningless ? Or brainless?
    4th time, it's 0-9 and NOT 10

    10 is also a double-digit number, actually any natural number greater than 9 is double digit. That's why it was (0-9)

    Q:How I came to know?
    A: It's mathematics reality that any natural number greater than 9 is double-digit number.

  76. #76
    Debut
    Feb 2006
    Venue
    USA
    Runs
    26,635
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketingMinds View Post
    As i mentioned in my post,, Laxman has batted at positions 1-4 in 47 tests - scored only 6 centuries. POOR
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    - that's a very small sub-set of his career, he played mainly at #5/6
    OMG OMG ......


    Aren't you the same guys who ranks Malik better opening batsman than Hanif Mohammad based on SEVEN test matches Malik opened in?
    Last edited by W63L35; 13th February 2012 at 04:29.

  77. #77
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketingMinds View Post

    No. Why less chance? If laxman could only bat at a better strike rate, had more guts and bravery to play shots like Sehwag i am sure he would have scored more 100s at 5 and 6....Again: Waugh and Chanderpaul have scored more 100s at those positions


    S/R is this also in the long list of your (seemingly out of thin air)criterion?

    Did not you agree that playing at #6 increases the chances to remain NotOut?

    Yes/No? (You agreed in your previous post, but i wont surprise if you take a U-Turn)

    if Yes

    How?

    any explanation will tell you that
    "IF playing at #6 increases your chances to remain NOs than it decreases your chances to cross 100)

  78. #78
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    OMG OMG ......


    Aren't you the same guys who ranks Malik better opening batsman than Hanif Mohammad based on SEVEN test matches Malik opened in?
    Laxman played 48 innings at #3/4 ...less than 25%
    and made 5 100 and 12 50s
    got avg of 50 at playing #4

  79. #79
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Runs
    13,922
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W63L35 View Post
    OMG OMG ......


    Aren't you the same guys who ranks Malik better opening batsman than Hanif Mohammad based on SEVEN test matches Malik opened in?
    in my analysis, i compared openers vs openers. (and data set was about opening position only, where OP trying to lump- up all positions, mainly #5/6 and comparing with players who mainly played at #3/4)

    and I have also shown analysis when comparing players playing at different positions.

  80. #80
    Debut
    Feb 2006
    Venue
    USA
    Runs
    26,635
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Zero View Post
    in my analysis, i compared openers vs openers. (and data set was about opening position only, where OP trying to lump- up all positions, mainly #5/6 and comparing with players who mainly played at #3/4)

    and I have also shown analysis when comparing players playing at different positions.
    Dancing around the point ....yet again!

    I was talking about the SAMPLE SIZE....... 47 tests is not large sample .... but 7 tests is large enough for Malik to better than legendary Hanif!

    Lagay raho moon bhai!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •