Lara shows Sachin how it's done
Faez Nasrudin Kaiser
Chennai, and the India versus Pakistan test. Despite the hoopla over
Tendulkar's knock, the simple fact remains that he manifestly failed. With
four wickets left and 20 runs to get, an atrocious heave handed the match
to Pakistan. At Bridgetown yesterday, the WI at one stage needed a further
60 runs with two wickets left. I thought the game was as good as over, but
Lara hung in there, and more importantly sustained partnerships with
Ambrose and Walsh. Despite the daunting odds, Lara got the job done.
These types of knocks are why I rate Steve Waugh as easily the best
batsman in the world. Waugh is great at playing "defining knocks" i.e.
runs made when the team needs them most. Upto now, I'd thought of Lara as
a bit of a flat wicket bully. Capable of destroying poor England attacks,
but never particularly good against anything else. That perception has
definitely changed. Hopefully, it won't require public censure and the
threat of removal from the captaincy to see him repeat these
heroics again.
Now, it's Tendulkar's turn. A rapid century at home to Australia, and that
too minus McGrath, in no way makes up for persistent failures under
pressure. The Chennai test is the most obvious example of fallibility
under pressure, but Mohali, Calcutta (against SA and Pakistan), Harare,
and Barbados, all stand out as winnable/saveable matches that cried out
for a defining knock. Next time, get the job done.
Regards,
Faez [Counting on RaviK for support :)]
Samir Dhume
: Lara's stupendous knocks in the last two tests set me thinking back to
Persistent failures under pressure, my left foot ! I might remind
you of several ODI's in which Tendulkar has consistently won matches
for India in immensely difficult circs (with pressure cooker tensions
and all that sort of thing). Okay, so they were ODI's and not tests,
but in my opinion, the pressure isn't any less in ODI's.
While I don't dispute the suggestion that on current form, Lara
or possibly Waugh are currently the batsmen I would rather have
in my side (which is how I define the world's best bat), all this
talk of Tendulkar being incapable of taking pressure is all
hogwash !
It boggles my mind ! For over a year, till may be a month back,
Lara's temperament and commitment were being seriously questioned
and all of a sudden Tendulkar is supposed to be taking lessons
from him.
cheers!
samir
ravi_k...@my-dejanews.com
>Persistent failures under pressure, my left foot ! I might remind you of
several ODI's in which
>Tendulkar has consistently won matches for India in immensely difficult
circs (with pressure
>cooker tensions and all that sort of thing). Okay, so they were ODI's and
not tests, but in my
>opinion, the pressure isn't any less in ODI's.
But ODI is not same as test. You don't have fielding restrictions, bowlers
can bowl more number
of overs and things like that. Why do you think chasing 4rth inngs total is
much more difficult than ODI.
The success ratio in chasing 4rth inngs is much less than ODI. This was
posted sometime back.
>It boggles my mind ! For over a year, till may be a month back, Lara's
temperament and
>commitment were being seriously questioned and all of a sudden Tendulkar is
supposed to
>be taking lessons from him.
Why not?. If few failures agains top class attack is enuf to bring down the
reputation of a player
drastically, why not few great performance to boost the reputation. It works
both ways.
What Lara did in last 2 test was incredible, something SRT has never done in
test cricket. Hopefully
he should do it next time.
RK-
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Samir Dhume
: Samir wrote:-
:>Persistent failures under pressure, my left foot ! I might remind you of
<snip>
: But ODI is not same as test. You don't have fielding restrictions, bowlers
: can bowl more number
: of overs and things like that. Why do you think chasing 4rth inngs total is
: much more difficult than ODI.
: The success ratio in chasing 4rth inngs is much less than ODI. This was
: posted sometime back.
Of course ODI is different from test cricket. I was referring
to pressure. Pressure's the same, if not more. Anybody who's
seen a ODI between India and Pakistan in India/Pak/Sharjah/Dacca
would agree with that.
:>It boggles my mind ! For over a year, till may be a month back, Lara's
: temperament and
:>commitment were being seriously questioned and all of a sudden Tendulkar is
: supposed to
:>be taking lessons from him.
: Why not?. If few failures agains top class attack is enuf to bring down the
: reputation of a player
: drastically, why not few great performance to boost the reputation. It works
: both ways.
Reputation is a vague term. Temperament and commitment are to
be evaluated over a longer period.
: What Lara did in last 2 test was incredible, something SRT has never done in
: test cricket. Hopefully
: he should do it next time.
True enough. Tendulkar's never done what Lara did in the
last two tests. Perhaps he never will. But I do dispute
all claims that he succumbs to pressure all the time.
Samir
Karthik Vaidyanathan
in the 2nd test with his future hanging in balance, but he did it. These
are the kind of performances that make you forgive and forget all his
previous failures, even for the past 2 years.
It all boils down to attitude and ability to turn the game around by sheer
mental strength. I can say without any doubt that Tendulkar is not there
yet but for India's sake, should be there in 2-3 years time. These 2
vignettes will not be a frequent occurance in test ( read real) cricket,
but I want to see the day when SRT does this for India *once*, and I'm
sure he will be willing to trade all his test hundreds for that.
I still maintain SRT is more technically adept than Lara and chances are
that he is more likely to succeed in varied conditions. But in the aspect
that counts most: match winning ability and turning the morale of a team
whose morale is heading south ( and raising doubts in the mind of a team
who thought they had a lock on #1) Lara and maybe Steve Waugh are head and
shoulders above SRT. I hope he's following all this and if this doesn't
motivate him enough, I dunno what is...
Here's hopin' for Tendu the streetfighter...
Karthik
Mike Holmans
>Faez Nasrudin Kaiser <nasr...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>: Lara's stupendous knocks in the last two tests set me thinking back to
>: Chennai, and the India versus Pakistan test. Despite the hoopla over
>: Tendulkar's knock, the simple fact remains that he manifestly failed.
>Persistent failures under pressure, my left foot ! I might remind
>you of several ODI's in which Tendulkar has consistently won matches
>for India in immensely difficult circs (with pressure cooker tensions
>and all that sort of thing). Okay, so they were ODI's and not tests,
>but in my opinion, the pressure isn't any less in ODI's.
>
Generally speaking, you might have a point, but there are still degrees.
What Lara did yesterday was incomparably more emotionally draining than
knocking off a ton to win one of the games in an exhibition series of
ODIs in Toronto.
If we are going to talk about something on the same sort of plane, then
you would be talking about getting a ton in a WC final or semi-final,
with a target way over par, ie 290+, and with most of the other batsmen
basically failing. No ODI outside the WC has anything like the same
emotional charge.
>While I don't dispute the suggestion that on current form, Lara
>or possibly Waugh are currently the batsmen I would rather have
>in my side (which is how I define the world's best bat), all this
>talk of Tendulkar being incapable of taking pressure is all
>hogwash !
>
>It boggles my mind ! For over a year, till may be a month back,
>Lara's temperament and commitment were being seriously questioned
>and all of a sudden Tendulkar is supposed to be taking lessons
>from him.
Only a year in Lara's case? Nearer three, I'd say. Last time he looked
in any real sort of form was against England in 1996, and it isn't
really fair to say that Dominic Cork, even in 1996, was in McGrath's
class, and the rest of the English bowling that year was shite.
Of course there's over-reaction to Lara's knock, and we'll all want to
see a lot more good batting from him before the lean years can be safely
put on the shelf, but his play in the last two Tests has been so
outstanding, not just in strokeplay terms, although it was, but in
character terms too.
But I would agree that it is very harsh to turn round and say that
Tendulkar *couldn't* have done what Lara has done. Yes, Tendu made an
awful hash of the end of the Chennai Test with an appalling shot, but
what of Lara at Adelaide in 1997? Rarely have I seen a so-called
champion batsman play such a dreadful shot as Lara did, hastening his
team's descent to 130 all out. And as a result the series, which had
still been sort of alive, went west. Lara has just won two Test matches
literally off his own bat, but he's also screwed up royally a fair
amount in the last three years.
The circumstances in which Lara has played these innings are pretty
exceptional. Captaincy on the line, team in terrible disarray, playing
against not only an old enemy but the team regarded by most as the best
in the world, down in the Test series and everyone anticipating a
whitewash. Chennai apart, when has Tendulkar been in anything
approaching a similar situation? When else could he have demonstrated
this sort of quality? If, as I suspect, there have been precious few, if
any, such occasions, then we have no evidence, and therefore cannot
judge. Give me half a dozen more Chennais, and then maybe we have
something to talk about. After all, Lara's failed often enough, so it's
not as though SRT can't have some failures in his career too without it
really hurting his reputation and value.
After Sabina, Steve said that *only* Lara could have done that. Possibly
true, possibly SRT could have too, though we won't ever know until he
has regained the captaincy and survived a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of a
top team, been in at best moderate form, gone 1-0 down in a home series
and then triumphantly answered every critic he had in the match which
looked likely to be his last as captain.
Right this minute, Lara is King of the World, but he's got a lot of
years to perform more regal deeds in if he doesn't want people to spend
their time in years to come saying "oh, I know, but you've got to admit
that in that 1999 series against Australia, Lara really was about as
good as any batsman has ever been, and I include Braddles and Tendu.
Pity about the rest of his career, but that series, and, I suppose, the
375 and 501*, show that he had greatness in him. What a waste."
Both men are still relatively young. It's far too early to make a
comprehensive assessment of them, and the vagaries of form make it
ridiculous to turn the world upside down on the basis of a couple of
games.
Cheers,
Mike
--
RSC's Official Irascible Swine and Pompous Clot
Sundarraman Subramanian
> to Pakistan. At Bridgetown yesterday, the WI at one stage needed a further
> 60 runs with two wickets left. I thought the game was as good as over, but
> Lara hung in there, and more importantly sustained partnerships with
> Ambrose and Walsh. Despite the daunting odds, Lara got the job done.
>
Although I agree with you as far as SRT is concerned, don't you
think that you are probably jumping to a conclusion, re Lara, based
on just *one* instance. In order to neutralize the menace that
routinely arises from predictable quarters, let me hasten to add
that it is at least one instance more than SRT has managed so far.
