Best innings you've ever seen?
Paul Hyett
strong contender.
Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
Ambrose & Marshall.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Bev A. Kupf
Paul Hyett (p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk) wrote:
> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
There are two that stand out in my mind -- both at Headingley as well.
Boycott's 191 against Australia 1977. And how can anyone ever forget
Botham's 149* at Headingley in 1981?
Beverly
--
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer
Nachiket Gokhale
> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
Brian Lara, 153* against Australia, at Bridgetown, againt Australia
1998/99 at Bridgetown.
Close Second:
VVS Laxman 281 against Australia, at Eden Gardens, 2001.
-Nachiket.
dmo
news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
Probably Lara's match winning century in (I think Barbados) in 1999 against
Australia. He shepherded the tail for about 200 runs to win the match
single-handedly. I remember being privileged enough to see it live, and the
fear of God being put up me when Ambrose got out and Walsh had to 'block' an
over for Lara to score the winning runs. I remember Walsh even had the cheek
to do one of his patented leaves :)
ODI's:
Michael Bevan's century in a Asia XI vx ROTW XI a few years back. The most
awesome ODI innings I have ever seen, so nearly bringing his down-and-out
team to victory.
And an emotional mention for a Ben Hollioake 50-odd in a ODI against
Pakistan on a seaming wicket at Headingly (Waqar took 6 or 7 iirc). It was
full of classy shots, and he was so calm at the crease. That kid had some
class.
SAM
Lara 153* is the all time best.
Lindsay Went
Lara 153* in 1999 v Australia. Pitch wasn't easy for batting and McGrath was
absolutely magnificent that day. Lara was controlled, resolute, accurate,
mixed in with some excellent shots.
Laxman 281 v Australia. Just took Australia apart to turn a lost position
into a drawn one, and then set up a possible win for Harby.
Hamish
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
Astle 222. Almost singlehandedly won the game from a nigh on impossible
situation. Had NZ won, it would be the greatest easily.
James Squires
cup final as the one that left an impression on me. Obviously an important
stage but he built slowly up to 50 and then let fly with some breathtaking
shots all over the ground including a couple of one-handed sixes.
Just checking now he took 74 balls to make 50 with just one 4. For the next
90 runs he took 47 balls including 8 sixes and 3 fours.
"dmo" <d...@12345blah.blah> wrote in message
news:4272...@news.greennet.net...
Mike Holmans
>For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
>strong contender.
>
>Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
>Ambrose & Marshall.
No argument from me there. Easily the best innings I've seen. Though I
envy those, such as Lindsay Went, with the time and money to have been
to see Lara's 153* at Bridgetown *and* Laxman's 281 at Kolkata.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:27:11 +0100,
> Paul Hyett (p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk) wrote:
>> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
>> strong contender.
>>
>> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
>> Ambrose & Marshall.
>
>There are two that stand out in my mind -- both at Headingley as well.
>Boycott's 191 against Australia 1977. And how can anyone ever forget
>Botham's 149* at Headingley in 1981?
Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it. Headingley
doesn't have a particularly large capacity, and I'm pretty sure it
wasn't full for Botham's innings. And no more than 2,500 saw the
devastation on the final day, despite the 346,785 people who cliam to
have done.
Cheers,
Mike
Bev A. Kupf
Mike Holmans (mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it.
There were thousands of people (tens of thousands?) who saw it.
The game was televised, you know.
michael...@yahoo.co.uk
Paul Hyett wrote:
> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a
very
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
Assuming you mean innings that we've been present at, my favourite is
Dolly's 158 against Aus at the Oval, 1968.
Mike Gooding
------------
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:51:00 +0100,
> Mike Holmans (mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it.
>
>There were thousands of people (tens of thousands?) who saw it.
>The game was televised, you know.
If I'd meant "watched it on TV", I'd have said so.
I had hoped that Paul was asking for something a bit more interesting
than "What's the best innings of the modern era?", which is all that
this question becomes once you count what people have watched on TV.
Cheers,
Mike
Bev A. Kupf
Mike Holmans (mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:00:29 GMT, "Bev A. Kupf" <beva...@myhome.net>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:51:00 +0100,
>> Mike Holmans (mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>> Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it.
>>
>>There were thousands of people (tens of thousands?) who saw it.
>>The game was televised, you know.
>
> If I'd meant "watched it on TV", I'd have said so.
I understand what you mean by "seen", but "seen" doesn't imply
"seen at the cricket ground" to me. It could "seen on TV",
which would still make it live. FWIW, at the time I lived in
Nottingham, so no, I didn't see it at the ground, but did see
it on TV .....
Lindsay Went
70 odd at SCG in 96-97. I've seen many test tons at the SCG but that little
innings was a gem as he ripped into the aussie attack with 3 wickets already
gone and tore it apart, hitting Warne( among others) out of the attack with
a series of spectacular strokes. Unfortunately for Chanderpaul, Mark Taylor
decided to bring Warne back on the last over before lunch and Warne bowled
him with a gigantic leg break that spun in from way outside the off stump.
Unfortunate for the spectators too as the game disintegrated into a
predictable and easy Aussie win :)
Robbert ter Hart
"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
I have only 4 Tests to choose from, but Flintoff's 142 v SA at Lord's in
2003 stands out. Brutal hitting, including 20-odd off Pollock to provide
top-class entertainment on a beautifully sunny day. Made everone forget that
England were actually being hammered by an innings.
Cheers,
RtH
Mike Holmans
<rter...@spj.nl> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
That was certainly fun.
But, to leave the Test arena, there was another Gooch innings I
remember well from 1984. I'd been away on business most of the week
and got back to London in time to get over to Lord's for about 3
o'clock. I arrived just in time to see Middlesex bowled out, leaving
Essex the final session, ie an hour plus 20 overs, to get 211 to win.
They did it with some ease, with Gooch smashing Wayne Daniel around at
8 an over. Breathtaking, it was.
Cheers,
Mike
James Squires
short number. But whilst by no means being the best innings ever, Scott
Styris was fairly remarkable on Wednesday at Edgbaston. 53 with 13 fours,
mostly off Heath Streak. Presume he doesn't like running these days! Sadly I
wasn't able to be there yesterday/today for Ian Bell's 231.
James
"James Squires" <jasq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4t599$mqk$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
shariq...@yahoo.com
at same ground comes pretty close
Shariq
Jim Brant
"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
> --
Like Mike Holmans I assume that by "seen" you mean actually being at the
ground, otherwise it's a bit meaningless.
I am tempted to say Len Hutton's 125 against Warwickshire in 1953 at
Bradford Park Avenue on a typically damp and very green pitch (the
Pitchfinders General wouldn't put up with it these days), against Bannister
and Hollies. However, in the end I have to go for a test match innings, and
although it was against a pretty mediocre England attack I think that Saeed
Anwar's century at the end of the second day at the Oval in 1996 (?) was the
best innings I have seen. England had scratched around once play was able to
start (after lunch??), and Pakistan started their knock a dozen or so overs
before tea. They scored 60-odd in that time; but after tea Saeed and Sohail
just took the England attack (Mullally, Lewis, Cork, Croft, Salisbury) apart
with some beautiful stroke play. Saeed got to his century in something like
130 balls. Of course, unlike Bradford the Oval was a good batting pitch, but
even so Saeed's innings was about as close to perfection as I am ever likely
to see.
Jim
Paul Hyett
:
>>
>>There are two that stand out in my mind -- both at Headingley as well.
