Ratings on Indian Players

[The Outsider]

True. Also the difference between the second and the third test was to do with the performance of our bowling attack. Our batting was good in both

How does that undermine Laxman's innings and make it 1 versus 2?

[CSK Fan]

How does that undermine Laxman's innings and make it 1 versus 2?

It doesnt, but Sachin scored 2 centuries and Laxman had 1 big score? Weren't we comparing the batting performances of each batsman. Or should be give Laxman's innings 3 times the weightage of other batsmen because it was a 'match-winning' knock

[The Outsider]

It doesnt' date=' but Sachin scored 2 centuries and Laxman had 1 big score?[/quote'] Yeah, if you are one for counting centuries and not for looking at the context of lower scores in low scoring matches. Laxman's 38 in the first innings at Durban was more important than Tendulkar's century at Centurion after the pitch had become a pancake. Kallis scored a double, Amla made a century, De Villiers scored the fastest century by a South African, Dhoni made a near hundred, Sehwag and Gambhir were among the runs in similar conditions. In contrast Laxman's 38 was the highest score from either side in the first innings.

[pensionplan]

Well mate' date=' I say that his knock got us the victory, but we also can't undermine the fact that he failed in 3 innings, and Sachin on the other hand has runs on his side to support my point.And yes I gave him 7.5 despite not scoring well in the First Test, which speak for his 96 in great volumes, No ?[/quote']No IMO. There would have been no third Test that would have had any meaning to it but for VVS and his two knocks in the 2nd Test that got us the win along with the bowlers. By the way no player on either side crossed 40 when VVS got those 96 in that 3rd inning. I would not be rating SRT a 9.5 and VVS 7.5 based on that pretext and what that second Test meant to India. But as I said to each his own.

[CSK Fan]

Yeah, if you are one for counting centuries and not for looking at the context of lower scores in low scoring matches. Laxman's 38 in the first innings at Durban was more important than Tendulkar's century at Centurion after the pitch had become a pancake. Kallis scored a double, Amla made a century, De Villiers scored the fastest century by a South African, Dhoni made a near hundred, Sehwag and Gambhir were among the runs in similar conditions. In contrast Laxman's 38 was the highest score from either side in the first innings.

India had a good chance of losing the test match if Sachin had not scored in Centurion and India had conceded a huge lead while the ball was still doing a bit and Steyn was bowling his best spell. Also what about Sachin's 30 something score in the first innings of the first test, does that count? :--D

[pensionplan]

As someone observed elsewhere VVS's 96 is as valuable or the most valuable knock than any century scored in the entire series from either side with Kallis's second innings century coming in a close second when one puts the entire series in context and what each knock meant for their team and the series itself.

[CSK Fan]

As someone observed elsewhere VVS's 96 is as valuable or the most valuable knock than any century scored in the entire series from either side with Kallis's second innings century coming in a close second when one puts the entire series in context and what each knock meant for their team and the series itself.

Agreed to everything that you said. But would you rate a player for a one match performance in a 3 series match over someone who performed more consistantly over the series? That IMO is debatable

[The Outsider]

India had a good chance of losing the test match if Sachin had not scored in Centurion and India had conceded a huge lead while the ball was still doing a bit and Steyn was bowling his best spell. Also what about Sachin's 30 something score in the first innings of the first test' date=' does that count? :--D[/quote'] Not sure what you are trying to say. We did lose the test at Centurion after conceding a huge lead.

[Ranjha]

Yeah' date=' if you are one for counting centuries and not for looking at the context of lower scores in low scoring matches. [b']Laxman's 38 in the first innings at Durban was more important than Tendulkar's century at Centurion after the pitch had become a pancake. Kallis scored a double, Amla made a century, De Villiers scored the fastest century by a South African, Dhoni made a near hundred, Sehwag and Gambhir were among the runs in similar conditions. In contrast Laxman's 38 was the highest score from either side in the first innings.

What about Harbhajans 21? in addition to the wickets? Did he a good job in the durban test or no :hysterical:

[pensionplan]

Agreed to everything that you said. But would you rate a player for a one match performance in a 3 series match over someone who performed more consistantly over the series? That IMO is debatable

I did not say that that I will be rating VVS higher than SRT or viceversa. All I was pointing to was when SRT is rated 9.5 no way VVS can be rated 7.5 just going by the stats without properly putting the entire series and the runs scored in context.

[The Outsider]

Agreed to everything that you said. But would you rate a player for a one match performance in a 3 series match over someone who performed more consistantly over the series? That IMO is debatable

How did Tendulkar perform significantly more consistently than Laxman to justify 9.5 vs. 7.5? You are overrating Tendulkar's performance at Centurion. He did a bit better than Indian batting. Laxman played 2 innings in the series where he was the highest scorer from either side in those innings. His run tally at Durban was more than twice that the second highest run scorer managed in the test match. Bottom line is that both played : 1. 1 superb innings each - Laxman 96 at Durban and Tendulkar 146 at Cape Town 2. 1 very good innings each - Laxman 38 at Durban and Tendulkar 111 at Centurion Tendulkar played 2 okay innings - first innings at Centurion and second innings at Cape Town. Laxman had one okay innings - second innings at Cape Town. Weigh that with the fact that Laxman scored more than double the number of runs anyone managed at Durban and there is nothing to choose between them.