After this preemptive move, I am now ready to look at the issue of
Lara. Yes, indeed, he has done a terrific job. WI are 2-1 ahead
exclusively because of him. You yourself say that the game was as
good as over with 60 runs to be scored. And then you also say that
Lara hung on grimly. To me, this indicates that one could not be
quite sure *before*, whether Lara was going to do the impossible.
That he has done it is indeed highly creditable, but shouldn't we
wait and see what transpires on more such instances? Just a
thought. One more thing. One has to give due credit to SRT for
bringing us near the threshold of victory, in spite of all odds.
Let me remind you that he had a bad back while playing that knock.
<Stuff about Steve Waugh, that I agree with, deleted>
> Now, it's Tendulkar's turn. A rapid century at home to Australia, and that
> too minus McGrath, in no way makes up for persistent failures under
> pressure. The Chennai test is the most obvious example of fallibility
> under pressure, but Mohali, Calcutta (against SA and Pakistan), Harare,
Agreed with Mohali. Disagree with Madras. Agreed with the RSA part
of Calcutta. Re Pak, I am sure you mean the first innings. If not,
we stop the argument right here. If it is the first innings, where
was the pressure? I may agree with the philosophy that the team
needed him most to bat well. The best of batsmen can get bowled
off the first ball. Finally, let me add Harare to your list :-)
> and Barbados, all stand out as winnable/saveable matches that cried out
> for a defining knock. Next time, get the job done.
I am not sure about Barbados. He scored a 92 in the first innings.
Mercury
samarth harish shah
> comprehensive assessment of them, and the vagaries of form make it
> ridiculous to turn the world upside down on the basis of a couple of
> games.
Yes, I quite agree. Lara's, Tendulkar's and Waugh's supporters seem to
take the recent performances of their favorites as conclusive evidence of
their superiority over the others.
As I see it, the gauntlet has only just been thrown. The competition has
only just begun. (Waugh is 34, but still). It's a bit like the comparisons
between the 4 all-rounders in the early 80s (80-84). Each one of the four
of them had moments that made his supporters claim he is the best.
However, the competition had only just begun, then. When Imran retired
after WC 92, the competition effectively ended and there remained only one
winner - Imran. I'm tempted to say "clear winner", but I don't think
that'll be entirely true, either. This competition is at the moment far
from being over... it's only just begun.
I think this competition will be even more closely fought than that one.
I think the result will remain inconclusive until the very end. Then, I
think it will (like a Hindi movie) be decided in one climactic
winner-takes-all series or tournament.
-Samarth.
Kenny
<subr...@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu> wrote:
>nasr...@Glue.umd.edu (Faez Nasrudin Kaiser) writes:
>
>> to Pakistan. At Bridgetown yesterday, the WI at one stage needed a further
>> 60 runs with two wickets left. I thought the game was as good as over, but
>> Lara hung in there, and more importantly sustained partnerships with
>> Ambrose and Walsh. Despite the daunting odds, Lara got the job done.
>>
>
>Although I agree with you as far as SRT is concerned, don't you
>think that you are probably jumping to a conclusion, re Lara, based
>on just *one* instance. In order to neutralize the menace that
>routinely arises from predictable quarters, let me hasten to add
>that it is at least one instance more than SRT has managed so far.
What I dont understand is why greatness has to be measured against
greatness.
Cant Tendulkar, Steve Waugh and Lara all be great without actually
denting each others greatness ? Does greatness have some kind of extra
exclusive seal that says you can be great, but my man is greater ?
These arguments are petty IMO and take away from the actual
appreciation of each of these guys when they are 'painting their
picture' on the field.
Kenny
Stephen Devaux
Well said, Kenny. The same thing tends to come up in the Bradman vs.
Sobers/Richards/Headley argument, too.
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Rohan Chandran
>
>What I dont understand is why greatness has to be measured against
>greatness.
Exactly right. There is an element of relativity in measuring
greatness - there has to be by definition. But there is also at some
level, and absoluteness in it.
The fact that Lara has played two great knocks in the last fortnight
doesn't impact on Tendulkars greatness, or Steve Waughs greatness in
any way, at the moment.
In the grand scheme of things, once they're all dead and buried (in
the next month or so we've been told for Tendulkar), we may point to
those two innings and suggest that Lara achieved something the others
never did. But then, as Mike pointed out, we have to start examining
the opportunities and circumstances presented to each one. There are
far too many variables at play here, and it becomes as complicated as
attempting to compare players across eras.
Fans will never stop doing it, and that's what forums like this one
are all about. However, debates and arguments aside, somewhere deep
down we do have to accept that you can't genuinely judge each of them
unless you judge him alone.
>These arguments are petty IMO and take away from the actual
>appreciation of each of these guys when they are 'painting their
>picture' on the field.
Painting their picture ? You got Hoops on the mind ?
Rohan.
