Is Yuvraj a better batsman than VVS Laxman?

[Jersey #10]

BD eliminated a team that had Tendulkar/Dravid/Yuvraj/Ganguly/Dhoni/Sehwag :cantstop: They also beat the almight south africans in the world cup. Ireland in turn beat Bangladesh in the same world cup. Anybody can win on a given day. Some people are good at concentrating on very short periods.

and some people are not able to settle in very short periods

[Jersey #10]

4' date=' 18, 9 so far. Yuvraj is losing his deposit lol[/quote'] i am telling you, if ODIs were going on and had UV won a game for us...the poll would have been interesting

[Sooda]

and is it important to be able to play all formats of the game to prove one's self or not?

This is where what I said earlier- about Tests being the real deal when it comes to calling a batsman 'great' or not. And what vvsLaxman on this thread is trying to get across. Tests are harder. HENCE to use my earlier eg S Waugh > D Jones (Jones is widely regarded as one of the great ODI batsmen, Waughs record is not very good. That is REVERSED when it comes to test cricket... i.e SW has a great test record, Jones is good but not amazing. Say a list is being compiled of the 'greatest' aussie batsmen ever- SW would feature high on that, Jones would not)

[Karan114]

i am telling you' date=' if ODIs were going on and had UV won a game for us...the poll would have been interesting [/quote'] Not really, anyone with a modicum of understanding of cricket knows who is better and it certainly ain't Yuv-e-Raj

[vvvslaxman]

and some people are not able to settle in very short periods

Laxman can settle in hours and hours. What is the longest innings ever played by Yuvraj?

[Karan114]

This is where what I said earlier- about Tests being the real deal when it comes to calling a batsman 'great' or not. And what vvsLaxman on this thread is trying to get across. Tests are harder. HENCE to use my earlier eg S Waugh > D Jones (Jones is widely regarded as one of the great ODI batsmen, Waughs record is not very good. That is REVERSED when it comes to test cricket... i.e SW has a great test record, Jones is good but not amazing. Say a list is being compiled of the 'greatest' aussie batsmen ever- SW would feature high on that, Jones would not)

Another Aussie relevant to this debate is Michael Slater - one of the most attacking openers of his time, averaged 40's in the 90's when batting was more difficult, but was a flop in ODIs. But no one particularly cares about his ODI failures, he will always be regarded highly for averaging 40+ and scoring 14 centuries (and nine 90's!)

[Jersey #10]

This is where what I said earlier- about Tests being the real deal when it comes to calling a batsman 'great' or not. And what vvsLaxman on this thread is trying to get across. Tests are harder. HENCE to use my earlier eg S Waugh > D Jones (Jones is widely regarded as one of the great ODI batsmen, Waughs record is not very good. That is REVERSED when it comes to test cricket... i.e SW has a great test record, Jones is good but not amazing. Say a list is being compiled of the 'greatest' aussie batsmen ever- SW would feature high on that, Jones would not)

so basically, few can do good at Odi but suck at Tests and some can rock at Tests and suck at Odi can some one explain WHY?

[Sooda]

i am telling you' date=' if ODIs were going on and had UV won a game for us...the poll would have been interesting [/quote'] Not really. Had you asked the same Q the day when Yuv won that match in a stand with MSD vs Aus... you would been having the same debates

[Jersey #10]

any wayz guys..i iz out of here UV >> Lax

[Jersey #10]

Not really. Had you asked the same Q the day when Yuv won that match in a stand with MSD vs Aus... you would been having the same debates

I doubt that you would have even made this above post on that day...

[vvvslaxman]

i am telling you' date=' if ODIs were going on and had UV won a game for us...the poll would have been interesting [/quote'] No . my vote would still stand. Guys like Bradman, Sobers are celebrated their achievements in Test cricket not pyjama cricket where you lay into the likes of Maharoof, Abdur razzak. Infact those days first class cricket has more significance than one day cricket these days. Yuvi's first class average is mere 43 which is very very average in India.

[Sooda]

so basically, few can do good at Odi but suck at Tests and some can rock at Tests and suck at Odi can some one explain WHY?

The skills required are different. ODIs are easier to bat in, fielding restrictions, bowling designed to save runs etc. Test cricket demands long innings, facing much more attacking bowling- bouncers etc-- that is what makes Tests a harder test of a batsmans skill.

[vvvslaxman]

any wayz guys..i iz out of here UV >> Lax

Dhoni >>> UV :cantstop:

[Jersey #10]

No . my vote would still stand. Guys like Bradman' date=' Sobers are celebrated their achievements in Test cricket not pyjama cricket where you lay into the likes of Maharoof, Abdur razzak. Infact those days first class cricket has more significance than one day cricket these days. Yuvi's first class average is mere 43 which is very very average in India.[/quote'] Well I guess you should stop watching "pajama" cricket then ...is it really worth it if it doesn't require skills to play? any gully cricketer can come out and smash six sixes like UV did...

[Jersey #10]

The skills required are different. ODIs are easier to bat in, fielding restrictions, bowling designed to save runs etc. Test cricket demands long innings, facing much more attacking bowling- bouncers etc-- that is what makes Tests a harder test of a batsmans skill.

then why does lax suck at the easier batting situations? I guess the easier batting formats aren't worth his time ....he only comes out of his cave when india plays the hardest version of cricket.

[Sooda]

Another Aussie relevant to this debate is Michael Slater - one of the most attacking openers of his time' date=' averaged 40's in the 90's when batting was more difficult, but was a flop in ODIs. But no one particularly cares about his ODI failures, he will always be regarded highly for averaging 40+ and scoring 14 centuries (and nine 90's!)[/quote'] Aye good point And Slater is a batsman who youd think should have been a darn good one day player

[Karan114]

And Slater is a batsman who youd think should have been a darn good one day player

Yep, he had the game for ODI but it never worked out for him - one of those strange ones

[vvvslaxman]

Well I guess you should stop watching "pajama" cricket then ...is it really worth it if it doesn't require skills to play? any gully cricketer can come out and smash six sixes like UV did...

We watch for fun not for rating players. It requires skills but not as much as you need for Tests. Why do you think Raina is yet to play a Test match if you really think Test match is that easier? Why do you think Rohit Sharma is yet to play a Test match. Why do you think Yusuf Pathan is yet to play a Test match? Rohit Sharma played for India when Dravid was in the wilderness. Are you going to say Rohit is better than Dravid ?

[Sooda]

then why does lax suck at the easier batting situations?

Firstly he dosent suck... his record is ok without being outstanding. Tons in Pak and Aus are no mean feat The fact that he wasnt given a long run in ODIs is less to do with his batting than his general in-conudiciveness to one dayers- not really being very athletic. He dosent have Yuvrajs power , to clear the boundaries with ease say, that helps in ODIs Anyway you can flip that and state that Yuvraj majorly sucks when the going gets tougher- i.e in tests Laxman is a better ODI bat than Yuvraj is a test bat... if that makes sense

[Karan114]

Laxman is a better ODI bat than Yuvraj is a test bat... if that makes sense

Makes perfect sense, but I think it might confuse transparent :cantstop: