Kallis should take the blame
Ravi
he had to do was bat 50 overs - the game was SA's to win and this
wicket in particular (great catch by Oram) steered SA to defeat.
Ravi
Shiva IYER
different ways to unravel in the KO games of
the WCup.... If RSA had just maintained a level
head, they could have easily taken the match..
But give kudos to the NZ fielding...
Ravi
I have in another thread. It goes without saying.
I have seen Kallis bat in the IPL also - his role was to bat 20 overs.
Looks like he slacked off and thought SA were already within winning
distance.
Ravi
Priya
In soccer, if the star striker scores 2 goals in a 3-2 loss, no one
blames the star striker. They don't say "well, he was the only one who
was on his game that day and he should therefore have not relaxed
after getting his two goals, he should have scored 2 more to lead them
to victory."
For some reason, it's only in cricket that the losing team's best
performer on the day is often asked to cop it for a loss.
Kallis may have played a poor shot (haven't seen it yet) but by just
looking at the scorecard, I suspect that there would be about a half
dozen better reasons as to why RSA lost.
skp
tendulkar.com
It's the same reason its easier for Warren Buffett to make the extra
million than the homeless guy.
Set batsman has a massive advantage over a new batsman. Just look at
the distribution of scores for any batsmen
Priya
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand that. If it weren't for that rationale, NO ONE would
ever think of blaming the best performer on the day.
But that rationale is simply not strong enough (IMO) to put all the
blame (or even most of the blame) on the leading run scorer. He did
the "hard work" to get set and get RSA 47 runs. A guy like Duminy
doesn't get the hard work done and doesn't get set. He scores 3 or
whatever.
It's really quite simple: 47 >> 3. There may be an argument if that
47 was scored at a snail's pace but that wasn't the case.
skp
tendulkar.com
No. Kallis has to take the blame, else he'll never learn to not throw
away your wicket when set. That is the fundamental rule for all
batsmen.
You can only control two things in batting
* Practice a million balls(all combinations) in nets and improve your
mistake rate
* Not Throw away your wicket when set
Rest, as I say is all Random
So, if a batsmen can't control the things that he can, he has to take
the blame
PlaySafe
On other hand pressure is evenly distributed on 11 players on field for soccer unlike two batsman (from total of 6 to 8 a others are bowlers) and thought of remaining batsmen.
Priya
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah well, another way to cast my argument is to say that Kallis does
practice a million balls to improve his mistake rate and improve his
chances of getting set while Duminy apparently doesn't.
And we have already discussed to death the randomness theory, so I
don't need to get into that again.
If Buffet never made another dime again, he would always remain a
greater role model than the homeless guy.
Andrew Dunford
"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2008bc04-3638-4b83...@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
And an even bigger advantage over the batsmen already dismissed - this is
where cricket really isn't like other sports.
Mind you, blaming Kallis is all bollocks. Taylor and Ryder both holed out
in similar fashion when set, thus preventing NZ from setting a bigger
target.
Andrew
John Hall
<59dbe674-8de3-4d71...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
I think I'd place more blame on Du Plessis for his running out of De
Villiers, who hadn't seemed in any trouble at all. To be fair, Du
Plessis did his best to atone thereafter, and SA might still have won if
any of the middle order had been able to stay with him.
--
John Hall
"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
StraightDrive
"Ravi" <kra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59dbe674-8de3-4d71...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Jacques Kallis and Kallis loving Call Center Ran Away.
StraightDrive
"Priya" <vika...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d7df6f3-cc91-4673...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 25, 9:13 am, Ravi <krav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 108/2 and lots of overs - there was no need to play such a shot. All
> he had to do was bat 50 overs - the game was SA's to win and this
> wicket in particular (great catch by Oram) steered SA to defeat.
>
> Ravi
>>For some reason, it's only in cricket that the losing team's best
>>performer on the day is often asked to cop it for a loss.
The media did NOT ask Kallis to cop it for a loss......
