In what order would you rank Mark Waugh, Inzamam-ul-Haq and VVS Laxman?

[Harsh Thakor]

Three of the most flamboyant batsmen of recent times were Mark Waugh,Inzamam Ul Haq and V.V.S.Laxman.All 3 posesesd talent in regions of the sublime.Inzy has supreme reflexes and power while Waugh and V.V.S.took artistry in batting to it's supreme depth and were the epitome of elegance..All 3 could turn a game 180 degrees with their dazzling strokeplay and all were masters of genuine pace,relishing fast tracks.All of them played outstanding match-wining knocks in run chases and proved their prowess on bad wickets.At their best they challenged the supremacy of the greatest of batsmen.

Technically Mark Waugh stood out and to me was the most complete of the trio.Few batsmen ever blended domination of bowling with such grace and technical correctness.Statistically Inzy was the best of the pack scoring 25 centuries and averaging around 50 with the best average in games won.At their best V.V.S. was at the top of the pedestal scoring arguably the best century of all time versus Australia in Kolkata in 2001 ,playing the best innings in wins in run -chases and participating most in the best match-winning partnerships.He also took batting artistry to regions of divinty.Mark has the best record in South Africa ,Inzy was the epitome of consistency in West Indies while V.V.S was outstanding against.Australia.Laxman was however not at his best in England like Inzamam or Waugh.Inzy was statistically not at his best against the best teams of his days or in South Africa and Australia.

With a gun on my head my order would be Inzamam,Mark Waugh and Laxman .

 

[big_gamer007]

Mark Waugh imo massively underachieved for the amount of talent he had.. he was very artistic and elegant one of the most elegant batsmen to play.

Inzi had a stupendous career so kudos to him..

VVS punched above his weight and his role of finisher in tests getting India to famous victories and playing best against the best team of all time stands out for me in his favour.

If we rank performances VVS would be first.
If we rank over all career Inzi will be first.
If we rank batting abilities Waugh will be first.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Mark Waugh imo massively underachieved for the amount of talent he had.. he was very artistic and elegant one of the most elegant batsmen to play.

Inzi had a stupendous career so kudos to him..

VVS punched above his weight and his role of finisher in tests getting India to famous victories and playing best against the best team of all time stands out for me in his favour.

If we rank performances VVS would be first.
If we rank over all career Inzi will be first.
If we rank batting abilities Waugh will be first.

great analysis.sill not VVS for genius?Not Inzy for stats?

 

[Hasan123]

Inzi
Laxman
Waugh

 

[big_gamer007]

great analysis.sill not VVS for genius?Not Inzy for stats?

All three were geniuses so we have to rank then against each other that's why I chose

Waugh as the most genius.
VVS for having best performances
Inzi for having best career and best stats.

Waugh in one of the interviews mentioned himself he has regret that he couldn't score a double hundred even Jason Gillespie has one and Waugh's highest score was 150 odd runs.. very dissaponted career by someone with his talents..

During the late 90s the series were dubbed as was Waugh Vs Sachin whenever australia and India played by our media.. So Waugh was at that level however if you look back at his career now was 2-3 tiers below Sachin and Lara..

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Please participate here more viewers

 

[Bhaijaan]

Please participate here more viewers

Please decide now who all are invited to participate. Let there be no confusion.

 

[zulfiqar]

I think it's a bit of a mismatch as far as similarities go... I would also invite the OP to at least post some achievements or basic stats across formats (or only tests if you want to limit the discussion). Otherwise posters will have to go digging for information on their own.

Without looking at stats, I feel Inzi is a league above the other two in test matches and on par with Mark Waugh as an ODI batsman. I would rate Laxman ahead of Mark Waugh in tests though. In tests, Mark Waugh is like Michael Vaughan. A 3rd tier player that people hype just because they "looked" good.

 

[zulfiqar]

It is also a gross injustice to suggest that Inzi was only statistically superior. He is a World Cup winner and one of the best batsman from the subcontinent. There are quite a few significant innings in his highlights reel and was quite the match-winner for Pakistan with one of the highest centuries to win conversions (all-time).