>>Boycott's 191 against Australia 1977. And how can anyone ever forget
>>Botham's 149* at Headingley in 1981?
>
>Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it.
By 'seen', I didn't necessarily mean only those present on the ground -
I meant on TV too.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Mike Holmans
<p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
I'm slightly surprised, in that I thought you'd ask something more
interesting than what the best innings of the modern era is, which
does rather boil down to Gooch's 154*, Lara's 153* and Laxman's 281.
It's probable that anyone answering with anything else simply didn't
have access to the TV at the time.
Good to see that enough people have gone for physical presence anyway
to get some variety in the answers.
Cheers,
Mike
Chan.F...@oracle.com
- Chan
dodo
I have not seen live cricket at a ground in a long long time. Laxman's
281 was one of the first I saw streamed over the web
At a ground, the best I have seen was Vishwanath's 139 against West
Indies in Calcutta in '74-75.
I don't think there has been a better exponent of the square-cut.
A digression: Modern players do not really cut the ball well. They
either guide the ball with an angled bat, or drive the ball square.
The sound of a Vishwanath square-cut would loudly resound even in a
packed noisy Eden Gardens.
p1j
match...
Cant forget that one for my life...
Pavan
Rob
"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
I'll choose two if I may:
Best inns in difficult circumstances: Gooch comes very close, but I'll go
for Gavaskar at the MCG in 1981. There were some shocking umpiring and his
side were well on the wrong end of it (though ironically some terrible
umpiring was eventually to win that match for India). An out-of-form
Gavaskar made 70 in just under 4 hours on a very dodgy MCG track against
Lillee and Pascoe.
Best inns to watch: Gower's 150 at Trent Bridge in 1985. The Aussies were
pretty rubbish in those days and Gower elegantly caned them all over the
place. He got two more hundreds that year, but on the flattest pitches
imaginable. Trent Bridge had a bit in it for the bowlers early on.
Paul Hyett
:
>
>I had hoped that Paul was asking for something a bit more interesting
>than "What's the best innings of the modern era?", which is all that
>this question becomes once you count what people have watched on TV.
Sorry to disappoint you. :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>
>"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
>> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
>> strong contender.
>>
>> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
>> Ambrose & Marshall.
>> --
>Like Mike Holmans I assume that by "seen" you mean actually being at the
>ground, otherwise it's a bit meaningless.
Why?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>Paul that innings would it be for me as well although Botham's 149 also
>at same ground comes pretty close
Yes, that would be 2nd on my list, too.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Jim Brant
OK, meaningless was the wrong word - but certainly less interesting because
it reduces the range of answers you will get. Almost everyone will have seen
on TV the three innings mentioned most frequently, but relatively few will
have seen them 'live' - so they would have to think of something different.
Jim
Mango
"Paul Hyett" <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
The first half of Brian Lara's double century in Sydney (assuming you mean
by seen that we were actually at the ground rather than watch on TV.)
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Don Miles
<dod...@gmail.com> writes
>I don't think there has been a better exponent of the square-cut.
>
>A digression: Modern players do not really cut the ball well. They
>either guide the ball with an angled bat, or drive the ball square.
>
>The sound of a Vishwanath square-cut would loudly resound even in a
>packed noisy Eden Gardens.
My earliest 1st class match featured Clyde Walcott and the only thing I
can remember as a young kid was the two noises of ball off bat and ball
into something on the boundary ... not advertising boards in those days
I guess but I can't remember. I simply couldn't follow the ball across
the turf.
In the modern game, Robin Smith must be the best square cutter I've
seen.
And in her own form of cricket, Barbara Daniels could thread two cover
points. I not know another woman who could play the shot with such
ferocity.
Don
--
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2005 April 21
Alan OBrien
news:11Y37rD$OdcC...@activist.demon.co.uk...
A voice of one crying in the wilderness. Randall's 174,
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1970S/1976-77/ENG_IN_AUS/ENG_AUS_T_12-17MAR1977.html
Aditya Basrur
Paul Hyett wrote:
> For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a
very
> strong contender.
>
> Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> Ambrose & Marshall.
Danny Morrison's 14* at Auckland against England. Concentration, class,
technical accomplishment.
Aditya
FRAN
Lindsay Went wrote:
> Lara 153* in 1999 v Australia. Pitch wasn't easy for batting and
McGrath was
> absolutely magnificent that day. Lara was controlled, resolute,
accurate,
> mixed in with some excellent shots.
>
> Laxman 281 v Australia. Just took Australia apart to turn a lost
position
> into a drawn one, and then set up a possible win for Harby.
Admittedly against a tiring attack on a flat wicket playing really well
given to them by a bemused Aussie captain.
FRAN
amukhop
captains? :-)
Shishir S. Pathak
news:1114935369.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Don't most ATG innings end up being against tiring attacks and bemused
> captains? :-)
There is a bit of a rsc history behind this. According to some, Steve Waugh
made the cardinal mistake of enforcing follow-on in this game. Any runs
scored by the Indians in the second innings, therefore, don't count for
much.
Cheers, Shishir
Alan OBrien
news:1114935369.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> captains? :-)
What is an ATG innings?
amukhop
FRAN
All time great
FRAN
FRAN
No ... I don't think the one a few mentioned elsewhere, from Lara would
count.
I don't think Gilchrist's debut century qualifies either (I saw that
one at ground).
I also think Laxsman's 167 or so against the Aussies in Sydney in his
debut series (?) was probably a better knock than the 281, because it
was more unexpected.
FRAN
FRAN
most lamed arse decision in a won test match scenario, probably.
Bowling on a road in an oven, instead of batting.
FRAN
amukhop
Waugh
made the cardinal mistake of enforcing follow-on in this game. Any
runs
scored by the Indians in the second innings, therefore, don't count for
much.
Thanks, Shishir, I'm acquainted with this line of thinking :-) My
point is just that as an innings develops and starts looking like it
will qualify for ATG status, the attack being deconstructed starts
tiring, and the captain starts running out of ideas. This has to be the
case for most (maybe not all) ATG innings -- I am open to someone
pointing out cases (as Fran has done below) where a batsman has played
an ATG innings in the face of an attack that refuses to tire and a
captain who stays mused. (Unbemused? Amused?)
[Tangentially related point section: Day 2 of the current WI-SA test
opened yesterday with SA 214 for no loss, both openers 100+. Captain
Chanderpaul opened the day's attack with Narsingh Deonarine. Tony
Cozier commented, "Narsingh Deonarine to take up the West Indies
attack, or should I say Deonarine to take up the West Indies defense."]
Shishir S. Pathak
news:1114936373.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It was a high quality innings: strokeful and almost effortless. But by no
stretch of imagination can 167 be rated ahead of 281.
Cheers, Shishir
maiet
"Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114939158....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> But going back to Fran's theme (and putting on my "future husband of a
> good-looking Australian" hat), I'm not sure which Australian innings
> I'd rank as the best innings ever. I mean, there's Healy's 161* at
> Brisbane against a faltering WI side, Greg Blewett's 99 at the WACA in
> the same series on a scary pitch,
blewett's 99 was at Adelaide v WI without Ambrose, on a flat pitch.
Aditya Basrur
Shishir S. Pathak wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1114936373.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > I also think Laxsman's 167 or so against the Aussies in Sydney in
his
> > debut series (?) was probably a better knock than the 281, because
it
> > was more unexpected.
>
> It was a high quality innings: strokeful and almost effortless. But
by no
> stretch of imagination can 167 be rated ahead of 281.
I think FRAN's making a case that no innings which results in an
Australian defeat can be great, which is fair enough, I guess. Just as
the world revolves around an island with a lot of dead desert in the
middle, so too should all Cricketing achievements revolve around
Australia.
And as for the 167 being less expected, I think someone's talking out
of her hat. Laxman's 281 came after India had lost their previous four
encounters with Australia, and badly. It came after India had lost
badly at Bombay (a home ground), after India was following on, and
after the Australian bowlers had shown that they *could* bowl in India.
Amidst this, Laxman came in, fighting for his place in the side,
against a team that had 16 wins on the trot, and hit 281. I don't know
anyone who was expecting it. (Yes, there had been the 167, but all us
Bombayites knew that had been a fluke when wickets were falling all
over the place and the series was lost and Laxman had just got lucky,
blah blah blah.) The 281 was entirely unexpected. The 167 was too, but
no more so than the 281. The 281 won India a Test match and set us up
to win a series.
But going back to Fran's theme (and putting on my "future husband of a
good-looking Australian" hat), I'm not sure which Australian innings
I'd rank as the best innings ever. I mean, there's Healy's 161* at
Brisbane against a faltering WI side, Greg Blewett's 99 at the WACA in
the same series on a scary pitch, or even Matthew Elliott's 199 in the
1997 Ashes. If Matt O'Neill were here, he'd tell me I should never
forget Dean Jones's 206 at Madras, which would remind me of Norm
O'Neill's 181 in the Tied Test. Then there are the innings like
Hayden's 380 and Gilchrist's double-ton at the Wanderers which are
disqualified because we expected them, and McGrath's 50 against NZ and
Warne's 99, which not only did I not expect but still don't accept
occurred. No, the slate's (and don't get me started on Michael Slater's
91, 93, 95, 97 or 99) been wiped clean; the best innings ever has to be
Stuart Law's 54*.
Aditya [ But when he becomes a Pom, maybe Reiffel's
89 vs South Africa will gain the mantle. ] Basrur
FRAN
Aditya Basrur wrote:
> Shishir S. Pathak wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1114936373.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I also think Laxsman's 167 or so against the Aussies in Sydney in
> his
> > > debut series (?) was probably a better knock than the 281,
because
> it
> > > was more unexpected.
> >
> > It was a high quality innings: strokeful and almost effortless.
But
> by no
> > stretch of imagination can 167 be rated ahead of 281.
>
> I think FRAN's making a case that no innings which results in an
> Australian defeat can be great, which is fair enough, I guess.
Except that I did mention Lara's knock. On another occasion I enthused
over Roy Frederick's demolition of Australia at Peth, but go on ...
> Just as
> the world revolves around an island with a lot of dead desert in the
> middle, so too should all Cricketing achievements revolve around
> Australia.
>
Now you're just being churlish. Of course it doesn't. Those other
islands in the Caribbean gave me most of my entertainment for about ten
years of my life.
> And as for the 167 being less expected, I think someone's talking out
> of her hat. Laxman's 281 came after India had lost their previous
four
> encounters with Australia, and badly. It came after India had lost
> badly at Bombay (a home ground), after India was following on, and
> after the Australian bowlers had shown that they *could* bowl in
India.
> Amidst this, Laxman came in, fighting for his place in the side,
> against a team that had 16 wins on the trot, and hit 281. I don't
know
> anyone who was expecting it.
I wish someone had offered me 10-1 on him passing 150. I'd have parted
with $50. Ditto for Dravid.
> (Yes, there had been the 167, but all us
> Bombayites knew that had been a fluke when wickets were falling all
> over the place and the series was lost and Laxman had just got lucky,
> blah blah blah.) The 281 was entirely unexpected.
No, just unlikely, but if was going to do it, then was the time, rather
than batting last.
> The 167 was too, but
> no more so than the 281. The 281 won India a Test match and set us up
> to win a series.
>
With SRW's help.
> But going back to Fran's theme (and putting on my "future husband of
a
> good-looking Australian" hat), I'm not sure which Australian innings
> I'd rank as the best innings ever. I mean, there's Healy's 161* at
> Brisbane against a faltering WI side, Greg Blewett's 99 at the WACA
in
> the same series on a scary pitch, or even Matthew Elliott's 199 in
the
> 1997 Ashes. If Matt O'Neill were here, he'd tell me I should never
> forget Dean Jones's 206 at Madras, which would remind me of Norm
> O'Neill's 181 in the Tied Test. Then there are the innings like
> Hayden's 380
ugh ... you're kidding right?
> and Gilchrist's double-ton at the Wanderers which are
> disqualified because we expected them, and McGrath's 50 against NZ
and
> Warne's 99, which not only did I not expect but still don't accept
> occurred. No, the slate's (and don't get me started on Michael
Slater's
> 91, 93, 95, 97 or 99) been wiped clean; the best innings ever has to
be
> Stuart Law's 54*.
>
Ok we're having fun.
> Aditya [ But when he becomes a Pom, maybe Reiffel's
> 89 vs South Africa will gain the mantle. ] Basrur
FRAN
Trapper
On TV: Salim Malik at Eden Gardens
Shishir S. Pathak
news:1114939158....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> And as for the 167 being less expected, I think someone's talking out
> of her hat. Laxman's 281 came after India had lost their previous four
> encounters with Australia,
Five actually, including Bangalore Test in the earlier home series.
> If Matt O'Neill were here, he'd tell me I should never
> forget Dean Jones's 206 at Madras, which would remind me of Norm
210 I think it was.
Cheers, Shishir
<snip>
TF
As a 14 year old kid at the time I'd never seen him play before, and it was
just awesome the way he took the England attack apart.
Pat Hanna
On Sun, 01 May 2005 07:24:48 -0400, Trapper <happyhap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In person: Srikkanth 123 against Pakistan at MCC
> On TV: Salim Malik at Eden Gardens
D'Oliveira's 158 at the Oval against Australia 1968.
P.H.
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools...Herbert Spencer
David North
news:_hoce.2189$Od6.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > For me, Graham Gooch's 154* v WI at Headingley in 1991 has to be a very
> > strong contender.
> >
> > Amazing skill & concentration against an attack that included Walsh,
> > Ambrose & Marshall.
>
> situation.
Lost by 98 runs <> almost won. Most of the innings (probably from the point when
Fleming was out, if not before) was played in the knowledge that the match was
as good as lost.
> Had NZ won, it would be the greatest easily.
Agreed.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk
kenh...@hotmail.com
Bev A. Kupf wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:05:21 +0100,
> Mike Holmans (mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:00:29 GMT, "Bev A. Kupf"
<beva...@myhome.net>
> > tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
> >
> >>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:51:00 +0100,
> >> Mike Holmans (mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >>> Of course, there weren't all that many people who saw it.
> >>
> >>There were thousands of people (tens of thousands?) who saw it.
> >>The game was televised, you know.
> >
> > If I'd meant "watched it on TV", I'd have said so.
>
> I understand what you mean by "seen", but "seen" doesn't imply
> "seen at the cricket ground" to me. It could "seen on TV",
> which would still make it live. FWIW, at the time I lived in
> Nottingham, so no, I didn't see it at the ground, but did see
> it on TV .....