It is just ONE cricket fan named Ravi.
Nirvanam
I dont think there was much wrong with the shot but he didnt realize
there was 6.6 footer who could pull off a beauty. Besides he got out
early enough in the chase for the rest of the batsmen to have a more
than decent chance. Had the needed say 270 to win and Kallis got out
when he did then ya some blame can be given to him but chasing 220+ with
7 wickets in hand and just about 110-120 to get with less than a run a
ball to get is not kallis' fault.
Nirvanam
But wasn't that an exceptional fielding act (which obviously was not in
kallis' control) that did it for him?
Ravi
> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
been bat 50 overs. There was no need to take chances given the
importance of the game and SA's history in such contests. If any one
could have batted 50 overs it was Kallis (and ABdV).
If the target was 280, some risks would have been required, but when
you are 108/2 and needing another 114 with over 25 overs to go, it was
not a percentage shot. Oram's held a brilliant catch but that opening
should not have been given by Kallis.
Ravi
> Andrew
Ravi
> In article
> <59dbe674-8de3-4d71-aeaa-516f7bf75...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ravi <krav...@gmail.com> writes:
> >108/2 and lots of overs - there was no need to play such a shot. All
> >he had to do was bat 50 overs - the game was SA's to win and this
> >wicket in particular (great catch by Oram) steered SA to defeat.
>
> I think I'd place more blame on Du Plessis for his running out of De
> Villiers, who hadn't seemed in any trouble at all. To be fair, Du
> Plessis did his best to atone thereafter, and SA might still have won if
> any of the middle order had been able to stay with him.
> --
call by Du Plessis
Ravi
Good analogy to the investing world
Ravi
Indeed, this is why I think he is at fault - 114 to get in 25+ overs,
you are at 108/2 - what should you do in a Q/F match? Bat out the 50
overs.
Hitting the ball as he did was not required even if it was a brilliant
catch that dismissed him. Get 2 runs of that ball and you are 110/2.
A tactical blunder and this set the stage for other following batsment
to face pressure and make their own mistakes.
Ravi
PlaySafe
For a good shot either it has to go down rolling or clear the fence on full. If it was a target of 270 then a chancy shot becomes requirement of team. This was exceptional case, just to make sure he do it once in a knockout for SA. Their batting collapse against England in same tournament should have been good enough reason not to leave anything for next batsmen.
Call Centre
The NZ fielders had choked the runs. The run rate was slowly creeping
up. From about 4.4 to 4.6 and so on. On this pitch it was better to
keep it down to 5. Also, as a batsman you have to follow your gut
instincts. He felt he could have cleared the field and but for an
amazing spectacular catch by Oram he would have probably gotten a
six.
The real "choker" in this team is that idiot Duminy. He simply can't
play under pressure. The innings against India seems more like an
exception now considering his terrible failures against England and
now NZ in the quarters. And of course DuP who simply lost it and
panicked. Where was the need for such a risky single. Du P did the
same thing in the England match and I believe ran himself out. Here he
went one step further and ran the best batsman of SA out. That is
probably what cost them the match. The inexperience of their 5 and 6.
Also lack of temperament. They really should have had Boucher play in
this world cup. Even Van Wyk would have been a better man at 5 than
Duminy. At least Van Wyk would have been calm. (Talent wise Duminy is
very good but he seems to lack the proper temperament). Too bad for
SA. Now unless England pull off an upset (they could) we will see in
all likelihood SL in the finals against India. Of course England have
a chance to pull off an upset and if that happens all Indians will be
ecstatic as that means playing either NZ or Eng in the final. I am
assuming history will repeat itself and India will beat Pakistan in
the semis. :)
Nirvanam
> It was a very good catch and Oram's height a lot. But still it was not a good shot, he certainly did not hit at exact same location where it end. What if it was couple of meters towards Oram and half a meter less in height then it would have been a simple catch and portrayed as very bad shot.
