Thursday, 2 February 2012

VVS Laxman - Truly Great or Truly Average?


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 India’s all-time greats, and part of the “big three”.  

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 Laxman’s statistics shows that he is below the mark in 5 of the first 6 criteria listed above. Let’s 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 – 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:


Batsman
# Innings/Century
Tendulkar
6.05
Ponting
6.85
Kallis
6.2
Dravid
7.8
Avg for top 66 centurions
8.2

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 – 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 “makes big scores” and punishes the opposition when he’s on song, when he’s only scored 17 centuries in 134 test matches? It’s 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. It’s 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, he’s known to make quiet exits on a frequent basis.

On average, Laxman registers a duck every 15.9 innings.

Batsman
# Innings/Duck
Tendulkar
22.07
Ponting
17.1
Kallis
19.5
Dravid
35.5
Avg for top 66 centurions
20.1
Laxman
15.9

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 doesn’t average more than 50 in any country except at Home and he averages only 39 in Bangladesh. This shows he hasn’t 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 Laxman’s era, such as Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Jacque Kallis, Rahul Dravid, all have had not just good series, but great years when they’ve 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 Dravid’s class. In 2003 Dravid averaged over a 100 including a match winning 233 and 72* vs Australia at Adelaide. 

Using numbers to prove Tendulkar’s 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 Laxman’s lack of consistency, in 2007 and 2009 Laxman couldn’t 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 wasn’t 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:

Indian Batsmen %'s in Last 6 Series
Laxman
Dravid
Sachin
12.24
16.09
14.22

In India’s last 6 series, Dravid has been their main man – scoring 16.09 % of the team runs. Whereas Laxman’s contribution is worth just 12.24% which is lower than both Sachin & Dravid’s 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.

% of Team Total 
Laxman
Dravid
Sachin
>30%
4
6
3
20-30%
3
5
6
10-20%
6
9
5
<10%
20
15
14

In India’s 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 India’s big 3, to be shown the exit door.

(d) 4th innings analysis

Indian players in 4th innings

Laxman
Sachin
Dravid
Ganguly
Sehwag
Overall
40.76
38.75
40.78
37.56
30.28
Wins
100.5
72.55
56.77
70.75
40.44
Wins + draws
83.87
53.1
67.68
85.83
38
Losses
21.61
23.4
21.22
20.52
16.55

Laxman can be considered India’s most dependable when it comes to 4th innings despite his recent slump. He averages more than Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly and is par with Dravid’s 4th innings efforts. What is notable is Laxman’s performance in the 4th innings when India has won – 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 team’s total OR
(iii) In 1st or 2nd innings: Laxman has scored a 50 which is more than 40% of the team’s 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 team’s 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 team’s 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 Laxman’s failure to grab the chance of being named amongst legendary batsmen like Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis and Dravid.

Criteria
Judgement
Min. 20 Test Centuries
Fail
Test Century vs All Test Playing Nations
Fail
High Rate of Scoring 100s
Fail
Low Rate of Scoring 0s
Fail
Away Average > 40
Pass
Overall Average > 50
Fail
Consistency
Poor


Follow us on Twitter: @CricketingMinds
CricketingMinds: www.cricketingbrains.blogspot.com - Proudly associated with accredited cricket media website PakPassion at: www.pakpassion.net

34 comments:

Good analysis!
However is there any particular reason why VVS was targeted?!

Thanks for appreciating the analysis.

During the Aus v Ind Tests everytime Laxman came out to bat the Australian and Indian commentators would speak extremely high of VVS Laxman, compare him with the likes of Sachin & Ponting. We honestly felt such a comparison is doing Laxman a huge favor because he certainly does NOT belong in the same bracket.

So we decided to see on what basis do the cricket experts really call Laxman a 'Great' player.

The numbers are in front of you and you can decide !

good one...lage raho!!

Good analysis on VVS! Though my only criticism would be you compared him to top order batsmen (Kallis, Ponting, Dravid & Tendulkar all batted in the top 4), while Laxman's been at #5 or 6 most of his career. He's come to the crease a lot of times either after the others have made a huge score (so close to a declaration) or when the top order has failed and he has to bat with Dhoni and the tail, which often doesn't leave him time to build a big innings. If you can compare his numbers to other #5 or #6 players of his time (like Collingwood or Clarke) it might be a fairer comparison

Personally, I think he should retire/be dropped to make way for a younger player, even if he still has it in him to score runs.

I don't think he was "targeted". There has been a lot of attention on his performance lately and there is a lot of discussion as to whether he truly belongs as one of the batting greats of today's time. The answer as we can see from this article is a big NO.

Steve Waugh played mostly at number 5. Compare his record to VVS. What do you have to say?
Plus its not like VVS didn't ever play in the top 4 positions. he has batted 79 times (47 matches) in the top 4 and yet he doesn't have any great stats to show there.
Had he performed well in the top 4 positions he'd have had a much much better record. But isn't this where you draw the line to differentiate a GREAT batsman from a GOOD batsman?

GREAT point, Steve Waugh excelled at #5. Its a complete myth that Laxman 'always scores runs when the team is under pressure', well if that was the case Laxman would have 348 test centuries by now, because India have been under pressure a LOT, and he has failed most times. 17 tons in 134 matches for a top 6 batsman is nothing more than very very average, much like his technique.

In fact other players who have batted at number 5 - e.g. Inzamam ul haq - are more dependable and have played better than Laxman on more occasions. Not saying Laxman has not played good innings but there are only 17 (as mentioned above in our article)

Wow. Quite a big emphasis placed on centuries here. I guess Tendulkar is the greatest batsman ever then??

"
During the Aus v Ind Tests everytime Laxman came out to bat the Australian and Indian commentators would speak extremely high of VVS Laxman, compare him with the likes of Sachin & Ponting. We honestly felt such a comparison is doing Laxman a huge favor because he certainly does NOT belong in the same bracket."

Don't blame the Aussies for saying that.

Laxman, Tendulkar and Ponting have more or less the same record in all the India-Australia test matches they have featured in together. Commentators have watched all three playing against each other since the late 90s.

Laxman: 51 innings, 2396 runs @ 52.08, 6x100, 12x50
Tendulkar: 58, 3070 @ 59.03, 9x100, 15x50
Ponting: 51, 2555 @ 54.36, 8x100, 12x50

Laxman isn't in the same category as a Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, etc. but he has had a great career and made a living out of scoring against the greatest team ever (the Aussies of the 00s).

The aussie bowling attack that Laxman smashed the most was our 3rd string attack. He certainly did not make a living scoring tons against McGrath & Warne, i count 2 tons. Thats it.

Yes, he did. His best series aggregates, test match aggregates and memorable performances (including the greatest innings in the history of the game) are against those 2. And his record against a McGrath-Warne-led Aussie bowling attack is comparable to the best.

Highest bating averages by all batsmen in matches involving McGrath and Warne:

1. Pietersen - 963 @ 53
2. Tendulkar - 1279 @ 53
3. Lara - 2449 @ 49
4. Thorpe - 1245 @ 46
5. Laxman - 963 @ 44

He ranks fifth overall here. I would say he played the McGrath-Warne bowling attack far better than most batsmen.

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

Chris Gayle: 1-fail, 2-fail, 3-fail (century every 12.23 innings), 4-fail (duck every 10.6 innings), 5-pass, 6-fail, 7-poor.

Your criteria reveal Chis Gayle to be just an average player. Whereas I would say he has managed something only three others in the history of the game have achieved--2 Test triple hundreds (along with Sehwag, Lara and Bradman). You don't get to be in that company unless you're great.

Shiv Chanderpaul: 1-pass, 2-fail, 3-fail (century every 9.75 innings), 4-fail (duck every 18 innings), 5-pass, 6-fail, 7-poor (1000 runs in calendar year only once in 18-year career).

Your criteria show Chanderpaul to be a very average batsman.

Inzamam-ul-Haq: 1-pass, 2-fail, 3-pass, 4-fail (duck every 13.3 innings), 5-pass, 6-fail, 7-poor (1000 runs in calendar year only twice in 16-year career, average under 40 in 2nd innings).

For satisfying only 3 conditions over your 7 criteria, Inzamam would also be a merely average batsman.

Mark Waugh: 1-pass, 2-fail, 3-fail (century every 10.45 innings), 4-fail (duck every 11 innings), 5-pass, 6-fail, 7-poor (1000 runs in calendar year only once in 12-year career).

Again, someone of the caliber of Mark Waugh would be shown to be an ordinary player. And indeed some might argue that point, but I say you don't get to play 128 Test matches if you're an average player. Or at least, not 128 Test matches for Australia (maybe for the West Indies--maybe). Your average player is someone like Yuvraj Singh, who plays 30-35 games and still ends up out of the team.