Wedge Antilles
moment, Tendulkar (no offence to him or anyone else) sucks at one-day
batting. Especially when India toured here in NZ earlier this season. I
mean, he got out for like 2, 3 ,7 ,3 and 6 or something. I don't think he
ever got over 10 did he? Basically India only got any runs becasue of Rahul
Dravid. I think he's a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar. Though maybe
Tendulkar was just WAY out of form. Or maybe he hadn't faced a
Cairns/Allot/Drum/Doull bowling attack before?I mean, going out when your
team has 3 runs in the 2nd over is kinda a bit useless from the guy supposed
to be the best one-day batsman in the world. Even Bryan Young does better
than that. As you can probably tell, I was quite disaapoitned. When India
came, I was expecting to see Tendulkar and co put on some great batting. But
no, they lost the test series and drew the one day series due to rain
wash-out.
Later,
Wedge
Faez Nasrudin Kaiser wrote in message <7dtce0$q2g$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Lara's stupendous knocks in the last two tests set me thinking back to
>Chennai, and the India versus Pakistan test. Despite the hoopla over
>Tendulkar's knock, the simple fact remains that he manifestly failed. With
>four wickets left and 20 runs to get, an atrocious heave handed the match
>to Pakistan. At Bridgetown yesterday, the WI at one stage needed a further
>60 runs with two wickets left. I thought the game was as good as over, but
>Lara hung in there, and more importantly sustained partnerships with
>Ambrose and Walsh. Despite the daunting odds, Lara got the job done.
>
>These types of knocks are why I rate Steve Waugh as easily the best
>batsman in the world. Waugh is great at playing "defining knocks" i.e.
>runs made when the team needs them most. Upto now, I'd thought of Lara as
>a bit of a flat wicket bully. Capable of destroying poor England attacks,
>but never particularly good against anything else. That perception has
>definitely changed. Hopefully, it won't require public censure and the
>threat of removal from the captaincy to see him repeat these
>heroics again.
>
>Now, it's Tendulkar's turn. A rapid century at home to Australia, and that
>too minus McGrath, in no way makes up for persistent failures under
>pressure. The Chennai test is the most obvious example of fallibility
>under pressure, but Mohali, Calcutta (against SA and Pakistan), Harare,
>and Barbados, all stand out as winnable/saveable matches that cried out
>for a defining knock. Next time, get the job done.
>
nik...@my-dejanews.com
Sachin Tendulkar who holds the record for maximum 21 centuries in one-dayers
sucks at one-day batting ?????? You got to be joking.
And you find Bryan Young who does not even have 1 oneday century to his credit
better than Tendulkar ????
I must say you have a good sense of humour **LOL**
Nikhil Pai.
http://browse.to/cricket
In article <7duo11$o5t$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
"Wedge Antilles" <we...@tauniverse.com> wrote:
> Erm.......... I assume you mean in tests. Because it seems to me at the
> moment, Tendulkar (no offence to him or anyone else) sucks at one-day
> batting. Especially when India toured here in NZ earlier this season. I
> mean, he got out for like 2, 3 ,7 ,3 and 6 or something. I don't think he
> ever got over 10 did he? Basically India only got any runs becasue of Rahul
> Dravid. I think he's a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar. Though maybe
> Tendulkar was just WAY out of form. Or maybe he hadn't faced a
> Cairns/Allot/Drum/Doull bowling attack before?I mean, going out when your
> team has 3 runs in the 2nd over is kinda a bit useless from the guy supposed
> to be the best one-day batsman in the world. Even Bryan Young does better
> than that. As you can probably tell, I was quite disaapoitned. When India
> came, I was expecting to see Tendulkar and co put on some great batting. But
> no, they lost the test series and drew the one day series due to rain
> wash-out.
>
> Later,
> Wedge
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
G I A N
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Wedge Antilles wrote:
> Erm.......... I assume you mean in tests. Because it seems to me at the
> moment, Tendulkar (no offence to him or anyone else) sucks at one-day
> batting. Especially when India toured here in NZ earlier this season. I
> mean, he got out for like 2, 3 ,7 ,3 and 6 or something. I don't think he
> ever got over 10 did he? Basically India only got any runs becasue of Rahul
> Dravid. I think he's a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar. Though maybe
> Tendulkar was just WAY out of form. Or maybe he hadn't faced a
> Cairns/Allot/Drum/Doull bowling attack before?I mean, going out when your
> team has 3 runs in the 2nd over is kinda a bit useless from the guy supposed
> to be the best one-day batsman in the world. Even Bryan Young does better
> than that. As you can probably tell, I was quite disaapoitned. When India
> came, I was expecting to see Tendulkar and co put on some great batting. But
> no, they lost the test series and drew the one day series due to rain
> wash-out.