>
> Beverly
> --
> Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer
Beverley,
you have to understand that Mike is the resident Pompous Prick(TM) on
rsc.
He is lucky enough to be able to get to quite a few games in person, so
considers himself somewhat superior to the rest of us who watch on tv
or follow via radio, irc or whatever.
Living in Sydney, I only really get to see Tests at the SCG (a match in
Melbourne or Brisbane is still 1000km away), but I'd consider that I
'see' many more Tests than just a day or two at the SCG (if I'm lucky)
per year, due to the tv.
I've watched many innings' from start to finish on tv. OK, not quite
the same as being there, but plenty enough to know that it was special.
Higgs
kenh...@hotmail.com
Chan.F...@oracle.com wrote:
> I thought it was obvious that Lindsay went.
>
> - Chan
Very good.
Anyway, I think it's rather fitting that poor old Mike didn't have the
time or the money, especially given that it's his silly restriction in
the first place (and not the OPs).
Higgs
Michael Banner
<snip>
> > And as for the 167 being less expected, I think someone's talking out
> > of her hat. Laxman's 281 came after India had lost their previous
> four
> > encounters with Australia, and badly. It came after India had lost
> > badly at Bombay (a home ground), after India was following on, and
> > after the Australian bowlers had shown that they *could* bowl in
> India.
> > Amidst this, Laxman came in, fighting for his place in the side,
> > against a team that had 16 wins on the trot, and hit 281. I don't
> know
> > anyone who was expecting it.
>
> I wish someone had offered me 10-1 on him passing 150. I'd have parted
> with $50. Ditto for Dravid.
A few simple facts are sufficient illustration.
1. Previous three Indian innings totals in the series: 176, 219, 171.
2. Dravids scores in corresponding innings: 9, 39, 25
3. Laxman scores in corresponding innings: 20, 12, 59.
The form side was Australia, with 16 wins on the trot, a confident bowling
unit, and a team on the verge of a historic series win in India. The form
batsmen was Tendulkar with two fifties in his three innings to date - Laxman
and Tendulkar the only batsmen to make a fifty in the series to date. India
trailed on the first innings by 274 after being bowled out in the first
innings for just 171.
From Waughs perspective, India had yet to even pass 274 in a completed
innings. I'd imagine at 3-115 with Tendulkar just dismissed, Waugh was
pretty chuffed and expecting to win by an innings.
Under those circumstances, for you to take a punt on Laxman or Dravid
crossing 150 is a bit cute for me. Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable. I find your comments
unbelieveable because enforcing the follow on appeared approriate given the
circumstances outlined above. It was not a poor decision and the incredible
batting by India was in no way expected.
Steve Hague
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115005180.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I'd go further and say you get a much better view of the action from TV than
if you watch from the ground, but of course you miss out on the atmosphere.
Steve Hague.
FRAN
You're aware I suppose that Sourav Ganguly's middle name is Baldrick,
aren't you?
In all seriousness though, Australia hadn't won a series in India in
more than a generation, whereas India have tended to play their best
cricket on home soil, and as you say, Australia had won 16 in a row,
itself anomalous. So the pattern was due to be broken. The question was
when. Nobody can say that with certainty, because that would put your
average bookie out of business. But it's going to happen when the best
chane of it happening is provided.
Does that mean that Waugh's blunder ensured what happened, or even
rendered it probable? No. But it was more probable by a long way than
if he had not enforced.
> The form side was Australia, with 16 wins on the trot, a confident
bowling
> unit, and a team on the verge of a historic series win in India. The
form
> batsmen was Tendulkar with two fifties in his three innings to date -
Laxman
> and Tendulkar the only batsmen to make a fifty in the series to date.
India
> trailed on the first innings by 274 after being bowled out in the
first
> innings for just 171.
>
> From Waughs perspective, India had yet to even pass 274 in a
completed
> innings. I'd imagine at 3-115 with Tendulkar just dismissed, Waugh
was
> pretty chuffed and expecting to win by an innings.
>
> Under those circumstances, for you to take a punt on Laxman or Dravid
> crossing 150 is a bit cute for me.
Give me good enough odds, and I'll bet on anything.
> Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
> us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
recovered. They were still under the pump next time around.
> I find your comments
> unbelieveable because enforcing the follow on appeared approriate
given the
> circumstances outlined above. It was not a poor decision and the
incredible
> batting by India was in no way expected.
Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though outside)
possibility.
FRAN
Shishir S. Pathak
>
> Michael Banner wrote:
<snip>
>> Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
>> us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
>
> And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
> recovered.
Rock bottom eh? They went to England and demolished them 4-1. Then 5-1 in
the back-to-back home-and-away series against RSA. 3-0 away in NZ. 4-1
Ashes at home. The drawn home series against NZ was the only time they
didn't simply kill the opponent.
If this is rock bottom, I suppose every team would like to be there and
would hope never to "recover".
> They were still under the pump next time around.
You mean the next time they came to India for a Test series? They won 2 of
the first 3 Tests in the series.
Cheers, Shishir
<snip>
FRAN
Shishir S. Pathak wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115025930....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Michael Banner wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
> >> us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
> >
> > And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
> > recovered.
>
What happened in the home series v India?
> Rock bottom eh? They went to England and demolished them 4-1. Then
5-1 in
> the back-to-back home-and-away series against RSA. 3-0 away in NZ.
4-1
> Ashes at home. The drawn home series against NZ was the only time
they
> didn't simply kill the opponent.
>
> If this is rock bottom, I suppose every team would like to be there
and
> would hope never to "recover".
>
Against India ... Look at how flakey they were in Australia
> > They were still under the pump next time around.
>
> You mean the next time they came to India for a Test series? They
won 2 of
> the first 3 Tests in the series.
>
The one in Australia, Shishir.
> Cheers, Shishir
>
> <snip>
David North
Baldrick's cunning plans weren't, though, were they?
> > The form side was Australia, with 16 wins on the trot, a confident
> bowling
> > unit, and a team on the verge of a historic series win in India. The
> form
> > batsmen was Tendulkar with two fifties in his three innings to date -
> Laxman
> > and Tendulkar the only batsmen to make a fifty in the series to date.
> India
> > trailed on the first innings by 274 after being bowled out in the
> first
> > innings for just 171.
> >
> > From Waughs perspective, India had yet to even pass 274 in a
> completed
> > innings. I'd imagine at 3-115 with Tendulkar just dismissed, Waugh
> was
> > pretty chuffed and expecting to win by an innings.
> >
> > Under those circumstances, for you to take a punt on Laxman or Dravid
> > crossing 150 is a bit cute for me.
>
> Give me good enough odds, and I'll bet on anything.
If you think 10-1 is good odds on a particular batsman making 150 (unless it's
Bradman, in which case 7-2 would be roughly fair), even in favourable
circumstances, then the bookies must love you.
Andrew Dunford
>
> Shishir S. Pathak wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1115025930....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Michael Banner wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
> > >> us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
> > >
> > > And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
> > > recovered.
> >
>
> What happened in the home series v India?
>
> > Rock bottom eh? They went to England and demolished them 4-1. Then
> 5-1 in
> > the back-to-back home-and-away series against RSA. 3-0 away in NZ.
> 4-1
> > Ashes at home. The drawn home series against NZ was the only time
> they
> > didn't simply kill the opponent.
> >
> > If this is rock bottom, I suppose every team would like to be there
> and
> > would hope never to "recover".