>
> For a good shot either it has to go down rolling or clear the fence on full. If it was a target of 270 then a chancy shot becomes requirement of team. This was exceptional case, just to make sure he do it once in a knockout for SA. Their batting collapse against England in same tournament should have been good enough reason not to leave anything for next batsmen.
Hope you are not being serious with that argument...half a foot higher
or away from Oram it would've been an excellently placed boundary.
Look, the fact is Kallis' wicket was unfortunate but when he got out he
left the team in a position from where they could have won the game
without breaking a sweat. Let's consider 3 more innings in not winning
causes in this tournament:
120 v Eng, Sachin left for the rest of the team to put up at least 360
on board...they didnt...Sachin to blame?
113 v SA, Sachin leaves the team att 267/2 for them to fold up fpr 296.
Is Sachin to blame?
104 v Ind, Pawning plays a blinder and gives hus bowlers a fighting
chance...in fact in his case he went almost all the way until the 50th
over and yet his bowlers fucked up.
I agree largelt with Tendlya's theory that once in u gotta make the most
of it. But I also agree sometimes to his theory that getting out at any
point in time whether in or not yet in is random. So then why blame Kallis?
220 to win...top 6 to make 80% of that score i.e 174. therefore each
bat's responsibility is about 13.67% of 174 i.e. 23 runs. Kallis has
twice better than he is supposed to perform at par...it's a team game pal.
PlaySafe
> PlaySafe wrote:
> > It was a very good catch and Oram's height a lot. But still it was not a good shot, he certainly did not hit at exact same location where it end. What if it was couple of meters towards Oram and half a meter less in height then it would have been a simple catch and portrayed as very bad shot.
> >
> > For a good shot either it has to go down rolling or clear the fence on full. If it was a target of 270 then a chancy shot becomes requirement of team. This was exceptional case, just to make sure he do it once in a knockout for SA. Their batting collapse against England in same tournament should have been good enough reason not to leave anything for next batsmen.
>
> Hope you are not being serious with that argument...half a foot higher
> or away from Oram it would've been an excellently placed boundary.
>
> Look, the fact is Kallis' wicket was unfortunate but when he got out he
> left the team in a position from where they could have won the game
> without breaking a sweat. Let's consider 3 more innings in not winning
> causes in this tournament:
> 120 v Eng, Sachin left for the rest of the team to put up at least 360
> on board...they didnt...Sachin to blame?
> 113 v SA, Sachin leaves the team att 267/2 for them to fold up fpr 296.
> Is Sachin to blame?
> 104 v Ind, Pawning plays a blinder and gives hus bowlers a fighting
> chance...in fact in his case he went almost all the way until the 50th
> over and yet his bowlers fucked up.
I think all 3 instances mentioned above were while setting target, and that always vary depending on overs and wickets remaining. And all three centuries were very well played and they got out trying to achieve bigger target.
Nirvanam
> On Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:19:02 AM UTC+5, Nirvanam wrote:
>> PlaySafe wrote:
>>> It was a very good catch and Oram's height a lot. But still it was not a good shot, he certainly did not hit at exact same location where it end. What if it was couple of meters towards Oram and half a meter less in height then it would have been a simple catch and portrayed as very bad shot.
>>>
>>> For a good shot either it has to go down rolling or clear the fence on full. If it was a target of 270 then a chancy shot becomes requirement of team. This was exceptional case, just to make sure he do it once in a knockout for SA. Their batting collapse against England in same tournament should have been good enough reason not to leave anything for next batsmen.
>>
>> Hope you are not being serious with that argument...half a foot higher
>> or away from Oram it would've been an excellently placed boundary.
>>
>> Look, the fact is Kallis' wicket was unfortunate but when he got out he
>> left the team in a position from where they could have won the game
>> without breaking a sweat. Let's consider 3 more innings in not winning
>> causes in this tournament:
>> 120 v Eng, Sachin left for the rest of the team to put up at least 360
>> on board...they didnt...Sachin to blame?