>
i think its a bit harsh to say that tendulkar sucks at one day cricket
just because he missed out in 3 one dayers in new zealand. if you look at
his overall one day record, its right up there amongst the best in the
world. and comparing bryan young with tendulkar is even more ridiculous!
you do realise that every batsman goes through a bad patch, and tendulkar
is no exception. imo, he is still the best one day batsman in the world.
regards,
G
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
nasr...@Glue.umd.edu (Faez Nasrudin Kaiser) wrote:
> Lara's stupendous knocks in the last two tests set me thinking back to
> Chennai, and the India versus Pakistan test. Despite the hoopla over
> Tendulkar's knock, the simple fact remains that he manifestly failed. With
> four wickets left and 20 runs to get, an atrocious heave handed the match
> to Pakistan. At Bridgetown yesterday, the WI at one stage needed a further
> 60 runs with two wickets left. I thought the game was as good as over, but
> Lara hung in there, and more importantly sustained partnerships with
> Ambrose and Walsh. Despite the daunting odds, Lara got the job done.
>
True. However, what everyone seems to ignore was the fact that Tendulkar was
in extreme physical pain during that knock, from the time he had scored about
50 (of the eventual 136). Iam not sure you saw that knock, Faez - if you did,
it was impossible to ignore. He was grimacing on forward defensive pushes
from the time he was about 50, and the last 20 odd runs he made were almost
entirely scored with no foot movement - and this after his feet were moving
perfectly the previous evening and that morning (its one of the ways you tell
with Tendulkar, if youve watched him much - sometimes, when he's really
focussed, his feet move from the first ball, everything seems to flow, and he
looks *very* secure at the crease - and this was one of those times, from
ball one, IMHO). That Madras innings was characterised by extreme patience
and watchfullness - and the last 20 runs were made by almost desperate
hitting, from a man who seemed to think his back wouldnt last much longer.
Remember, he is *still* struggling with that injury even today (there was a
piece in the India Today a couple days ago that there is a possibility of him
missing Sharjah too, and maybe even the World Cup).
Having said all that, the Lara innings was superb. To me it was absolutely
brilliant for about 125 runs, before he seemed to feel the pressure (or maybe
just tiredness and mental exhaustion) at the end - I thought he was out LBW at
about 120 odd, he gave a chance (a sitter) which Healy went for a muffed, and
then another which was a little too wide of Warne at first slip (I thought
Steve Waugh erred for the last 2 hours in not having any close-in fielders at
all to Lara, and never a 2nd slip at all). All these chances came right at the
end, after looking very secure for the first 120 plus runs.
The man is a brilliant batsman to watch - I remember saying on rsc sometime
way back in 1994 or so that he was better to watch than Tendulkar, and that
might still be true :-) His timing was brilliant and his placement superb -
the man has always been a genius, and at the moment we have a genius in the
most sublime form of his life. When any of those geniuses (Lara, Tendulkar,
Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh possibly)hit that truly purple patch, IMHO, they are
the best at that moment and nobody can touch them (Tendulkar hit a similar
patch vs Australia a year ago). The comparisons between them can come after,
when theyre back to normal - or if someone stays in a purple patch for a
couple of seasons, then you just grant him the title of the best around (and
if he stays in that purple patch for his entire career, you change his name
to Donald George Bradman ;-)
> These types of knocks are why I rate Steve Waugh as easily the best
> batsman in the world. Waugh is great at playing "defining knocks" i.e.
> runs made when the team needs them most. Upto now, I'd thought of Lara as
> a bit of a flat wicket bully. Capable of destroying poor England attacks,
> but never particularly good against anything else. That perception has
> definitely changed. Hopefully, it won't require public censure and the
> threat of removal from the captaincy to see him repeat these
> heroics again.
>
> Now, it's Tendulkar's turn. A rapid century at home to Australia, and that
> too minus McGrath, in no way makes up for persistent failures under
> pressure. The Chennai test is the most obvious example of fallibility
> under pressure, but Mohali, Calcutta (against SA and Pakistan), Harare,
> and Barbados, all stand out as winnable/saveable matches that cried out
> for a defining knock. Next time, get the job done.
>
Hum. I think that comes partly from being an Indian fan, who relies heavily on
Tendulkar - so one remembers his failures more :-) Its not that Steve Waugh
hasnt failed in crunch-time, you know :-) Madras and Calcutta a year ago might
be examples, as might Delhi a couple years before (got zero in the first
innings, on the first day, which put Australia behind the 8-ball for good in
the game). When Australia needed 260 on a greentop to beat RSA, it was *Mark*
Waugh who came thru and won the game, not Steve. Same in Bangalore vs India a
year ago. It was *Mark* Waugh who saved the series win for Australia vs RSA at
home, fighting to a draw in the third test, not Steve.
And, of course, you can point to the 2nd test in WI too, if you like - WI had
been in desperate trouble, Lara scored a double ton and put them in command,
and then Australia crumbled in the 2nd innings with Steve getting 9 off 8
balls (yes, he scored a ton in the first innings - a bit like Tendulkar
scored 92 in the first innings at Barbados ;-)
Not that Steve hasnt played several defining innings - he has. But someone
often has to stay with you thru a defining innings, for your team to win -
its not a one-man game, after all. When Steve got his match-winning 200 vs
WI, his brother got a ton. When he got his crunch-time 199 in the first
innings here from 36/3, Langer stayed with him and got 51, and Ponting got a
ton. When Steve got his ton vs Pakistan in Pakistan in a winning effort,
Slater got a ton and Lehmann 98. Compare these to Tendulkar's ton in the
first test in England - out of 200. Or his 136 in Chennai - where one man got
50, and 9 others combined for 34. Or his ton at Perth, which was about half
the total score.
Even Michael Jordan, after all, needed the Jordannaires to help him to his
first title - it took him 9 years before he got that first one :-)
Sadiq [ tis a team game ] Yusuf
> Regards,
> Faez [Counting on RaviK for support :)]
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Faez Nasrudin Kaiser
: > Lara's stupendous knocks in the last two tests set me thinking back to
: > Chennai, and the India versus Pakistan test. Despite the hoopla over
: > Tendulkar's knock, the simple fact remains that he manifestly failed. With
: > four wickets left and 20 runs to get, an atrocious heave handed the match
: True. However, what everyone seems to ignore was the fact that Tendulkar was
: in extreme physical pain during that knock, from the time he had scored about
: 50 (of the eventual 136). Iam not sure you saw that knock, Faez - if you did,
: it was impossible to ignore.
I am well aware of this. My post was a mild troll, nothing else. When you
look at the context of Tendulkar's knock, it was a supreme effort. I
remember defending him when the very same point was raised after the test.
: Remember, he is *still* struggling with that injury even today (there was a
: piece in the India Today a couple days ago that there is a possibility of him
: missing Sharjah too, and maybe even the World Cup).
I hope he does miss Sharjah. If he's not completely fit, I'd rather not
see him exerting himself in the "do or die" encounters that tend to
characterise our encounters with Pakistan. It's time our other "stars"
stepped up.
: The man is a brilliant batsman to watch - I remember saying on rsc sometime
: way back in 1994 or so that he was better to watch than Tendulkar, and that
: might still be true :-) His timing was brilliant and his placement superb -
: the man has always been a genius, and at the moment we have a genius in the
: most sublime form of his life.
Personally, I'm still hesitant to call Lara great or a genius. Is one
innings sufficient to mitigate poor tours of Australia, Pakistan and SA ?
While Tendulkar has not produced (IMO) a "defining knock" like Lara did,
his consistency far exceeds Lara's in the past 3-4 years. Hopefully, Lara
will use this as a springboard to realise his talents on a more consistent
basis. I doubt if there has been a series in the past 5-6 years when
Tendulkar has not averaged among the top three Indian batsmen. If I am
correct, that is truly phenomenal.
: Hum. I think that comes partly from being an Indian fan, who relies heavily on
: Tendulkar - so one remembers his failures more :-)
Possibly. The problem is that there haven't been that many successes to
outweigh the failures. Yes, you can cite the Australia series (no McGrath
or Gillespie), but Antigua and Harare offered the prospect of rare series
wins away from home, and Mohali the prospect of the first series win over
the WI in over a decade. I'd like to see Tendulkar draw a line in the
sand, stand his ground, and produce a Lara-esque knock that leads us to
victory. To be fair to him, he probably would have done it in Chennai, if
not for the injury.
<snipped - no argument here>
: Not that Steve hasnt played several defining innings - he has. But someone
: often has to stay with you thru a defining innings, for your team to win -
: its not a one-man game, after all.
Lara had Ambrose and Walsh, and Tendulkar had Srinath, Prasad and Kumble.
Seriously though, in Waugh's case I concur with your point. Australia are
a markedly superior side to India, and there is far less expectation on
Waugh to carry the team, than there is with India and Tendulkar.
: Even Michael Jordan, after all, needed the Jordannaires to help him to his
: first title - it took him 9 years before he got that first one :-)
Ahh, I'll make Jordan my next target :)
Regards,
Faez
Chetan Ahuja
: Even Michael Jordan, after all, needed the Jordannaires to help him to his
: first title - it took him 9 years before he got that first one :-)
: Sadiq [ tis a team game ] Yusuf
Very true.... as I was remarking in conversation the other day... Jordan was
a great player but Bulls was a great team not because of Jordan alone... They had
a whole bunch of extraordinary players... Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc (sp?) etc... the
kind of players who would be top stars in their own right in any other team....
Bringing this back to Cricket... India at this time only two batsmen -- Sachin(Jordan)
and Rahul (Pippen) ( and occasionally Azhar) and one bowler --
Srinath(Rodman??) (occasionally Kumble/Prasad) who would be stars in any team...
But since cricket is played with 11 players ...to build a nice test team we
really really need at least one more pace bowler and another good test opener
( Assuming Ramesh has locked his place) We do better in One dayers because the
batting clicks more often in one days and 50 overs can be handled reasonably well
with a couple of part time bowlers apart from the regualr bowlers. That simply
doesn't cut it in test cricket....
JM2PB
Chetan
G I A N
with all these comparisons between lara and sachin, i think mike
atherton's comments on both of them are probably the most accurate.
athers said he felt that tendulkar had a better technique than lara.
but lara was the more dangerous strokeplayer and given the choice between
the two, he'd prefer to have lara in his team. having said that, he
concluded that he'd pick s.waugh ahead of both!
this was in "the cricketer" magazine, just after india toured england in
1996 (tendulkar had a very good series that year)
regards,
G
RoshanCat
>i think mike
>atherton's comments on both of them are probably the most accurate.