 

[King-Misbah]

It is an insult to Inzi to compare him with VVS. Inzi was a complete batsman, could play all formats, statistically better and was an instrumental world cup winner.

 

[Mobashir]

Not downgrading VVS or Mark Waugh but Inzi is a level or two above them.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Inzamam is closer to Dravid than VVS. No comparison.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Inzamam was clearly a couple of leagues above Mark Waugh and Laxman as a

Laxman could play some breathtakingly fluid knocks like Lara but Inzamam towers over all his achievements like Tendulkar towers over Lara as a player overall.

 

[Sachin136]

Laxman averages 50 against the best team of his time (Australia) while Inzamam averages 31. That alone is enough to suggest that Inzamam was not leagues above Laxman, at least as far as tests go.

 

[gazza619]

With all due respect Laxman cannot be mentioned in the same league as Waugh and Inzi who were complete players with good records in ODIs too.

 

[FastBowlingAllrounder]

Mark Waugh imo massively underachieved for the amount of talent he had.. he was very artistic and elegant one of the most elegant batsmen to play.

Inzi had a stupendous career so kudos to him..

VVS punched above his weight and his role of finisher in tests getting India to famous victories and playing best against the best team of all time stands out for me in his favour.

If we rank performances VVS would be first.
If we rank over all career Inzi will be first.
If we rank batting abilities Waugh will be first.

Spot on.

 

[Ab Fan]

Inzy
VVS
Waugh

It's not much seperating the trio though.

 

[wrongun]

Hard, as I can't really split VVS/Inzi. Both excellent careers. Both solid away from home/vs the best attacks of the time. VVS slightly better in these regards, but he played more of his career in the more batter friendly era. Inzi is a WC winner. In the end, VVS played some ATG Test innings, just gives him the edge.

1. VVS

2. Inzi

3. M Waugh- many posters mistake "pretty to watch" for talent. He was a solid Test batsman, a good career. Nothing more. You could pick 4 All Time Australian XI's before you'd even think about putting M Waugh near the team- think about that.

 

[Romali_rotti]

VVS slightly better in these regards, but he played more of his career in the more batter friendly era.

.

I dont get it, are you saying INZI played on less batter friendly wickets ? last I checked both their home had easier wickets than in SA or AUS

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Waugh<VVS<Inzi

 

[Rahul1]

Inzi has like 1 hundred in about 120 innings against Australia and South Africa, two of the best bowling attack of his time. That is absolutely pathetic and i don't want to hear any excuses about it.

 

[barah_admi]

Pretty easy this -

Inzy
VVS
Waugh

 

[wrongun]

I dont get it, are you saying INZI played on less batter friendly wickets ? last I checked both their home had easier wickets than in SA or AUS

No, just that VVS played most of his Tests in the 2000s & Inzi most of his in the 90s, which I think had, overall, more bowler friendly pitches and superior bowling. I'm speaking about time periods/eras rather than geography here. To make a broad, sweeping generalisation I'd say the ball ruled the 90s, the bat ruled the 2000s.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Waugh<VVS<Inzi

Why do you say so.Do not Inzy and VVS have better records and performances?Appreciate open -mindednes but appreciate stating your reasons?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Hard, as I can't really split VVS/Inzi. Both excellent careers. Both solid away from home/vs the best attacks of the time. VVS slightly better in these regards, but he played more of his career in the more batter friendly era. Inzi is a WC winner. In the end, VVS played some ATG Test innings, just gives him the edge.

1. VVS

2. Inzi

3. M Waugh- many posters mistake "pretty to watch" for talent. He was a solid Test batsman, a good career. Nothing more. You could pick 4 All Time Australian XI's before you'd even think about putting M Waugh near the team- think about that.

At one time was not Mark Waugh ranked on par with Lara and Sachin?Was he not complete in the manner of truly great batsmen and performed better on the faster pitches in South Africa than Inzy or Laxman?Waugh has a better record overseas than Inzy or VVS.

 

[charlie007]

Laxman - clutch player and performer against the best side in the world. Raised his game in pressure situations, esp vs top opposition.

Inzi proven performer over time. Only negative is that he did not raise his game against the best teams during his time.