Oh and by the way, Zaheer Abbas fails all categories (including a duck every 12.4 innings), has never scored 1000 runs in a calendar year and averages only 22.53 in the fourth innings. And this was the man they called the Asian Bradman.

Greatness goes beyond numbers--you can't quantify it. You can identify features of greatness, certainly, but the sum is always greater than the parts, as Zaheer Abbas fans would tell you.

While your analysis is excellent, my point of contention would be with the criteria you chose to determine great players, in particular the minimum average of 50. There are numerous great players who average under 50 as Laxman does, and perhaps the foremost of these is the great Geoffrey Boycott (a man who has 151 centuries in First Class cricket).

Laxman has played what many consider to be the greatest Test innings ever played, and he has produced several other stunning knocks against the best Test side of his era. This is a man who in his prime made the mighty Aussies desperate.

“If you get Dravid (out), great. If you get Sachin, brilliant. If you get Laxman, it’s a miracle.” Brett Lee.

"It didn't matter where you bowled, or what you bowled [to him]." Glenn McGrath on Laxman

"Even if Laxman was to [retire] after a whitewash, he'll remain a great player." Justin Langer

Hey Joshua I know someone would bring up that based on the criteria I have set Chanderpaul, Inzamam etc would not qualify.

Don't you agree if I loosen up the criteria almost every other "almost-great" batsman would enter the "GREAT" league & it should not be made so easy to enter the GREAT league?

Now Joshua coming to your comment on various batsmen:
Gayle: Yes he has scored 300 in Tests twice, but is that the ONLY criterion? Does it mean you overlook his consistent poor scores against big teams in Away games especially?

Chanderpaul:
1- Pass
2- Fail
3- Century every 9.75 Innings = near pass I'd say. since the average for the top 66 centurions is 8.2. Whereas Laxman is MILES AWAY from that number
4- Duck every 18 innings = near pass i'd say again for the same reason
5- Pass
6- Fail
7- Consistency: Average (not poor) - Because if you notice year 2007-2008, he averaged over 100. A batsman averaging 100+ for two years in a row - that my friend is NOT poor consistency.
Laxman on the other hand peaked in 2003 with an avg of 85, followed by a poor year in 2004 (avg = 34). Is that consistent?
No two years were GREAT for Laxman and that is where Laxman failed to be consistent.
He did contribute a few times when India needed him but not always.
If you want I can e-mail you the list of "match winning" and "match saving" knocks for Laxman.
17 Match winning knocks out of 259 innings - don't you think that's a little low for a "great" batsman?

Hence Chanderpaul passes at least 3 criteria to be called a GREAT - shows he is probably better than Laxman!

I won't compare him to Zaheer Abbas because those two batsmen were from different eras.

Oh and by the way, Mark Waugh was definitely not GREAT.

It would be interesting to check Inzamam's consistency. Even though I personally consider him an amazing batsman, he was just a level below the class of Ponting, Kallis, Dravid and Sachin.

My conclusion being that the great batsmen of Laxman's era are Dravid, Kallis, Ponting and Sachin.

All the others come really close but somewhere or the other they fail to really qualify as great batsmen and end up being in the category I'd call 'almost-great'. Chanderpaul and Inzamam would be in that category for sure. May be even Laxman.

al these articles are so biased. How can anyone take anything here seriously when you associate yourself to pak cricket? Try being neutral for once and then people can think about taking you seriously. If you cant it's just a waste of your time as only your fellow countrymen will even bother reading this blog. Also Ajmal chucks and the whole world sees it so apart from you guys no one really is going to give him any credit. Also just a FYI you are not even qualified to criticize a school team running these meaningless analysis on some of the modern greats of the game just shows how foolish and jobless you are

man that joshua kid just owned you. Just trashed your analysis. What a waste of your time. Time to come up with new methods to put down the indian cricket team since that's the only way you can make yourself feel better as there is no way you guys can get around to beating them.

Can we get a comparison of analyses of some of the great or good #5 batsmen in the last 15 years (like Steve Waugh, Clarke, Collingwood, Ganguly, Laxman, Astle, Inzy, Misbah, Chanderpaul and anyone else I might have missed out on). I feel this discussion is pointless without concrete numbers of all these players - all our judgements are relative, so no point having only Laxman's stats here.