>> 113 v SA, Sachin leaves the team att 267/2 for them to fold up fpr 296.
>> Is Sachin to blame?
>> 104 v Ind, Pawning plays a blinder and gives hus bowlers a fighting
>> chance...in fact in his case he went almost all the way until the 50th
>> over and yet his bowlers fucked up.
>
> I think all 3 instances mentioned above were while setting target, and that always vary depending on overs and wickets remaining. And all three centuries were very well played and they got out trying to achieve bigger target.
>
OK lemme ask u this: would you prefer at least one or two of your
batsmen to fight even a little bit or do you prefer everyone
surrendering wholesomely (hope that isn't why u are advocating that Pak
should give India a walk over in the semis in another post)?
PlaySafe
There is no argument that it is best that team work together and all them perform their part. And from your above question obviously someone stand up to occasion and fight hard is good. I agree with your point but it is just the position in this specific match.
While my comment on Pak giving a walk over was just on lighter side as someone point to it so I thought of giving a Vote in favor.
Nirvanam
situation was such that when Kallis fell SA still needed 100+ runs with
7 wkts in hand and absolutely no pressure of asking rate. So it was the
ideal situation for a new batsman to come in and without taking many
risks build an innings and win it for SA.
OK let's consider the Ind-Aus game. When Sachin fell arguably India were
in a tougher situation because number of runs needed were even more and
asking rate was also higher. Still Gambhir stood up to be counted.
Now when Gambhir fell we were in even more danger than when Kallis
fell...coz India needed 110+ runs at almost run a ball with just 2 more
batsmen to come in as opposed to Kallis' case where he had 4 batsmen.
Moreover the way Gambhir got out was criminal at least Kallis had a
beautiful catch taken to get out and Sachin got a good ball from Tait.
All 3 fellows: Kallis, Sachin, and Gambhir scored similarly 47, 53, 50.
In India's case the rest of the guys did not choke. Had India choked
would it have been Sachin's fault if India folded after he got out? Or
Gambhir's if India folded after he got out?
Same game, when Gambhir fell Yuvraj took up the mantle. Dhoni
fell...chances were Aus could have won it. And it was even
tougher...much better bowling line up than NZ...champion side who know
how to win games, as good a fielding side as NZ, asking rate was more
than a runa a ball and yet Yuvraj and Raina overcame all these potential
pitfalls.
The fact is India needed 261 to win. 90% from the top 7 means around 235
to be scored by them. Therefore each "batsman" should have contributed
13% i.e around 34 runs...3 of those 7 batsmen did better than what was
asked, 1 of the 7 did what was asked....and hence India won. None of the
better performing Indians were required to do even 1.5 times their
job...just a little better than asked to compensate for the fellows who
did little less than asked.
Whereas Kallis did twice of what he was asked and you are still finding
a fault with him. Even when he got out there was ample time and
opportunity for another fellow to do as good as Kallis...alternatively 2
fellows to do 1,5 times the original ask. Why is Kallis wrong here?
You are sounding like Neha, dude. Kallis didnt even use up the hot water
like Rahul does
PlaySafe
I also agree with your argument and add that somehow it created pressure that showed in Gambhir's running. Yuvraj and Raina played well but had they got out all blames were to come on Sachin (Not that I blame him as argued on this NG).
100+ with 7 Wkts is not a hard task but they showed it Hard against Eng from much better position.
> Same game, when Gambhir fell Yuvraj took up the mantle. Dhoni
> fell...chances were Aus could have won it. And it was even
> tougher...much better bowling line up than NZ...champion side who know
> how to win games, as good a fielding side as NZ, asking rate was more
> than a runa a ball and yet Yuvraj and Raina overcame all these potential
> pitfalls.
>
> The fact is India needed 261 to win. 90% from the top 7 means around 235
> to be scored by them. Therefore each "batsman" should have contributed
> 13% i.e around 34 runs...3 of those 7 batsmen did better than what was
> asked, 1 of the 7 did what was asked....and hence India won. None of the
> better performing Indians were required to do even 1.5 times their
> job...just a little better than asked to compensate for the fellows who
> did little less than asked.
