just one last thing , i wont post again on this issue

great is obviously a subjective term but imo should be restricted for those that clearly stand out from their peers over a whole career

if you want to apply a looser definition of the term then thats obviously up to you

Rich, I was responding to the following comment by Shanky that seemed to be based purely on current batting averages.

"As I said earlier Cook,KP,Bell,Smith,Amla,De Villiers and Sangakkara are all better batsmen than Laxman.To mention him in the same breath as Tendulkar,Punter,Kallis,Dravid is ridiculous."

shanks does get a bit carried away at times

the thing is laxman is coming to the end of his career whereas most of those guys still have a good few years left, thats kinda why i said you really have to judge people at the end of their career and decide then where they stand

I dont understand how I got carried away.I never for one second suggested he was an average batsman.I think he is a good batsman who has played some great innings.And I refuse to believe that a few great innings make you a great player.Just because he has played a few match winning knocks doesnt make him better player than the players that I mentioned.The players that I mentioned have a better average than Laxman but thats not all.They have played half the Tests as Laxman but they have similar no. of centuries(some have even more centuries) compared to Laxman.Laxman's centuries per innings ratio is shocking.To me thats more important than even the batting average.I dont think average is really a problem.If he had about 25 hundreds but with a similar average he could still have been considered worthy of greatness.But a guy who has 16 hundreds from over 120 matches just cannot be called a great IMO.And you cant call him a better batsman than KP,Cook and co because they have a better batting average and a far better centuries per innings ratio.A few great innings cant change that I am afraid.
I will remember Laxman is an under fulfilled talent.

I have stated previously i dont rate Laxman as high as the other top batsmen mentioned.. Because ive yet to see him take a bowling line up apart... If you half decent and spend time at the crease your going to score runs.. KP Tendulkar Ponting and Lara have taken bowling line ups to the cleaners on alot of occasions..

Shanky stop it.You're making a fool of yourself

Laxman has one enough for his name to float around the greats.Average 40 in all places before this series with some great knockss.He is better than every current england batsman.

i wouldn't agree he is better than every current england batsman , certainly not on current form, and as i said above the england batsman in question are still in their prime, or just entering their prime. whereas laxman is basically at the end of his career.

the reason i said about you getting carried away shanks is its too early to say how the likes of cook or bell will compare at the end of their career, its less than a year since most people were calling for cook to be dropped.

btw pox i wouldn't say an average of 40 or more in all locations is that great and just 16 centuries from 127 matches is not that impressive either, not for someone being proclaimed as an all time great

and as for someone making a fool of themselves , you do that every time you post

about laxman: Steve waugh and bret lee said that "If you get Dravid, great. If you get Sachin, brilliant. If you get Laxman, it's a miracle. He has played some legendary innings that even the greats like tendulkar and dravid havent played. His average isnt great but if you see it could also be because he doesnt have any partners left cause after he comes the tail starts...... so that could be the reoson why he doesnt have so many centuries because it adds more pressure to him and our tail is not that brilliant that will last more than 100balls. But again its not about centuries it's about how you win matches for your team and he is india's best match winner.......

Viruda, This was among the matches you are talking about. This unbeaten 73 was a match-winner.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2010/engine/match/464526.html

You cannot put him in the same league as Dravid or Tendulkar. Based on the logic stated above regarding Steve Waugh, are we to think Laxman is better than Dravid and Tendulkar.

He is a good batsman, averaging 47 for a sub-continent country.

He is a battler, workmanlike yet classy batsman, BUT not in the legendary status like the others.

Agree, Laxman is not quite in the same league as Tendulkar, Kallis and Dravid. They are exceptional accumulators. Laxman, however, averages a lot higher than Tendulkar in the third and fourth innings.

Again, I was responding to a comment by Shanky:
"As I said earlier Cook,KP,Bell,Smith,Amla,De Villiers and Sangakkara are all better batsmen than Laxman."

We have to wait to see how the ones named above finish their careers.

"btw pox i wouldn't say an average of 40 or more in all locations is that great and just 16 centuries from 127 matches"

rich you muppet it's hard to make centuries when you bat so low down the order especially with a weak tail.

a gd example is andrew strauss.... he has so many centuries yet his average is very low... and look at how many matches he has played... just 89....

