VVS Laxman thrives in adversity, and this at times has worked against him
Since VVS Laxman guided India to victory over Australia in the first Test of the series at Mohali, there has been quite a chorus in his praise — in all mediums. Most of it has the same tenor: Laxman the unsung hero, the underrated genius, the artiste who is not a star like some of his flashier teammates, someone whose place in the side has been unfairly questioned, a master who was frequently put on trial, unfairly, because his worth was not recognised.
Stop for a moment and think: Who sings the tales of heroes? Who rates genius? Who creates stars? Who questions a player’s position in the team in total disregard to what the selectors may have to say? Who puts players on trial? Who recognises, or fails to recognise, a player’s worth? The answer is the same: the very same experts, analysts and commentators who are now singing paeans to Laxman. Who are these guys blaming?
It is indeed puzzling why Laxman is not rated highly, something that makes us look mad in the eyes of the Australians. To be fair, Laxman has to take some of the blame. At a time when there was no place in the middle order, he never wholeheartedly embraced the role of the opener which, admittedly, was thrust upon him. That contrasts sharply with the way Sehwag, who still says he wants to play in the middle order, took to the challenge of opening and went on to redefine the opener’s role. Laxman’s reluctance made his baptism into the national side a dodgy one, as he took five years to establish himself. His averages in eight Test series played from 1996 to 2000 were 19.25, 40, 28.66, 38.66, 16.50, 27, 36.83, and eight.
Secondly, Laxman is a fighter, but a bit too much. For him to thrive, there must be a good fight going on. He is content to withdraw in the shadows when the opposition, or the match situation, does not challenge him enough. Murali was a great bowler and Sachin is a great batsman. In their long careers, neither felt shy of picking the easy statistics that Bangladesh or Zimbabwe had to offer. Laxman, on the other hand, averages 55.58 against Australia, but a mere 40 against Zimbabwe, 39 against Bangladesh, and 34.35 against England.
This attitude has robbed Laxman of consistency. While there have been the back-from-the-dead, match-winning innings and partnerships, there have also been many frustrating twenties and thirties. Sixteen centuries in 114 Tests will always fail to take the breath away, despite the quality of the opposition and the criticality of those runs. England’s Alastair Cook, who may pray to be reborn with Laxman’s skills, already has 13 from 60!
It will be interesting to see how long the current adulation lasts. It may peter out once the next spate of ODIs begins, when the flashier teammates take centrestage and Laxman goes back to test his skills, which deserve to be tested against the very best, in the country’s mediocre first class cricket.
(suveen.sinha@bsmail.in)