I'm not serious here. But I am fed up with people constantly looking down on Warner and smith for the sandpaper incident.Are you serious here??if you're seriously making that point, then i will never ever argue with you.
The world does not live in India. All of you must get that through your skulls.
Your post validates that you never watched them play live.
Warner is walking wickets outside the home's . No even close to be compare with Laxman in test cricket.
An average of 45 and only 17 centuries in 225 innings is no benchmark either. Laxman was a bang average player and basically a walking wicket 9/10 times he padded up.
Laxman was a superb player under pressure. He would always stood up when the game was in tricky situation. He relished such situations - Kolkata, Adelaide, Durban, Joburg, Perth, Mohali, Colombo. He would usually score when team was in a tricky situation and a collapse was about to happen. This was the case till 2010 and while he went past his prime from 2011 onwards but he did enough before that to be remembered as the best Indian test batsman in pressure situation. Additionally, he delivered his best vs Australia who boosted a very formidable team during his era.
read post 5 where i already exposed this
Now this is fair comparison. Apart from Sri Lanka and UAE Mark Waugh averages is pretty good .
According to me Laxman, Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn belong to the same class of batsman ( test cricket).
Does average cricketer Laxman eligible enough to get place in today's Pak team somehow Sir?
You exposed Warner. You said nothing about Laxman.
No one is saying is that laxman is GOAT but laxman was Dominated ATG australia with ease where Warner has very pathetic average away from home Laxman comparison with a convenient cheater is big insult to true Gentleman like him.
Laxman vets into pak team yes
What is your issue with Warner and smith? Why don't you ever critise azhar? Hilarious from a nation that asked to ban pak in totality for 2010 yet made a biopic on Azhar trying their best to not only cover up the biggest cheat of all time, But also justify why he did as moral, Factual and why he's the perfect man for bcci decisons.
You don't get it. He is creating an illusion that he is supportive of Pakistan while making such comical posts, all to make Pakistan fans appear foolish. He is still our undercover agent.
Damien Martyn and Laxman are in the sane class?
On Best all format bat of the generation thread, you stated you don't rate Kohli better than Warner because of longevity but here you changed the criteria for Laxman vs Martyn criteria when the gap of batting average between the 2 is just 0.4
Maafi bhai, I'm so sorry for having my own opinions. Please forgive me
.
Don't be angry. I am just trying to understand your thought process.Maafi bhai, I'm so sorry for having my own opinions. Please forgive me
May I kindly explain my reasonings? Or is your judgement on me final?
Kohli is better then Warner 100% in his peak years. I am not denying it and yes some of what I said was to anger certain people that I do not like.
However Warner is superior in terms of longetivity 200%. Their is no way you can claim with a straight face that Kohli was more consistent them Warner from debut till the end. Kohli's duck record + 4 year test failures etc confirm it.
It's one of the reasons I rate Sachin as no 1 in odj because Maintaining that avg in test and odi with that many games is one heck of a feat. The only thing kohli fans can argue is the age factor however no one is forcing kohli to continue playing? He can retire from test if he wishes, he himself is burdening himself, plus he already has more money in a decade than 90% of what most people make in their lifetime.
As for damien martyn, Damien from debut ti retirement was never inconsistent like Laxman was. Just because he played 67 test games doesn't mean that he is incosnaitent or it wasn't a criteria of longetivity.
He played at the right time and retired at the right time while Laxman was a hot mess in odi deapite playing 86 games and had to be shuffled everywhere until he made the no 5/6 spot his own where he was able to remain consistent.
Laxman is an inconsistent hot mess who shpuld not have had the career that he had if He wasn't given ladla treatment like rizwan.
However the difference is while rizwan is medicore, Once Laxman was given ladla treatment, atleast he became a clutch X factor in test so kudos and massive respect to him for that.
^^ Is this good enough for you? Or does it not fit the bill of human psychology?
Am not angry, am explaining my viewpoints. But you disagree with them so
@mominsaigol see this. That's why I found your opinions weird.
Warner is poor overseas 100% in test. He's a poor man's sehwag on test and test is his weakest format.
Ironically ik you said this in the context of India, but I agree with the statement itself.
The funny thing is not a single person is willing to address this fact or they'll come up with excuses upon excuses. Such as how Laxman gave a letter to bcci selectors to not make him open.
You have no idea on the criticism Rohit gets. There's even a thread on this forum, started by an Indian fan where he has been addressed as an A grade HTB.
I'm aware of the criticism rohit gets brother.
I never said Warner is poor over all. I was only reponding to point about Warner being consistent. I never saw Warner as consistent because he hardly scores runs outside of Aus. To be called consistent, you first need to have ability to scores in most conditions, if not all. He is very consitent at home, that's why Picked a long stretch where he was not scoring even in Aus. He is very good batsman at home over all but even at home he was poor for a long stretch. That's the only point in previous post.
Test cricket is not tougher or easier than white ball cricket. It is simply different, and suits the skill set of some players over others.
Yes, you can certain say that and I will agree with the fact that some player are only good in test format and some are only good in shorter formats due to their limitations. That's why players who are gun all formats are rated high.
Test cricket generally does not challenge the mental aspect of dealing with run rate pressure irrespective of where you are playing, and this is major pressure that has proved to be the undoing of many players.
Correct, that's why very few rate batsmen who only score on flat roads in test format and go missing on other pitches.
All format comparison doesn’t make sense when you’re comparing post and pre T20 era players.
Yes, if you limit it to current era then all formats comparison can make sense. A truly great players will have great in one and good in another. it will be still extremely rare to find who are going to be great in all formats. If you are going to avg 25 in ODI and 50 in test then you are surely not in that league. 50 in tests and 40 in ODI will be still likely to be a better player than 40 in test and 50 in ODI. Assuming other factors like SR, away etc are in the same range.
