Laxman's corrected average

Henry wrote:

Zat wrote:

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

That doesn't say much.

Vaughan is/was crap.

Then how crap were the Australian bowlers in 2002-03?

11 days ...Good Times

Henry wrote:

Zat wrote:

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

That doesn't say much.

Vaughan is/was crap.

Then how crap were the Australian bowlers in 2002-03?

You idiot.

You only come here when your neck gets sore from licking your own balls, don't you?

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is not my hero. That's a blasphemous thing to say.

Everyone knows SRT is god.

Averages don't matter. Give me some entertainment. I want something different, something outlandish. That's why I wouldn't watch Kallis for a ton of gold.

Zat wrote:

Henry wrote:

Zat wrote:

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

That doesn't say much.

Vaughan is/was crap.

Then how crap were the Australian bowlers in 2002-03?

You idiot.

You only come here when your neck gets sore from licking your own balls, don't you?

You're the idiot for calling a guy who averages over 50 against your team crap. Idiot.

he had a pretty poor start to his test career when he was used as makeshift opener. 2001 was obviously his breakthrough year and he has averaged 48 since then which is more reflective of his ability.

Vaughan seems to have a problem with belief. I read an interview with him conducted during his purple patch in which he said that it was ridiculous that someone like him could be averaging as much as Brian Lara and it was all bound to end soon. If he had KP levels of belief I could easily see his averaging in the low 50s, he just doesn't seem to think he deserves it.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Pah, Laxman's not even as good as Vaughan.

Bull shit.

Nope. Pretty un-bullshitty in my opinion.

Your opinion. *Sneer*

Vaughan is better than Rushdie, I'll give you that much.

Rushdie > Enid Blyton

Vaughan > Laxman.

Facts.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Rushdie > Enid Blyton

You're right- at cricket.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Vaughan > Laxman.

Facts.

Don't care.

laxman, martyn and vaughan are similar in that they are a rung below top class but amazing to watch.

True.


Martyn and Vaughan are both better than Laxman though.

repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true

Neither does it make it Bullshit though

English fans haven't seen the best of Laxman it has to be said.

IMO he's not on the same level as Dravid or Tendulkar.

Like Vaughan (who is much maligned) i think he's on the rung below

Henry wrote:

Zat wrote:

Henry wrote:

Zat wrote:

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

That doesn't say much.

Vaughan is/was crap.

Then how crap were the Australian bowlers in 2002-03?

You idiot.

You only come here when your neck gets sore from licking your own balls, don't you?

You're the idiot for calling a guy who averages over 50 against your team crap. Idiot.

Which idiot called this idiot an idiot?

Ash wrote:repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true

I don't need to make it true. It's already true.

For some players averages don't always tell the true story. VVS is one of them. If he had been a little less lazy and had a bit more mongrel in him he could have been so much more destructive.

If Bradman had been a little more lazy and had a little less mongrel in him, he could have been so much less destructive.

Your point being ....

bump.

LOL at LLL.

I do agree he isn't in Dravid or Tendulkar's class though. Easily better than Vaughan of course.

This is a pretty good thread, basically because Laxman is correcting his average. He'll bring it to about atleast 5 short of where he should have ended, but atleast it will be way better than the ridiculous low 40 average he's carried for most of this decade.

can he touch 50? will be tough

i think he's up to inzi levels of greatness now. maybe even a tad bit better