> >
>
> Against India ... Look at how flakey they were in Australia
The two bowlers on whom they relied (and still do today) heavily weren't
playing, and the pitches did nothing to expose any weakness in India's
batting. I don't think the previous series had any effect.
<snip>
Andrew
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>Michael Banner wrote:
>
>> I find your comments
>> unbelieveable because enforcing the follow on appeared approriate
>given the
>> circumstances outlined above. It was not a poor decision and the
>incredible
>> batting by India was in no way expected.
>
>Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though outside)
>possibility.
I agree with Michael. You are arguing from a position of 20-20
hindsight, telling us that things seemed like a real possibility, when
they clearly did not seem that way, because the unthinkable actually
happened. It's a feature of cricket that things are hardly ever more
than 99.9% certain, so the one in a thousand chance will actually come
up very occasionally, but it is frankly irrational to behave as though
it always will, which is effectively what you are arguing.
What's also amusing to contemplate is what would have happened if
Waugh had not enforced and India had achieved a draw by batting out
time, and the chances of *that* were far, far greater than the chance
that they would make enough to set Australia a target *and* bowl them
out very cheaply. Then you and your ilk would have been all over him
for playing safety-first and showing an un-Australian lack of
aggression, and wasting the chance to extend the fantastic run of
victories.
To be honest, I find your harping on this as a blunder by Steve Waugh
incredibly one-eyed and pretty offensive overall. What Laxman, Dravid
and Harbhajan Singh managed between them is one of the most miraculous
turnrounds, possibly the most miraculous, in the history of the game
and I don't see why it should be constantly belittled by small-minded
Australians who can't see beyond the end of their precious team's
unbeaten record.
Cheers,
Mike
Aditya Basrur
Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> To be honest, I find your harping on this as a blunder by Steve Waugh
> incredibly one-eyed and pretty offensive overall. What Laxman, Dravid
> and Harbhajan Singh managed between them is one of the most
miraculous
> turnrounds, possibly the most miraculous, in the history of the game
> and I don't see why it should be constantly belittled by small-minded
> Australians who can't see beyond the end of their precious team's
> unbeaten record.
Aah, but that's precisely the purpose of this carping. Claim SWaugh
gifted India the victory on a platter by making them follow on, hence
India didn't deserve the victory, and hence Australia would still be
unbeaten. That way, you can preserve the integrity of Steve Waugh's 200
in 1994-95 or Bobby Simpson's 311 as the greatest innings ever.
Us Indian fans aren't especially offended by Fran's mid-life whines -
most of us just seem to be amused.
Aditya
Colin Kynoch
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal
Ratchaser decided to post the following:
It would appear that it is only the likes of Fran and alvey that are
of this view.
Given the same circumstances I doubt there would be many Test captains
in any era who would not have enforced the follow on.
Colin Kynoch
Gafoor
> I wish someone had offered me 10-1 on him passing 150. I'd have parted
> with $50. Ditto for Dravid.
You would have been an utter fool, then.
At that time, Dravid averaged something like
25 or so against Australia & he had averaged 15
in the previous series against Australia - and had been Warne's
bunny - stats provided in the other post.
If it was very likely that Laxman would pass 150 that inning (i.e.
most people were expecting it), then he wouldn't have been
on the verge of being dropped from the side at that time.
FRAN
Well I'd have asked for, and probably got 50s, and wouldn't have
mentioned that I'd have settled for 10s
FRAN
FRAN
Mike Holmans wrote:
> On 2 May 2005 02:25:30 -0700, "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >
> >Michael Banner wrote:
> >
> >> I find your comments
> >> unbelieveable because enforcing the follow on appeared approriate
> >given the
> >> circumstances outlined above. It was not a poor decision and the
> >incredible
> >> batting by India was in no way expected.
> >
> >Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though
outside)
> >possibility.
>
> I agree with Michael. You are arguing from a position of 20-20
> hindsight, telling us that things seemed like a real possibility,
when
> they clearly did not seem that way, because the unthinkable actually
> happened.
You run the red light at 80ks 3am every morning, it might take you ten
or even 20 mornings to hit someone, but it's not unthinkable.
> It's a feature of cricket that things are hardly ever more
> than 99.9% certain, so the one in a thousand chance will actually
come
> up very occasionally, but it is frankly irrational to behave as
though
> it always will, which is effectively what you are arguing.
>
I never said that. I didn't even say it was probable.
> What's also amusing to contemplate is what would have happened if
> Waugh had not enforced and India had achieved a draw by batting out
> time, and the chances of *that* were far, far greater than the chance
> that they would make enough to set Australia a target *and* bowl them
> out very cheaply.
Unlikely, but even if it was *more* likely than what happened, the risk
reward balance was better.
> Then you and your ilk would have been all over him
> for playing safety-first and showing an un-Australian lack of
> aggression, and wasting the chance to extend the fantastic run of
> victories.
>
But it wouldn't have been the silliest decision ever. Just a little
unlucky, or the result of inadequate bowling/fielding or good batting.
> To be honest, I find your harping on this as a blunder by Steve Waugh
> incredibly one-eyed and pretty offensive overall. What Laxman, Dravid
> and Harbhajan Singh managed between them is one of the most
miraculous
> turnrounds, possibly the most miraculous, in the history of the game
> and I don't see why it should be constantly belittled by small-minded
> Australians who can't see beyond the end of their precious team's
> unbeaten record.
>
Ah we're going ad hominem now? I thought better of you Mike. I've paid
homage to the Indians. They *were* the better side. They outbatted and
outbowled the Aussies. Good luck to them.
It would have been good if they'd done it the hard way though.
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
FRAN
FRAN
Aditya Basrur wrote:
> Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> >
> > To be honest, I find your harping on this as a blunder by Steve
Waugh
> > incredibly one-eyed and pretty offensive overall. What Laxman,
Dravid
> > and Harbhajan Singh managed between them is one of the most
> miraculous
> > turnrounds, possibly the most miraculous, in the history of the
game
> > and I don't see why it should be constantly belittled by
small-minded
> > Australians who can't see beyond the end of their precious team's
> > unbeaten record.
>
> Aah, but that's precisely the purpose of this carping. Claim SWaugh
> gifted India the victory on a platter by making them follow on, hence
> India didn't deserve the victory, and hence Australia would still be
> unbeaten. That way, you can preserve the integrity of Steve Waugh's
200
> in 1994-95 or Bobby Simpson's 311 as the greatest innings ever.
>
You're way off base with this one.
> Us Indian fans aren't especially offended by Fran's mid-life whines -
> most of us just seem to be amused.
>
> Aditya
You shouldn't be offended at all. But it's up to you.
In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd
still be facing more such stupidites. Now it's unlikely to ever happen
again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
circumstances in my lifetime. At least, I hope not.
FRAN
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd
> still be facing more such stupidites. Now it's unlikely to ever happen
> again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
> circumstances in my lifetime. At least, I hope not.
Waugh got burned so badly that he continued to enforce the follow-on at
every opportunity for the rest of his tenure as captain, and won every time.
<snip>
Andrew
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd
>still be facing more such stupidites. Now it's unlikely to ever happen
>again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
>circumstances in my lifetime.
With which bookmaker have you placed this bet?
If you have yet do do so, what odds are you expecting?
I would estimate the chances of an Australian captain enforcing the
follow-on in similar circumstances as about 99 in 100. I'd be happy to
accept that for captains from other countries it would be more like
999 in 1000 because they won't suffer the deep emotional scars of
Kolkata 2000-01, though.