>
Nothing personal but they do take into account performances only against
England & runs made in England. For them a county season is much more important
then any other series between alien countries. Chances are A'ton would have
seen Lara's 501 then all most of Sachin's classy test 100's.
And dont even talk about those 21 brilliant centuries Sachin has made.
For an English fan the wisden is the be-all & end-all of source of cricket
knowledge
Cheers,
Roshan
may...@my-dejanews.com
yes i agree with you.
remember a lot of englishmen think WG grace is the best batsman of all time.
coming back to lara remember his hundreds even though won 2 test matches for
the west indies ,but as far as the series is concerned, amounts to zilch
cos they arnt going to win the series
tendulkars century against australia helped india to win the series which is
more important
so i think tendulkar>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lara
mayurd
may...@my-dejanews.com
Mark Ingham
news:7ef44j$j9l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> yes i agree with you.
>
> remember a lot of englishmen think WG grace is the best batsman of all
time.
Wouldn't that be a reasonably arguable position? He certainly dominated
county cricket in his era and 54000 runs (over four decades) is fairly
impressive. I was under the impression that he revolutionised cricket
during his days playing county cricket.
> coming back to lara remember his hundreds even though won 2 test matches
for
> the west indies , but as far as the series is concerned, amounts to zilch
> cos they arnt going to win the series
> tendulkars century against australia helped india to win the series which
is
> more important
> so i think tendulkar>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lara
--
Mark Ingham
MarkI...@bigpond.com
Mike Holmans
opine:
>
>>i think mike
>>atherton's comments on both of them are probably the most accurate.
>>
>First of all I'll take any Englishman comments on cricket with a pinch of salt.
>Nothing personal but they do take into account performances only against
>England & runs made in England. For them a county season is much more important
>then any other series between alien countries. Chances are A'ton would have
>seen Lara's 501 then all most of Sachin's classy test 100's.
>
>And dont even talk about those 21 brilliant centuries Sachin has made.
Which 21 centuries? He only has 19 in Tests. These would presumably be
the irrelevant nonsense games which you seem to think are so important
and nobody else, certainly not a reasonably accomplished Test batsman
and national captain, does.
Atherton certainly did not see Lara's 501, since he was playing for
Lancashire at the time. Nobody who did regarded it as anything more
than a statistical freak: taking 500 off the Durham 'attack' hardly
demanded being the best batsman in the world - it needed a deadish
match and someone with the stamina to bat for n hours scoring at a
reasonably quick rate.
Atherton has seen both Tendulkar and Lara at first hand in Test
Matches, with the benefit of being a professional batsman himself,
with the pro's eye for what makes a good player. I would have thought
that he would regard this as the best evidence available to him,
certainly above newspaper reports of ODIous crap in Hong Kong or
Toronto. Or do you think he would be better off listening to your
crackpot theories?
But you have, as usual, allowed your quasi-religious devotion to SRT
to get in the way of seeing what was actually said. Atherton basically
ranked the three top men in terms of the order he'd pick them in his
side, like in the picking game you and I played.
Let's have a quick look at the respective players' records against
England, which is obviously what Atherton has the most intimate
experience of.
M I NO R A 100 50 HS
SRT 9 14 2 975 81.25 4 4 177
BCL 16 27 1 1980 76.15 5 8 375
SRW 37 60 16 2574 58.50 7 12 177*
Of the three, he'd pick Swaugh first. Why would he do that? Obviously
the averages can't tell the whole story. But anyone who's watched
Swaugh come in with his side at <100/4 and grind out yet another
hundred will know that his is the wicket you want most in all the
world. To a player of Atherton's stripe, the ability to hang in there
and play a big innings in a crisis is going to look more valuable than
anything else. (You don't just have to be a man who plays like that
himself to appreciate Swaugh's quality, but it certainly helps.)
In his comparison between Lara and SRT, he appears to be looking at
something less definable. I suppose you could call it the fear factor.
Some batsmen have the ability to cow their opponents by sheer brute
force. Their approach seems more up-front aggressive.
The supreme example of that in modern times was Viv Richards, perhaps
with Botham as runner-up. The *manner* in which they destroyed the
opposition bowling was contemptuous. Their innings were noisy. The bat
smacked the ball hard, there were huge clumps as the ball crashed to
the boundary. And you could see in their faces that they were
relishing the job in hand, laughing at the opposition's futile
attempts to quell them. Their batting was violent.
Lara, on song, is of a similar type to Richards and Botham. He's
frightening.
SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
joy, things of beauty, sweet, economical and graceful. His weapons are
not the mace and battle-axe but the rapier. In the swashbuckling
movies, Tendu is the man who waves his sword a few times and his
opponent's clothes drop off, followed by his arms and legs which have
been neatly severed. Lara wrecks the banqueting hall and reduces his
enemy to a bloody pulp. They're dead in both cases - Tendu has done it
with the minimum of effort and destructive power, Lara less elegantly
but no less effectively.