Waugh - a classical batsman, great style as well, but performance also counts, thus the last among the 3. How many performances do you remember from Waugh? That should answer why he's the third among the 3.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Not downgrading VVS or Mark Waugh but Inzi is a level or two above them.

what is the basis of your reasoning?At their best Mark and VVS were in the Lara-Tendulkar class.See records and style of play.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Pretty easy this -

Inzy
VVS
Waugh

Did not Mark have a better overseas record than the others here?He performed better in South Africa.Technicality he was the best of the 3.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

With all due respect Laxman cannot be mentioned in the same league as Waugh and Inzi who were complete players with good records in ODIs too.

Inspite of being close to the best 4th innings batsmen in winning run chases of all time and the best of his era in that aspect?Inspite of his playing arguably the best test innings of all time? Inspite of his being a component of 3 of the greatest partnerships of all time?Please re-think.VVS took artistry to regions of divinity or heights of the sublime.

 

[BlackShadow]

1) Laxman - Took apart some of the greatest attacks, has good away record too.
2) Waugh - A very consistent batsman, and would be first if it wasn't for Laxman's epic knocks.
3) Inzi - A good batsman, but bit of a HTB, couldn't do much away.

 

[barah_admi]

Did not Mark have a better overseas record than the others here?He performed better in South Africa.Technicality he was the best of the 3.

We're taking into account every factor, or at least I am anyway. Looking at their entire careers, Waugh can not rank above them. In fact, he does not even rank above VVS who was not a great, Inzy most certainly was.

 

[sshakir411]

My subjective order is Waugh, Inzi, VVS.

Waugh was technically and aesthetically the best out of all but doesn’t have clutch performances like Inzi and VVS did. VVS and Inzi also had bigger impacts on their team then Waugh.

 

[PakLFC]

Laxman is easily last of the three. I am gonna give Inzi the edge over Mark because our team depended more on our former captain then the Aussies did on Mark. Inzi was a big match player mostly turning it on when he was most needed. Mark Waugh was a world class batsman as well, Laxman was not world class at all.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Inzi
Lax
Waugh

Maybe I need to think it over.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

My subjective order is Waugh, Inzi, VVS.

Waugh was technically and aesthetically the best out of all but doesn’t have clutch performances like Inzi and VVS did. VVS and Inzi also had bigger impacts on their team then Waugh.

Very good analysis appreciate

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Laxman is easily last of the three. I am gonna give Inzi the edge over Mark because our team depended more on our former captain then the Aussies did on Mark. Inzi was a big match player mostly turning it on when he was most needed. Mark Waugh was a world class batsman as well, Laxman was not world class at all.

We agree with order but I still feel Laxman was right up there being phenomenal in run chases in 4th innings and played some of the best test Innings ever .Vvs was the most gifted,Mark the most complete while Inzy the most impactful.

 

[Bilal7]

Laxman and Waugh, although fine players, are not on Inzaman's level. Had OP replaced Inzamam with someone like Saleem Malik, there would not be a clear-cut #1 here.

 

[Bilal7]

Inspite of being close to the best 4th innings batsmen in winning run chases of all time and the best of his era in that aspect?Inspite of his playing arguably the best test innings of all time? Inspite of his being a component of 3 of the greatest partnerships of all time?Please re-think.VVS took artistry to regions of divinity or heights of the sublime.

What's in playing a great innings? Didn't that Sri Lankan wicket-keeper just play a better test innings than almost any other Asian batsman? Bringing up a single knock or two only makes sense when we are comparing individual innings, not individual batsmen. As for chases and partnerships, Inzamam did that better than Laxman.

Once again, this is not a knock on VVS Laxman, who would walk into any current test side and was a fine player.

 

[Ted123]

Inzi
Lax
Waugh

Maybe I need to think it over.

I second. Not much between three though. Of course, including ODIs would mean

Inzy
Waugh
Lax

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I don't get why some people here believe that laxman is defined by just one or two innings.
FGS he has an avg of 46
And he avgs less than 40 in just two countries, these are great stats. He is easily better than mark waugh and on par with inzi.
The only countries in which he avgs less tgan 40 are eng(35) and pak(38).So we can say he wasn't a failure in any conditions, we can't say the same about inzi.

Inzi/vvs

Mark waugh.

Comparison with saleem malik is just a joke. Saleem malik avgs less than 40 in 4 countries, he has a lesser avg than laxman less hundreds too.

 

[wrongun]

At one time was not Mark Waugh ranked on par with Lara and Sachin?Was he not complete in the manner of truly great batsmen and performed better on the faster pitches in South Africa than Inzy or Laxman?Waugh has a better record overseas than Inzy or VVS.

I certainly never heard Mark Waugh rated alongside them. He was very much in the second tier of batsman of that era. Ponting, Gilly, S Waugh all were rated better than him and that's just in his own team- arguably Hayden too. Like Jimmy Ormond once famously sledged, "He wasn't even the best cricketer in his family".

 

[Mamoon]

I certainly never heard Mark Waugh rated alongside them. He was very much in the second tier of batsman of that era. Ponting, Gilly, S Waugh all were rated better than him and that's just in his own team- arguably Hayden too. Like Jimmy Ormond once famously sledged, "He wasn't even the best cricketer in his family".

Mark Waugh at his best was as good as any batsman in any era. If he had half the grit of his brother, he would be ranked alongside Greg and Ponting.

For an Australian fan, his nonchalant approach to the game must have been frustrating. In many ways, he is quite similar to Saeed Anwar - abundance of talent, lazy elegance, beautiful timer but also the king of soft dismissals.

 

[Mamoon]

I would put Laxman at number one. Against the best attacks, he was even better than Dravid and very close to Tendulkar. However, unlike them, he was not ruthless against weak attacks.

His problem was that he didn’t score enough soft runs. His batting position was also a problem. Quite often, Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar would plunder so many runs that he would not have the time to score himself.

Inzamam has 1 hundred in over a 100 innings against Australia and South Africa. That is an embarrassing record and there is no case for him being better than Laxman.

 

[wrongun]

Mark Waugh at his best was as good as any batsman in any era. If he had half the grit of his brother, he would be ranked alongside Greg and Ponting.

For an Australian fan, his nonchalant approach to the game must have been frustrating. In many ways, he is quite similar to Saeed Anwar - abundance of talent, lazy elegance, beautiful timer but also the king of soft dismissals.

That about sums it up. He just looked like such a softy compared to the courage of AB and determination of S Waugh. He DID ply a couple of landmark, important innings (I think he got a hundred overshadowed by his brothers 200 in the game that broke the WI dominance at last in '95 & I half remember a series turner in SA? Port Elizabeth? Back near readmission when those series were great contests- still are)..

 

[Last Monetarist]

My order would be Inzamam, Laxman, and Mark Waugh.

All three should have had better career records, but they all had a marvellous tendency to win matches for their teams.

But at the end of the day, it's not about statistics alone.

I reckon Mark Waugh had the most rounded game out of the three, as he didn't really have any technical weaknesses, but he was prone to losing concentration quite often.

Laxman had amazing mental strength, but could be at sea against the moving ball.

Whereas Inzi had a few problems playing pace on bouncy pitches.

I'd put Inzi slightly ahead, partly because of youthful nostalgia and remembering a dominant Pakistani batsman who could score runs against the best bowlers, partly because he seemed to have greater peer recognition, and also he ultimately did have the better record out of all three. It's still highly subjective, of course.

Nonetheless, if I had to pay to watch someone bat, it'd be Mark Waugh all day.

 

[big_gamer007]

I certainly never heard Mark Waugh rated alongside them. He was very much in the second tier of batsman of that era. Ponting, Gilly, S Waugh all were rated better than him and that's just in his own team- arguably Hayden too. Like Jimmy Ormond once famously sledged, "He wasn't even the best cricketer in his family".

Till late 90s he was highly rated. I remember India Vs Australia series being defined as tendulkar Vs waugh during that time. So he was right up there with Lara and Tendulkar during that time, however after that he was left 2-3 levels below Lara tendulkar..

I think Waugh massively underachieved.. don't know the reasons why.

 

[wrongun]

Till late 90s he was highly rated. I remember India Vs Australia series being defined as tendulkar Vs waugh during that time. So he was right up there with Lara and Tendulkar during that time, however after that he was left 2-3 levels below Lara tendulkar..

I think Waugh massively underachieved.. don't know the reasons why.

They meant S Waugh surely, not M. I can't imagine anyone but Chappel & Warne (both egomaniacs with personal grudges) rating M Waugh that high. Whereas during the period you are speaking of, S Waugh was near his batting peak- Test seasons averaging high 60's, low 70s, even 90s. Scoring the runs that toppled the Windies & cowed the new South Africans. Being the captain during much of this period also makes sense he would be the "Waugh" concerned.

M Waugh meanwhile never even managed a 50 average in a Test season ever. Why did he underachieve? I'd say because he wasn't that good too begin with, people mistake a pretty cover drive and a languid style for talent, it isn't, it's just aesthetics.

 

[imshally81]

Inzi
VVS Laxman
.
.
.
.
Waugh

 

[big_gamer007]

They meant S Waugh surely, not M. I can't imagine anyone but Chappel & Warne (both egomaniacs with personal grudges) rating M Waugh that high. Whereas during the period you are speaking of, S Waugh was near his batting peak- Test seasons averaging high 60's, low 70s, even 90s. Scoring the runs that toppled the Windies & cowed the new South Africans. Being the captain during much of this period also makes sense he would be the "Waugh" concerned.

M Waugh meanwhile never even managed a 50 average in a Test season ever. Why did he underachieve? I'd say because he wasn't that good too begin with, people mistake a pretty cover drive and a languid style for talent, it isn't, it's just aesthetics.

It was Mark Waugh.. Basically at that time all were kinda the next gen of superstars it's just that Lara and Tendulkar took their name to another level while Waugh cannot.

Maybe you are right people mistook his aesthetics for top tier calibre. But at one point he was the top dog be it just for a few series.. With the emergence of Ponting, hayden, Gilly, Martyn etc he got very quickly forgotton.

 

[Suleiman]

Inzi the second greatest Asian batsman behind Gavaskar if you consider impact and resilience.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I would put Laxman at number one. Against the best attacks, he was even better than Dravid and very close to Tendulkar. However, unlike them, he was not ruthless against weak attacks.

His problem was that he didn’t score enough soft runs. His batting position was also a problem. Quite often, Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar would plunder so many runs that he would not have the time to score himself.

Inzamam has 1 hundred in over a 100 innings against Australia and South Africa. That is an embarrassing record and there is no case for him being better than Laxman.

Very well evaluated.Great points.However did he not have a considerably better record at home and not at his best overseas like Mark Waugh?Mrak had the best record of the 3 in Sooth Africa and awy.

Do you not feel Mark in terms of pure game was the most complete?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

My order would be Inzamam, Laxman, and Mark Waugh.

All three should have had better career records, but they all had a marvellous tendency to win matches for their teams.

But at the end of the day, it's not about statistics alone.

I reckon Mark Waugh had the most rounded game out of the three, as he didn't really have any technical weaknesses, but he was prone to losing concentration quite often.

Laxman had amazing mental strength, but could be at sea against the moving ball.

Whereas Inzi had a few problems playing pace on bouncy pitches.

I'd put Inzi slightly ahead, partly because of youthful nostalgia and remembering a dominant Pakistani batsman who could score runs against the best bowlers, partly because he seemed to have greater peer recognition, and also he ultimately did have the better record out of all three. It's still highly subjective, of course.

Nonetheless, if I had to pay to watch someone bat, it'd be Mark Waugh all day.

Could not agree more with your last point on aesthetic element of Waugh.Still was not Mark a better batsmen than the other 2 overseas and more consistent on bouncy tracks.Inzy was hardly consistent against or in Australia and South Africa and had a considerably better record at home.V.V.S was considerably better in Australia.In 4th innings chases he was the best of his day.Inzy was the best match-winner but not at his best against the 2 best teams of his time unlike the other 2.Waugh was successful against South Africa and Pakistan whose bowling was lethal.