Viru, good point about Strauss.

His average has really not increased like the others. In fact, I think it is about the same as Collingwood... Strauss is a far better batsman.

strauss is a more old fasioned opener, so will more often get out early, but when he gets in will go onto 100 more often than not (is it 18 100s, 18 50s or am i thinking of someone else?).

the myriad of very low scores when he gets that good ball when the ball is new pulls his average down.

also, cook has a higher average aswell as being an opener because he is a better batsman than strauss.

Among Strauss, Cook, and Bell, I enjoy watching Bell's batting when he is connecting well.

Cook and Strauss have limited strokes.

hmm, strauss maybe, but i think cook holds back because he plays as an opener.

Bell though is very easy on the eye, i agree.

"rich you muppet it's hard to make centuries when you bat so low down the order especially with a weak tail."

-------------------------------------------------------------

ian bell has made 12 of his 100s batting at 5/6/7 and in just 48 matches in those positions

based on that laxman should have scored around 32 centuries just to be on par with bell

in addition laxman has played 47 of his tests batting in the top 4 and made just 6 100s there

would help if you actually knew anything before calling other people muppets

Indeed, Laxman has a very poor 50 to 100 conversion rate (16c, 54h); others like him include Atherton (16c, 46h), Alec Stewart (15c, 45h), Stephen Fleming (9c, 46h), and Ranatunga (4c, 38h).

Laxman is not a run accumulator in the mold of Lara, and Tendulkar. Although not in the most recent series, he succeeded more than Tendulkar and Lara when the chips were down.

Let me give you an example of Lara. In 2004, in a 4-test series, West Indies at home lost the first 3 tests to England. They were clumsy like clowns dealing with Harmison. Lara was a bigger failure than his teammates, with an average of 17 runs in 6 innings in three losing tests. Then comes the meaningless final test, with his team having already lost the series 0-3, Mr Lara scores an unbeaten 400 on the world's most notorious flat pitch, Antigua, and his team still could not win that match. Laxman could never do that. Before somebody has a fit, let me state clearly that Lara is great, and among the greatest of all-time, and Laxman is not among the greatest of all-time. What I am saying that Laxman does not have the temperament to score double and triple centuries in meaningless situations just for the sake of compiling runs. If that is his weakness, well it is.

Just because England are currently the best team in the world. The rest of the world teams are poor.. It wasnt the case when the west-indies and Australia were dominating was it?.. During them times and even now India could not win away from home against the bigger nations. so nothing much as changed in that circumstance..

cricket is certainly not dying. here in england it is very much alive, just the other day, i saw some lads playing pairs cricket, and they looked pretty good at it.

this kind interest at the grassroots level has boosted the number of good players in the county championship, and has resulted in a great england team, up there with best in my view.

does that signify the death of cricket? no, it merely signals a changing of the guard at the top of the game, as happened in the mid nineties with the fall of the west indies and the rise of australia, and more recently with australia's subsequent decline and the ascention of India, and now again with the rise of england.

its all cyclical you see.

When India was #1, we said they weren't a well-deserved top-ranked team. So, I suppose, it's only natural that they question us when we are the #1. Reactions of fans are quite predictable. We discredit them, they do the same to us.

i never said india did not deserve no.1.

will india fans now give me the same courtersy?

i doubt it.

i did say that india's performance this summer did not demonstrate and reflect india's no.1 ranking, but that is completely different to saying that india did not deserve no.1 in the first place. let's not forget india held that position for near 2 years, i think that is long enough to suggest that india were at least for some part of that time the best team in the world.

Liked that example del mar.... Also laxman's average is greater than tendulkars and dravids in 3rd and 4th innings. If people remember, when india were no.1 all the people said it was due to khan, sehwag and laxman. And this is no rocket science. sehwag gave india a flying start and eased the pressure considerably for other batsman coming in. When all other batsman failed, laxman stood tall with that tail and saved india from losing or even getting to a respctful total. and khan helped india take wickets at crucial points as well as guide the other bowlers. In the england series 2 of them failed and one didnt even last 13 overs and the results are clear 4-0.