Cheers,
Mike
FRAN
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115035056.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd
happen
> > again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
> > circumstances in my lifetime. At least, I hope not.
>
> Waugh got burned so badly that he continued to enforce the follow-on
at
> every opportunity for the rest of his tenure as captain, and won
every time.
>
> <snip>
>
> Andrew
And who is enforcing these days, now that Mr Conservative has retired?
FRAN
FRAN
Mike Holmans wrote:
> On 2 May 2005 04:57:36 -0700, "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
> >In a way, it's good SRW got burned. If he'd got away with it, we'd
> >still be facing more such stupidites. Now it's unlikely to ever
happen
> >again. I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
> >circumstances in my lifetime.
>
> With which bookmaker have you placed this bet?
>
As yet, none, but if I do, I'll let you know.
> If you have yet do do so, what odds are you expecting?
>
Not sure what I should ask. Maybe I'd let the bookmaker make me an
offer.
> I would estimate the chances of an Australian captain enforcing the
> follow-on in similar circumstances as about 99 in 100. I'd be happy
to
> accept that for captains from other countries it would be more like
> 999 in 1000 because they won't suffer the deep emotional scars of
> Kolkata 2000-01, though.
>
So you reckon I should seek about 100-1? I'll quote that if I start
negotiating.
FRAN
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
FRAN
Mind you, given that I can't collect, by definition, while I live, and
statistically speaking, I'm likely to live at least another 40 years, I
suppose I'll have to put a premium on it.
FRAN
FRAN
Gafoor wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> > I wish someone had offered me 10-1 on him passing 150. I'd have
parted
> > with $50. Ditto for Dravid.
>
> You would have been an utter fool, then.
Why?
I'd have collected $1000 for $100. Sounds less than foolish to me.
> At that time, Dravid averaged something like
> 25 or so against Australia & he had averaged 15
> in the previous series against Australia - and had been Warne's
> bunny - stats provided in the other post.
>
So maybe I could have wangled 50s or even 100s. Even better.
> If it was very likely that Laxman would pass 150 that inning (i.e.
> most people were expecting it), then he wouldn't have been
> on the verge of being dropped from the side at that time.
Cricket's an odd game. I saw him bat here in Australia. I though he
looked ungainly until that 167. Then I wondered how he'd looked so
inept earlier.
He only needed a start and a good pitch. And Dravid always *looked*
very classy.
FRAN
Andrew Dunford
There has been an obvious change of policy since Waugh retired: under
Ponting, Australia doesn't usually enforce the follow-on. And they've won
such matches handsomely, just like Waugh's team usually did. That said, the
rather strange tactics at Adelaide 2004/05 (not enforcing follow-on, then
crawling along at under 3rpo in the second innings) left some scope for NZ
to escape with a draw.
Andrew
David North
>
> I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
> circumstances in my lifetime.
Now there's a bet you *can't* win - or at least you can never collect on it.
Shishir S. Pathak
I don't see the connection. Laxman and Dravid would have certainly gained
in confidence from their monumental effort, but to say that the drawn series
last year was a direct result of Kolkata 2001 is ridiculous. Equally
ridiculous is to call it hitting the rock bottom from the Aussue POV.
Cheers, Shishir
Southpaw
Interesting you should mention this. Perhaps if we had had a fully fit
Harbhajan we would've won the series in Australia! We did after all
miss a worthy second spinner in T4, where Kartik was just useless.
Interesting angle that. A lot of India's success is attributed to Aus
missing Warne (who has done squat vs. India anyway) and McGrath. I'm
wondering how much of Aus's success can be attributed to India missing
a fully fit Harbhajan. After all, we're also claiming the wickets
suited India more and everything isn't it?
-Samarth.
Shishir S. Pathak
news:1115053535.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, a few posters from Down Under did float this theory that wickets were
made to suit India the last time we were Aus. The idea, we are told, was to
make the series 'interesting' to keep the various wallahs happy. I most
certainly don't subscribe to this theory. After all, these very posters
claim in other threads at a diffrent point in time that the basic character
of a wicket can not be changed. For example, when the Indians claimed that
Sydney 1999-2000 was a quick wicket, we are told that that can never be the
case, the SCG wicket traditionally being a spinners' paradise.
Now we are told the wickets were 'made easier' for the Indian batsmen to
make the series more interesting.
All I can say is Bah! and point them to the 'Gabba where even a Zaheer Khan
took a 5-fer against the mighty Aussie batting line-up (unless people
believe that their batting was less mighty owing to McWarne's absence). The
only other 5-fers Zaheer's taken in his entire career were in a series which
happened only in Dunford's greentop dreams.
To your other point about missing McGrath (the bowler) ... what a lot of
people don't seem to realise is, even in 2000-01, we didn't have our premier
strike bowler at home in Kumble, and Srinath missed two out of three Tests.
It's arguable, since its fashionable to do so on rsc, that had India fielded
its first choice XI in that series, we'd have won it 3-0 comfortably, and
Steve Waugh would have been spared the difficult (?) choice re. enforcing
the follow-on in Kolkata.
Cheers, Shishir
<snip>
FRAN
David North wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115035056.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I'm betting no Aussie captain will enforce in similar
> > circumstances in my lifetime.
>
> Now there's a bet you *can't* win - or at least you can never collect
on it.
>
> --
Correct ...
It would have to be in my will.
FRAN
Michael Banner
<snip>
> In all seriousness though, Australia hadn't won a series in India in
> more than a generation, whereas India have tended to play their best
> cricket on home soil, and as you say, Australia had won 16 in a row,
> itself anomalous. So the pattern was due to be broken.
I don't follow the logic. Perhaps this is because there is none.
> > Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
> > us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
>
> And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
> recovered. They were still under the pump next time around.
Eh? In the series in India we lost the third test by two wickets - a close
game indeed which could have gone either way. Australia never gave less than
100% but it was India who held their nerve.
As for the series in Australia, we were missing McWarne and playing on flat
wickets against a powerful batting team. India coped with this better than
we did, but arguing the Kolkata test affected the result is bizarre to say
the least.
> Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though outside)
> possibility.
It's an outside possibility that I will be killed crossing the road, driving
my car, catching a bus, ferry, train or plane. I'll still cross the road at
lunch, because it is the most appropriate way to get to the other side and I
expect to arrive safetly.
FRAN
Michael Banner wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115025930....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > In all seriousness though, Australia hadn't won a series in India
in
> > more than a generation, whereas India have tended to play their
best
> > cricket on home soil, and as you say, Australia had won 16 in a
row,
> > itself anomalous. So the pattern was due to be broken.
>
> I don't follow the logic. Perhaps this is because there is none.
or alternatively, you just have a different model of what the pattern
of results entails
Is the predictable result the one that follows the most recent trend,
or is this an anomalous departure from the more longstanding and
predictively telling trend?
In short, if winning 16 in a row is unusual (by definition yes, since
it was a record) when will this anomaly end, or is it what one might
expect? To some extent, the presence of more weak teams makes longer
winning streaks possible than in the days when teams were more evenly
matched. Equally, the fact that there are more fixtures each year than
40 years ago makes it possible for strong teams to cash in on their
talent with more wins. Still, at some point, one expects teams to fail
for endogenous reasons. Players find it hard physically and
psychologically to maintain top form. Their rivals feel they have
little to lose and perhaps play with more freedom. This probably was
the case at Kolkhata as the game, and the series were apparently gone.