[The Outsider]

What about Harbhajans 21? in addition to the wickets? Did he a good job in the durban test or no :hysterical:

Yeah, he did. Where did I say otherwise? I already wrote earlier that it was a 'good, decent, long overdue effort'.

[CSK Fan]

Not sure what you are trying to say. We did lose the test at Centurion after conceding a huge lead.

He, he Sorry confused the grounds

[CSK Fan]

Bottom line is that both played : 1. 1 superb innings each - Laxman 96 at Durban and Tendulkar 146 at Cape Town 2. 1 very good innings each - Laxman 38 at Durban and Tendulkar 111 at Centurion Tendulkar played 2 okay innings - first innings at Centurion and second innings at Cape Town. Laxman had one okay innings - second innings at Cape Town. Weigh that with the fact that Laxman scored more than double the number of runs anyone managed at Durban and there is nothing to choose between them.

The comparison between a score of 38 and 111 seems iffy to me particularly since one more partnership could have saved the test. But overall I agree, nothing much to chose between the two, definitely not 7.5 versus 9.5

[pensionplan]

How did Tendulkar perform significantly more consistently than Laxman to justify 9.5 vs. 7.5? You are overrating Tendulkar's performance at Centurion. He did a bit better than Indian batting. Laxman played 2 innings in the series where he was the highest scorer from either side in those innings. His run tally at Durban was more than twice that the second highest run scorer managed in the test match. Bottom line is that both played : 1. 1 superb innings each - Laxman 96 at Durban and Tendulkar 146 at Cape Town 2. 1 very good innings each - Laxman 38 at Durban and Tendulkar 111 at Centurion Tendulkar played 2 okay innings - first innings at Centurion and second innings at Cape Town. Laxman had one okay innings - second innings at Cape Town. Weigh that with the fact that Laxman scored more than double the number of runs anyone managed at Durban and there is nothing to choose between them.

Absolutely!!! Since we did not win the series and it is a 1-1 tie to me SRT/VVS are in the 8.0-8.5 range for this series. A series win would have meant a near perfect score to both. As they say winning matches is the only thing that matters in sports. And as the saying goes to the victor goes the spoils.

[karteekmvs]

Veeru 4 (As someone mentioned he is the main reason for a drawn series. If he were not in the side, Smith would have had a go at India on fourth day with 300 to chase which cold have gone either ways.) Gauti 7 (An average of 60 doesn't really tell the real story. He was very very lucky to have that average although he definitely saved the match for us.) Dravid 4(One full point for his 200th catch. Very ordinary with the bat) Sachin 9 (One full point for the only Indian to score at least one century and a half point for that wicket of Boucher which brought back the game on India's side. Loses 1 point for twin failures at Durban). VVS 8.5 (Gets more than 1 point for winning the second Test for India on a very trying pitch although he had his moments of luck. That makes up for his first Test failure. Was unlucky in the first innings at Newlands. MSD 5.5 (Loses 1 point for losing the toss in the first Test. His batting exceeded expectations.) Harbhajan 8 (Getting 7 for in Newlands is definitely his best performance outside India. 4 wickets on a Durban wicket were worth an extra point as well. His batting definitely helped us get some very valuable extra runs and an average close that of Dravid's is good enough for a number 8). Sree 6 (Had got us some very important breakthroughs in the second as well as the third Tests. His 3 spells in Newlands were amazing to watch. BUt he has been very erratic at lot of tiimes. First Test failures also give him a negative point.) Ishant 2.5 (YEs. India needs to fins a new bowler for Lords. Had been impressive in patches but his wickets tally definitely does not do justce to his selection.) Zak 7.5 (Gave the fast bowling a much needed direction in the second Test. GEts one full point for that but loses on a lacklustre performance in the third. His performance with the bat at Durban also gets him 1 full point not to mention the valuable hits towards the end of the first innings in Newlands. Pujara 2 (Gets one full point for his fielding bur loses on throwing it away in his debut in Durban. Was unlucky in the second innings and got a gem of a delivery from Steyn at Newlands.) Raina 1(HE definitely is a subcontinent player. His performances in the World Cup and IPL could decide if he is going to play at Lords.) Vijay. 2 (Failed to make an impact at Durban and might give the likes of Mukund/Rahane a sniff of a chance to compete for the third opener's slot.) Jaidev 1 (The less said the better. It would be a while he plays another Test.)

[The Outsider]

Am not saying Dhoni should be rated high or anything, but this is the second poster I've seen deducting ranking points from him for losing tosses. That is funny! :giggle:

[rkt.india]

Am not saying Dhoni should be rated high or anything' date=' but this is the second poster I've seen deducting ranking points from him for losing tosses. That is funny! :giggle:[/quote'] That is ridiculous seriously...what can Dhoni do if he loses the toss..its all about luck and people here say he is a lucky Kaptaan...

[Ranjha]

Yeah' date=' he did. Where did I say otherwise? I already wrote earlier that it was a 'good, decent, long overdue effort'.[/quote'] long overdue effort, eh? Care to tell me who was the MOS in the last series?

[The Outsider]

long overdue effort' date=' eh? Care to tell me who was the MOS in the last series?[/quote'] Yeah, and you can keep on believing he was Man of the Series for picking up 10 wickets in 3 matches @ 42.