Prajwal:

1 - Why is there have to be an excuse for a no.5 and no.6 batsman that he bats so low down the order he can't score 100. It can be true for ODIs but I fail to understand why that applies to Test where you have 5 days to play.
To counter that point: Steve Waugh has scored 31 Centuries batting at positions 5 6 & 7.
Chanderpaul too has scored 20 batting at no. 5 6
Then what excuse Laxman got to score only 11 100s at 5 & 6?

2 - Also, tell me if Laxman bats at 5 or 6, if he truly was a GREAT player wouldn't he not get out most of the times .... if was that good he would have remained not out most of the times ...but u know in 134 Test matches, he has been NotOut only 34 times...Only! Shouldn't a GREAT batsman find ways to survive and put a price on his wicket and remain not out most of the times?
Had he been great, had he put a price on his wicket, he'd have more not outs and hence a HIGHER avg. Right?

Mr. Anonymous (who wrote to us 13th Feb'12)

The fact that you have commented on someone’s credibility without ever having seen them or spoken to them, reflects use of bias and strong emotions on the subject itself.
This is exactly the kind of pitfall we at cricketing minds are trying to avoid. Instead, we use numbers and players performances to judge them, and not our emotions.

We let the numbers speak and if anyone has any objection, then sure prove to me using numbers that Laxman was great. We'd love to see your analysis! :)
Joshua made some great points which I have previously addressed.

Really good site, where did you come up with the knowledge in this piece? I'm glad I found it though, ill be checking back soon to see what other articles you have

india vs bangladesh 2015

He dosent hve many centuries in his bucket because most of his inng he played at 5 or 6th possistion with talenders. Despite of this he avg. 46 is much more than any other batsman in the world who playe at this possition. If u saw his carrier then u realize that too many times he did not bat in ing. Because of heavy runs scored at top of the order and match would either draw or ing. Decleared. And also most of times he not out on 46,23,56 on such no. And as he dnt hve any fix possition to bat like Sachine or dravid had. It also effect his batting. So considering all situations above he is Greatest indian batsman india produce. And u may not forgot that his batting is much beatifull than any other batsman in his era. Even sachine and mark waugh conclude this. So stop this stats nonsense and be proud that we have player like him whom mighty Australian people also loved.

Ya r8, I think this is jst jelousy abot laxman that made him to write this blog.

Because Steve waugh played almsot 164, matches, and ausies hve batsman with whom he can do partnerships at no. 7,8,9 also. But see indian batting order,after 6 th no. There are only bowlers to bat. So how can he score or made partnerships and score big ings.

Because he is not selfish like other batmans, he is out while trying to score runs nt while depend his wickets and 34 times not,wow this is not a small no. Though.

Because he is not selfish like other batmans, he is out while trying to score runs nt while depend his wickets and 34 times not,wow this is not a small no. Though.

Because Steve waugh played almsot 164, matches, and ausies hve batsman with whom he can do partnerships at no. 7,8,9 also. But see indian batting order,after 6 th no. There are only bowlers to bat. So how can he score or made partnerships and score big ings.

Ya r8, I think this is jst jelousy abot laxman that made him to write this blog.

He dosent hve many centuries in his bucket because most of his inng he played at 5 or 6th possistion with talenders. Despite of this he avg. 46 is much more than any other batsman in the world who playe at this possition. If u saw his carrier then u realize that too many times he did not bat in ing. Because of heavy runs scored at top of the order and match would either draw or ing. Decleared. And also most of times he not out on 46,23,56 on such no. And as he dnt hve any fix possition to bat like Sachine or dravid had. It also effect his batting. So considering all situations above he is Greatest indian batsman india produce. And u may not forgot that his batting is much beatifull than any other batsman in his era. Even sachine and mark waugh conclude this. So stop this stats nonsense and be proud that we have player like him whom mighty Australian people also loved.

He dosent hve many centuries in his bucket because most of his inng he played at 5 or 6th possistion with talenders. Despite of this he avg. 46 is much more than any other batsman in the world who playe at this possition. If u saw his carrier then u realize that too many times he did not bat in ing. Because of heavy runs scored at top of the order and match would either draw or ing. Decleared. And also most of times he not out on 46,23,56 on such no. And as he dnt hve any fix possition to bat like Sachine or dravid had. It also effect his batting. So considering all situations above he is Greatest indian batsman india produce. And u may not forgot that his batting is much beatifull than any other batsman in his era. Even sachine and mark waugh conclude this. So stop this stats nonsense and be proud that we have player like him whom mighty Australian people also loved.

Post a Comment

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More