Laxman, some assert, was about to be dropped. And he was too good a
batsman to keep missing out. Ditto Dravid. And the pitch was very good.
>
> > > Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
> > > us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
> >
> > And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
> > recovered. They were still under the pump next time around.
>
> Eh? In the series in India we lost the third test by two wickets - a
close
> game indeed which could have gone either way. Australia never gave
less than
> 100% but it was India who held their nerve.
>
India led handsomely on the first innings (by 110) and after Kolkhata
Australia were like rabbits in the headlights for Harbhajan (who took
15 in that match). The final result flattered Australia only because
India lost a bit of concentration. They were gone from the time Ganguly
and Dravid put them in front and required Australia to chase. From the
end of the first innings, (and given what happened earlier at
Kolkhata, I'd say the first innings deficit was on the cards) it was
only a matter of time before Australia fell apart.
And the pain of that tour was still evident in the return series in
their brittle performance in Adelaide, where they got spooked by the
old firm again. (Incidently, for Aditya's benefit, the performances in
Adelaide by Dravid and Laxman also also qualify as ATG, despite
Australia losing.)
> As for the series in Australia, we were missing McWarne and playing
on flat
> wickets against a powerful batting team. India coped with this better
than
> we did, but arguing the Kolkata test affected the result is bizarre
to say
> the least.
>
> > Not *expected* but suggested by circumstance as a real (though
outside)
> > possibility.
>
> It's an outside possibility that I will be killed crossing the road,
driving
> my car, catching a bus, ferry, train or plane. I'll still cross the
road at
> lunch, because it is the most appropriate way to get to the other
side and I
> expect to arrive safely.
No, it's a remote possibility. If it were merely an *outside*
possibility (ie if there were a 10% chance of that happening for
example), then the government would be under enormous political
pressure to improve road transport safety. I fancy you'd also be acting
like someone in a war zone trying that. Maybe you'd take a helmet and
life vest and have ambulance cover.
Personally, I think people are too relaxed whenh I see the way people
drive, but that's because they don't think it can happen to them.
FRAN
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> I've paid
> homage to the Indians. They *were* the better side. They outbatted and
> outbowled the Aussies. Good luck to them.
>
> It would have been good if they'd done it the hard way though.
Where I come from, paying homage doesn't usually involve concluding that
perhaps the achievement wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> In short, if winning 16 in a row is unusual (by definition yes, since
> it was a record) when will this anomaly end, or is it what one might
> expect? To some extent, the presence of more weak teams makes longer
> winning streaks possible than in the days when teams were more evenly
> matched. Equally, the fact that there are more fixtures each year than
> 40 years ago makes it possible for strong teams to cash in on their
> talent with more wins. Still, at some point, one expects teams to fail
> for endogenous reasons. Players find it hard physically and
> psychologically to maintain top form. Their rivals feel they have
> little to lose and perhaps play with more freedom.
Since it's Amateur Psychology Hour, results involving Australia in the
2004/05 season tend to give the impression that all they had to do to win
was turn up, and that their opponents were beaten before they stepped onto
the field.
> This probably was
> the case at Kolkhata as the game, and the series were apparently gone.
> Laxman, some assert, was about to be dropped. And he was too good a
> batsman to keep missing out. Ditto Dravid. And the pitch was very good.
Rot. Laxman had a mediocre record, adorned only by one fabulous innings at
Sydney. We know now that he was capable of scoring 281 in such
circumstances, but we didn't know then. Dravid had an excellent record
behind him, but I'd love to know how or why they were both "due" to 'come
good' at exactly the same time. Australia was one wicket away from
finishing India off.
IMO there is no such thing as being "too good a batsman to keep missing
out".
<snip>
Andrew
FRAN
Well where I come from, "paying homage" involves an honest evaluation
on merit. You look at the total picture. "Yes they played very well,
and here were the predisposing factors, one way or the other."
FRAN
FRAN
That's not my opinion, but it is the opinion of some posters who think
that India's prior record ought to have meant that SRW was entitled to
see a cakewalk if he'd enforced.
> > This probably was
> > the case at Kolkhata as the game, and the series were apparently
gone.
> > Laxman, some assert, was about to be dropped. And he was too good a
> > batsman to keep missing out. Ditto Dravid. And the pitch was very
good.
>
> Rot. Laxman had a mediocre record, adorned only by one fabulous
innings at
> Sydney. We know now that he was capable of scoring 281 in such
> circumstances, but we didn't know then. Dravid had an excellent
record
> behind him, but I'd love to know how or why they were both "due" to
'come
> good' at exactly the same time. Australia was one wicket away from
> finishing India off.
They weren't "due" at the same time, but in the circumstances, this was
foreseeable. Improbable, but foreseeable. I think I said 10-1 on each
of them scoring 150.
>
> IMO there is no such thing as being "too good a batsman to keep
missing
> out".
>
Well they either are that good or they aren't. After Sydney, I though
Laxman was that good. And Dravid certainly was.
> <snip>
>
> Andrew
FRAN
Andrew Dunford
Dravid certainly was, but at four down they both had to produce a huge
innings - one of them doing so would have achieved little more than delaying
the inevitable. 10-1 on them each reaching 150 is ridiculous, quite apart
from the likelihood that a mere 150 from each batsman may still have
resulted in defeat for India.
Forseeable is a description better reserved for Adelaide - forseeable
because they'd done it before. Perhaps 10-1 odds on both batsmen reaching
150 were more realistic for that match.
And no, it's not necessarily the case that "they either are that good or
they aren't". When the player has a decent track record such as Dravid,
it's fair to assume a substantial innings will come along sooner or later.
In the case of Laxman, one big innings in 20 matches gives very little
indication that he'll do it again, however fabulous he looked during that
knock.
Andrew
FRAN
Of course, when *one* of them is travelling well, he is going to make
it easier for his partner, and vice versa. So unless someone falls
early (always a strong possibility, but less so here because the wicket
was even flatter than the bowlers would have been after their 100th
over) the chances of them both going on with it improve.
> Forseeable is a description better reserved for Adelaide - forseeable
> because they'd done it before. Perhaps 10-1 odds on both batsmen
reaching
> 150 were more realistic for that match.
>
And because they now knew that it was within their skill set, and could
draw upon what they learned the last time.
> And no, it's not necessarily the case that "they either are that good
or
> they aren't". When the player has a decent track record such as
Dravid,
> it's fair to assume a substantial innings will come along sooner or
later.
> In the case of Laxman, one big innings in 20 matches gives very
little
> indication that he'll do it again, however fabulous he looked during
that
> knock.
>
But that invites people to wonder how he even achieved it first time
around, if the skills weren't simply lying dormant in eye, hand, foot
and brain.
That debut century of Gilchrist's marked him out as someone special,
and it wasn't surprising when it became something of a pattern. But if
he'd missed out through bad umpiring, anomalous deliveries, being run
out, declared on, the occasional moment of distraction, injury or the
victim of a series of very high order catches, it wouldn't mean he
wasn't due at some time to do it again.
FRAN
> Andrew
FRAN
Douglas Clark
England chasing the Ashes in Benaud's Test. Seen on TV. If Dexter had lasted
another ten minutes England would have won.