>
> Whereas Kallis did twice of what he was asked and you are still finding
> a fault with him. Even when he got out there was ample time and
> opportunity for another fellow to do as good as Kallis...alternatively 2
> fellows to do 1,5 times the original ask. Why is Kallis wrong here?
>
> You are sounding like Neha, dude. Kallis didnt even use up the hot water
> like Rahul does
Why would you compare! I never had anything against Sachin and I think he is marvelous batsman and treat to watch (It is enough to be a fan of him, leaving all arguments aside).
Nirvanam
I think you are arguing something like this - the opening batsmen must
win the game...if one fellow gets out at any point in time, it will put
added pressure on the new batsman coming in. In Kallis' case why didn't
you choose to blame Smith and Amla instead of Kallis? Because Kallis
scored more than them? So you blame him for SA's loss because he had the
guts to at least try to fight?
>
> 100+ with 7 Wkts is not a hard task but they showed it Hard against Eng from much better position.
Yes...and now you are contradicting yourself. You started with a
position saying Kallis is to blame and now you are arguing SA chokes
(which is the truth). At least Kallis tried not to choke...at least
tried by scoring double of what was expected of him and yet you blame
him in your starting argument. At least now you are accepting it was a
team failure...now pls also try to acknowledge that Kallis is not to
blame....if anything he is to be congratulated to have done double than
what was asked of him.
>
>> Same game, when Gambhir fell Yuvraj took up the mantle. Dhoni
>> fell...chances were Aus could have won it. And it was even
>> tougher...much better bowling line up than NZ...champion side who know
>> how to win games, as good a fielding side as NZ, asking rate was more
>> than a runa a ball and yet Yuvraj and Raina overcame all these potential
>> pitfalls.
>>
>> The fact is India needed 261 to win. 90% from the top 7 means around 235
>> to be scored by them. Therefore each "batsman" should have contributed
>> 13% i.e around 34 runs...3 of those 7 batsmen did better than what was
>> asked, 1 of the 7 did what was asked....and hence India won. None of the
>> better performing Indians were required to do even 1.5 times their
>> job...just a little better than asked to compensate for the fellows who
>> did little less than asked.
>>
>> Whereas Kallis did twice of what he was asked and you are still finding
>> a fault with him. Even when he got out there was ample time and
>> opportunity for another fellow to do as good as Kallis...alternatively 2
>> fellows to do 1,5 times the original ask. Why is Kallis wrong here?
>>
>> You are sounding like Neha, dude. Kallis didnt even use up the hot water
>> like Rahul does
>
> Why would you compare! I never had anything against Sachin and I think he is marvelous batsman and treat to watch (It is enough to be a fan of him, leaving all arguments aside).
You misinterpreted the reference to Neha...the reference to Neha was to
point out her logic of argument and not her target of jealousy (actually
the deepest love possible for a woman to experience sounds more like the
truth as tendlya.com and others have observed before me).
Neha blames player A for all India's losses and especially when the
player stands up to be counted. You are doing the same. Only difference
being in Neha's case "player A" is constant and fixed value whereas in
your case it is variable.
The logic of blaming someone for a team's loss when in reality the
player had the balls to try and fight is what I am referring to.
Come on yaar, give Kallis his due...he has choked before but in this
game he did quite a lot and he definitely should be the last person to
blame for SA's loss as far as their batting was concerned...at least not
in the top 5 names in the blame list.
PlaySafe
Agreed :)
Ravi
I took that position of Kallis is to blame.
> (which is the truth). At least Kallis tried not to choke...at least
> tried by scoring double of what was expected of him and yet you blame
> him in your starting argument. At least now you are accepting it was a
> team failure...now pls also try to acknowledge that Kallis is not to
> blame....if anything he is to be congratulated to have done double than
> what was asked of him.
