How good is Laxman?

[Underzaker]

I've heard he is a huge scorer but his average is only 43 !!!.

[DomainK]

Originally Posted by Underzaker

How good is Laxman?

Didnt expect to hear this question from an Australia fan.

[NTC187]

Hahahahahaha yeah, Laxman has torn the Australian bowling attack apart over the years.

43.54 isnt a bad average, only 72 games and with 4441 runs, I'm sure alot of batsmen out there would like to have an average like that.

The game he got 281 was against Australia and was the greatest test match I've ever seen, that was the greatest test series I've ever seen too, well that and when India came over here in 2003 and it was a drawn series. Dravid & Laxman fired in both those series.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by NTC187

43.54 isnt a bad average

43 is an excellent average.. but in Laxman's case it's a flattering average: he's a player who is a delight to watch on a very true pitch as he has exquisite touch... but he's a quite appaling player the moment the going gets tough.

Steve Waugh's comment on the famous Laxman innings was that there was nothing special about the score he made... as the pitch was made for batting and the bowlers stood no chance whatsoever.... but that his strike rate against the best team in the world was phenomenal (not least because it was a cultured and sophisticated innings rather than a Shahid-Afridi or Flintoff style slog).

So.. if you want a player to score at 4-5 an over ona pitch that offers no turn, where there is no seam movement worth mentioning, and where the bowlers can't get the ball to swing... Laxman's your man... but the moment you actually NEED Laxman (when wickets are tumbling and you are staring defeat in the face) you would be much, MUCH better advised to go with Chanderpaul, Dravid, Kallis, Langer and (historically) the likes of Kirsten, Atherton, Richardson or even Nasser Hussain.

[DomainK]

You seem to suggest that Laxman can bat on pitches that are dead and offer no turn. Let me remind you then that in the same match Harbhajan Singh was India's main weapon and the Australians looked clueless against him. In that match we saw India following on and then winning the match- the Indian and the Australian, both batting line ups failed once each. Considering how strong both the batting line ups were, the pitch simply couldnt have been flat.]

as the pitch was made for batting and the bowlers stood no chance whatsoever

-Australian bowlers ran through the Indian batting line up in the first innings forcing them to follow on and then the Indian bowlers ran through the Asutralian batting line up in the second innings winning the match. So how come bowlers stood no chance on that pitch???

I do rate him as a better batsman than what you suggest. I think he is a fine player of both spin and pace. But I would like him to be more consistent.

[rineet]

Laxman is a very good player of spin and pace bowling. He can handle the pace of Shoaib and Lee without much difficulty. If you analyse, of late, all his test hundreds have been match-winning ones. Even his century against pakistan in the Lahore ODI of 2004 was a match-winning one. If Waugh suggested that his 281 was made in a pitch that was made for batting, then why did all other batsmen fail(including Waugh). That means the other batsmen are nothing but useless. Laxman is one of India's greatest test batsmen but not suited for ODIs.

[Rachael]

In the first innings Slater batted fora couple of hours, Hayden batted for 4 hours, Langer batted for a couple of hours, Mark Waugh got a start, Steve Waugh batted for 5 hours and even Gillespie batted for 3 hours. Harbhajan got 7 wickets but not before Australia posted a HUGE total.

In the scond innings Dravid and Laxman then batted for a couple of hours each.... and Ganguly and Das both got solid starts. In he thrid innings Das again did fine (2 hours) Ramesh and Ganguly both managed a couple of hours at he crease and Dravid batted for 7+ hours (3 hours less than Laxman).

In the final innings Hayden looked set to carry his bat for the first 3 hours. Slater kept him company for an hour and a half and all three of Steve Waugh, Gillespie and Kasprowicz batted for around the hour mark.

With the exception of McGrath the seamers struggled throughout the entire match: Prasad went wicketless. Khan took 2 for 119. Kasprowicz' 2 wickets cost 178 runs. Gillespie's 4 wickets cost 162 runs.

Crucially, Warne could get NOTHING from the pitch: 2 / 65 off 20 and then 1 / 152 off 34 reflect a man finding insufficent pace and bounce on a low, slow pitch.

The real tale of this match lies in the contrast between the efforts of David and Laxman. Dravid batted well.... but against McGrath he managed 1.88 / over as against Laxman's 3.31... and against Gillespie he managed 2.05 to Laxman's 4.32. Both carted Warne (Laxman took 101 off 70 balls, Dravid took 51 off 31 balls) and both carted Kasprowicz (3.7 / over to Laxman and 33.39 to Dravid).

That's Laxman's strengh: he's got the touch to find the gaps off even very good deliveries... but the downside of his game (and lack of footwork) is hopelessness when he has to graft - give him a situation in which the ball is difficult to time and needs to be left whenever possible and he's NOT happy.

Kirsten was a far, far greater cricketer: aesthetically he was not in the same class.. but he didn't have to be timing the ball beautifully to contribute....

Don't get me wrong: when he's batting well Laxman is up there with Lara and Inzi as one of the great sights in cricket... but the difference is that the other two carry their sides even when out of form and struggling.

[DomainK]

That I think is one of the most baseless statement i have ever heard. Just a few points:

1. I dont remember Steve Waugh make that kind of a statement at that time. What I remember however is Steve Waugh praising Laxman in a big way for the effort. There never is a score above 200 which could be an 'easy score'.

2. The pitch was not one on which 'bowlers stood no chance whatsoever' like you quoted.

3. laxman has been playing long enough and has scored against the best bowlers enough to prove that he is a good batsman who can play both spin and pace well in all types of conditions. The fact that he played warne so well when so many Australian batsmen fell tp spin bowling proves it.

What you said was your personal opinion of Laxman, I dont agree with that and I think he is a very fine batsman who can play spin and

[NTC187]

Originally Posted by DomainK

That I think is one of the most baseless statement i have ever heard. Just a few points:

1. I dont remember Steve Waugh make that kind of a statement at that time. What I remember however is Steve Waugh praising Laxman in a big way for the effort. There never is a score above 200 which could be an 'easy score'.

2. The pitch was not one on which 'bowlers stood no chance whatsoever' like you quoted.

3. laxman has been playing long enough and has scored against the best bowlers enough to prove that he is a good batsman who can play both spin and pace well in all types of conditions. The fact that he played warne so well when so many Australian batsmen fell tp spin bowling proves it.

What you said was your personal opinion of Laxman, I dont agree with that and I think he is a very fine batsman who can play spin and

Well said. People dont give Laxman enough credit, he has proven alot and with consistant big scores against the best team in the world, there should be no doubting him.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by DomainK

The fact that he played warne so well when so many Australian batsmen fell tp spin bowling proves it.

Nope. Warne like pitches with bounce and pace. He has ALWAYS struggled with sub-continental wickets that are low and slow. These days he can bowl faster and flatter to minimise the damage but it's not his natural game: he prefers his slow, high deliveries... but they just die and give the batsman no real challenge when the pitch is dead.

I should perhaps point out that I'm much taken with Laxman: along with Gower and Mark Waugh he strikes me as one of the most eminently watchable players of his generation. I'm not suggesting he is poor. I'm merely echoing a point made very forcefully in an in depth cricinfo article some time back - that he ain't the guy to pick if you want someone to bat for your life.

The cricinfo article accepted that the guy can play pace... and spin... but questioned his ability to cope with the toughest challenge of all: NOT playing pace and spin. It questioned his ability to play in tough situations when the judicious course of action is to leave everything that could possibly be left.

That's a pretty major weakness considering it's the basis of the sport!