--
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
Colin Kynoch
<adun...@artifax.net> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal
Ratchaser decided to post the following:
This is just another case showing that Fran and realty only have a
glancing acquaintance
Colin Kynoch
>
>Andrew
>
Michael Banner
>
> Michael Banner wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1115025930....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > In all seriousness though, Australia hadn't won a series in India
> in
> > > more than a generation, whereas India have tended to play their
> best
> > > cricket on home soil, and as you say, Australia had won 16 in a
> row,
> > > itself anomalous. So the pattern was due to be broken.
> >
> > I don't follow the logic. Perhaps this is because there is none.
>
> or alternatively, you just have a different model of what the pattern
> of results entails
>
> Is the predictable result the one that follows the most recent trend,
Yes.
> or is this an anomalous departure from the more longstanding and
> predictively telling trend?
>
> In short, if winning 16 in a row is unusual (by definition yes, since
> it was a record) when will this anomaly end, or is it what one might
> expect?
With the benefit of hindsight is the only way this argument carries more
weight. However, with the benefit of the available information at the time,
most test captains in the history of test cricket wouldn't have thought
twice about enforcing the follow on.
> This probably was
> the case at Kolkhata as the game, and the series were apparently gone.
> Laxman, some assert, was about to be dropped. And he was too good a
> batsman to keep missing out. Ditto Dravid. And the pitch was very good.
At this point in time, why was Laxman too good a player to keep missing out?
Dravid had been kept quiet as previously mentioned. And on this pitch which
you say was so good, India had just been dismissed for 171.
> > > > Likewise, statements about Waugh losing
> > > > us the series through poor tactics are unbelieveable.
> > >
> > > And not only that series. Australia hit rock bottom and never
> > > recovered. They were still under the pump next time around.
> >
> > Eh? In the series in India we lost the third test by two wickets - a
> close
> > game indeed which could have gone either way. Australia never gave
> less than
> > 100% but it was India who held their nerve.
>
> India led handsomely on the first innings (by 110) and after Kolkhata
> Australia were like rabbits in the headlights for Harbhajan (who took
> 15 in that match). The final result flattered Australia only because
> India lost a bit of concentration.
My recollection is it was a difficult chase for India with the pressure on
by an attack which gave it their all. My recollection is hearing one of the
bowlers (Dizzy?) on the radio stating a lead of 180 would be enough to win
the test. As I can quite recall listening to the test on the radio, I
thought we would win it once Laxman was out with India still 20 runs short.
Those of us who play cricket can relate to the saying "the runs are on the
board". The more the pressure or the bigger the occasion, the greater the
advantage of having runs on the board. I've again and again seen mediocre
totals defended, especially in finals.
> > It's an outside possibility that I will be killed crossing the road,
> driving
> > my car, catching a bus, ferry, train or plane. I'll still cross the
> road at
> > lunch, because it is the most appropriate way to get to the other
> side and I
> > expect to arrive safely.
>
> No, it's a remote possibility. If it were merely an *outside*
> possibility (ie if there were a 10% chance of that happening for
> example),
I thought it was apparant I rated the chances equally.
Are you suggesting that there is a 10% chance a team will post 600+ after
playing a team who had won an unprecedented 16 tests on the trot, facing the
best attack in the world, after scoring 176, 219 and 171 in their previous 3
innings?
Phil Wise
snip
>
> It would have been good if they'd done it the hard way though.
I can't actually think of a harder way to win a game of test cricket than to
have to come from a deficit so large that the rules take special account of
it to win in circumstances that had happened only once in the previous 1,000
matches or so.
What would you say the hard way to win is?
Phil
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
>
> FRAN
>
Shishir S. Pathak
<snip>
> That debut century of Gilchrist's marked him out as someone special,
> and it wasn't surprising when it became something of a pattern. But if
> he'd missed out through bad umpiring,
In fact bad umpiring was one of the reasons why Gilchrist got to his
hundred. He didn't get the benefit directly but had Langer been given out
when he ought to have been given out, Gilly wouldn't have spent enough time
out there to reach his hundred.
Cheers, Shishir
<snip>
Shishir S. Pathak
news:mn8e71hmbvgtkctp7...@4ax.com...
That may be so. But why do you think FRAN's supposed ignorance about
property market should prevent her from talking on The Theory and Practice
of Follow-ons in the 21st Century Test Cricket?
Cheers, Shishir
<snip>
Andrew Dunford
"Shishir S. Pathak" <NOSPAMsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42772...@x-privat.org...
I think Colin is suggesting that Fran lives in a mud hut. Complete with
data cable installation, naturally.
Andrew
Colin Kynoch
<NOSPAMsi...@gmail.com> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal
Ratchaser decided to post the following:
>"Colin Kynoch" <colin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mn8e71hmbvgtkctp7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 May 2005 12:49:47 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
>> <adun...@artifax.net> enraptured with the Election of Cardinal
>> Ratchaser decided to post the following:
>>
>>>
>>>"FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1115034881.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> I've paid
>>>> homage to the Indians. They *were* the better side. They outbatted and
>>>> outbowled the Aussies. Good luck to them.
>>>>
>>>> It would have been good if they'd done it the hard way though.
>>>
>>>Where I come from, paying homage doesn't usually involve concluding that
>>>perhaps the achievement wasn't all it's cracked up to be.
>>
>> This is just another case showing that Fran and realty only have a
>> glancing acquaintance
>
>That may be so. But why do you think FRAN's supposed ignorance about
>property market should prevent her from talking on The Theory and Practice
>of Follow-ons in the 21st Century Test Cricket?
Don't you hate it when you spell a word correctly but it is the wrong
word and spellchecker doesn't pick it up.
Colin Kynoch
Michael Banner
<snip>
> > > Well they either are that good or they aren't. After Sydney, I
> though
> > > Laxman was that good. And Dravid certainly was.
> >
> > Dravid certainly was, but at four down they both had to produce a
> huge
> > innings - one of them doing so would have achieved little more than
> delaying
> > the inevitable. 10-1 on them each reaching 150 is ridiculous, quite
> apart
> > from the likelihood that a mere 150 from each batsman may still have
> > resulted in defeat for India.
> >
>
> Of course, when *one* of them is travelling well, he is going to make
> it easier for his partner, and vice versa. So unless someone falls
> early (always a strong possibility, but less so here because the wicket
> was even flatter than the bowlers would have been after their 100th
> over) the chances of them both going on with it improve.
Oh, why even bother playing. It was so obvious Laxman was going to score 281
and Dravid 180. Aus may as well have taken the rest of the test off for
sightseeing.
Your argument makes it equally likely that had Australia not enforced the
follow on, India would have batted out a draw. The Indian batsmen would have
been relieved the follow on hadn't been enforced so they didn't have to face
a fired up in form bowling attack and hungry fielders scenting an early
finish. And after all, Ganguly hadn't done much in the series to date, so he
probably would have got a double hundred, supported most likely by Dravid,
who also hadn't cracked a 50 yet but was too good not to eventually.
gokrix
No. I love it.
Thanks,
--GS
Aditya Basrur
Colin Kynoch wrote:
> Don't you hate it when you spell a word correctly but it is the wrong
> word and spellchecker doesn't pick it up.
I find a good way to avoid this problem is by writing the right word in
the first place.
Aditya
Phil Wise
"Aditya Basrur" <sandaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115111062....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Colin Kynoch wrote:
>
>> Don't you hate it when you spell a word correctly but it is the wrong
>> word and spellchecker doesn't pick it up.
>
> the first place.
>
> Aditya
Correction made
Phil
>