>
Congratulate Kallis? That is rubbish. Kallis, with his experience,
should have been able to read the state of the game better than anyone
in his team. This is a QF, score at 108/2 in 24.x, needing 114. So the
issue is how to reach there without giving NZ a chance.
This is where percentage cricket is all about - A Bradman or a
Richards or a Gilchrist can take risks and get away with it (btw
Richards did not in 1983). A Kallis is also and should have been smart
enough to know that SA have this issue of getting across the finish
line - so what should have been the plan? (Kallis iirc was also
captain of SA at one point?) - simple, bat 50 overs and you are
through. Eschew risks and at 4.xx you don't have to sweat. It has no
bearing on who is to follow - he needs to play his game to the
fullest. That is where he erred - a small but significant error of
tactics. You can do all the statistical analysis but many a time
cricket is a game of judgment, temperament and patience. Kallis lost
it for a moment. Just as Mike Gatting lost in final against Aus in
1987.
I say Kallis is to blame, not necessarily to apportion a 100% of the
blame as much as to highlight that if Kallis could not figure out what
needed to be done, and play accordingly, then SA were doomed in any
case. Also, Kallis should have left such hitting to ABdV who is much
better at it.
In the collective scheme of things the team will have to bear the
blame - that is the way team games are all about but if there was a
decisive mistake, then Kallis' is at the top.
Btw, Amla's dismissal was bizarre. Smith was not in great form and
score his 'par' for the game.
Nirvanam
:-) chalo gale lago ab!
Nirvanam
<snipped>
We come back to square one - your whole argument seems to be based on
one shot that Kallis played which ended up in Jacob Oram's hands. No,
Kallis did not play an irresponsible shot. I'll refer you to Tendlya.com
for a thorough understanding of what can happen on "a" particular delivery.
>
> Btw, Amla's dismissal was bizarre. Smith was not in great form and
> score his 'par' for the game.
I actually slept thru SA's collapse...was lying on the couch...had just
gotten back home and Kallis and AB were batting...twas somewhere in the
90s for 2. Then I saw Kallis getting out and after a few minutes fell
asleep...then eyes opened read the score was 12x/5 - then I realized
choke is around the corner. Again eyes opened...now it was 16x/9 - choke
was well and truly complete...even as my eyes were shutting down the
final wicket fell and I was awake by now.
I actually felt like slapping Mike Haysman the manner in which he asked
Smith about their propensity to choke. His tone was like as if he was
making fun of Smith and SA...I mean yeah they choke we all know but come
on have a heart...at least wait till the press conf to pop that question
if you *have* to.
But kudos to Smith - he took it on his chin and basically did not give
any excuse and owned up that yes we are chokers and we haven't yet
learned how not to choke.
<snipped rest>
Ravi
Yes - glad you understand that.
> Kallis did not play an irresponsible shot. I'll refer you to Tendlya.com
> for a thorough understanding of what can happen on "a" particular delivery.
>
>
Did not play an irresponsible shot? Don't tell me you are going the
Morton way?
I don't see any relevance about Tendulkar - you bring him up
everywhere
>
> > Btw, Amla's dismissal was bizarre. Smith was not in great form and
> > score his 'par' for the game.
>
> I actually slept thru SA's collapse...was lying on the couch...had just
Dreaming still?
Nirvanam
Tendlya.com's reference is with the fooled by randomness theory. And if
you can understand that oram actually pulled off a difficult catch u
would know why I said it wasn't an irresponsible shot.
Anyway can't keep repeating the same argument with every poster and I'd
rather agree to disagree than go on about trying to defend Kallis for
SA's choke. By the way, maybe I don't understand your stance on this
issue: are you holding that Kallis is a major reason for SA's loss?
Just to make it clear, my stance is that Kallis is definitely not to be
in the top 5 names from the 11 that will be listed with 1 being biggest
culprit and 11 being smallest culprit (i.e. if you want to apportion
blame to each individual for the collective choke.)