Logic and rationality might well say that you'd be better off picking
Tendu than Lara. If you consider what's been going on in the
discussion about stats' relevance, it seems quite likely to me that
that's what Bharat Rao's theory of value might well come up with. But
what a numerical analysis cannot really do is show the psychological
effect that people have.
Despite having an average more than 20 fewer than either SRT or BCL,
Swaugh is the man whose approach to the crease most causes Englishmen
to wilt. He's bloody hard to get rid of from the moment he arrives.
With Lara, you know you've got a hell of a chance to dismiss him early
in his innings. And if you can keep him under control, *if*, he can be
neutralised and he'll get himself out for you. But if you can't keep a
cap on him, you'll be sorry. SRT evokes towering respect. He's damn
hard to get out, and he can stroke his way to 50 before you've really
noticed, but he doesn't *seem* as intimidating as Lara in full flow.
You can say that this is silly if you like. It may be irrational.
You're also much more likely to be killed by a car than in an air
crash, but most people are much more scared of flying than of driving.
Of course Atherton has a different perspective to you. He's seen
different games, he's played in the matches against India and WI he's
been available for, and hasn't played for Australia or Pakistan
against the same opponents. I'll bet he didn't watch Lara in Australia
last time round or in RSA a few weeks ago, when he was terrible, nor
would he have seen SRT against Australia in India last year. But how
much of Lara's performance in this current series have you watched,
Roshan? Have you been glued to it? Or have you been more concerned
with India's performance against Pakistan? Your bias is just as
evident as anyone else's. Everyone is more affected by what they see
than what they read about. It's not a crime.
You're an Indian, and you probably don't have as high an opinion of
pre-op Shane Warne as quite a lot of others have, because his
performances against India matter more to you, and you discount his
devastation of other teams. A Windies fan probably has a higher
opinion of people like Amarnath, Lamb, and Robin Smith than people
who've done well against other people but poorly against WI. Whenever
an England touring party is picked, people from the country we're
about to tour will post here and ask why soandso who had a damn good
series against them last time has been left at home, and the reply is
usually that he's been dropped because he's proven himself to be a
dud, and the original questioner wanders off mumbling about the lunacy
of the England selectors.
We all see cricket through the prism of our circumstances, and your
viewpoint is no more unbiased than anyone else's. Your sniping at
Atherton seems to suggest that you regard actually playing in Test
Matches as somehow a disqualification compared to your reading of
articles and watching on TV which gives you the impartial view you
claim to espouse. I beg to differ.
You've played the picking game with me, as has Christian Kelly. In
both the games I had, SRT and SWaugh were the first two picks. It
would be a more difficult game now, because Lara is bound to join them
in the first three picks, so one 'captain' is going to get two of the
three and the other only one, which is going to bias the ratings of
teh eventual sides horribly. As of today. When we played in January,
Lara was picked eventually in both games, but about on the seventh
round. The Warne/Healy pairing which were the focus of the second
round picks in both games I played in January wouldn't come into play
now until we'd scrapped over the fast bowlers, I suspect, and Warne
probably wouldn't get picked at all.
But I think that if I were to play the picking game today, I'd have
the same preference list as Atherton. Although I might choose Lara
first. SRT, if I were picking a side, would certainly be my third
preference today. You'd probably still go with SRT as your number one
pick. At this level, it's a judgement call. There isn't an absolute
answer. You can argue for any of the three as number one pick
perfectly cogently, but you cannot be certain.
>
>For an English fan the wisden is the be-all & end-all of source of cricket
>knowledge
Have you ever used Wisden? I know it's a bit limited, but it's quite
useful. If I want to know the scores in any first class game played
anywhere in the world, I can look in the relevant year's Wisden. If I
want not only the scores, but a write-up and report of any Test Match
anywhere in the world, I can look it up in the relevant year's Wisden.
If England aren't involved in the game, the report will have been
written by a respected cricket writer from the home country, so it's
not exactly written from a English perspective all the time.
They only print the full scorecards and reports of all domestic f-c
matches in England and Australia, true, while for other countries they
only give the summary scores (X 342 (Bloggs 103*, Dullman 59, Twinky
6-72)...) for most games and the full scores for the championship
decider, but the book is 1500 pages long as it is.
The Obituaries section attempts to record the cricketing life of any
significant cricket person, f-c player, administrator, coach, from
anywhere in the world, though I'm sure they miss some obscure
non-English players because nobody thinks to tell Wisden about it.
Does the equivalent Indian publication list all the summary scores in
the County Championship, Sheffield Shield and Busta Cup? Does it
provide coverage of RSA v NZ?
As a work of reference for scores and facts and statistics, Wisden is
invaluable. It is thoroughly researched by a worldwide team. It is
recognised throughout the cricket world as being authoritative. If you
want to dispute seomthing which is stated as fact in Wisden, you'd
better be able to provide documentary proof (and they'll print the
result in the following edition's Errata.)
But I wouldn't regard Wisden as being the be-all and end-all,
especially with regard to cricket abroad, because there's more to
cricket than the raw data of who got what, when, and how they were
out. I'll consult any cricket book which seems to have been written by
someone who knows what they're talking about (which does not include
"Batting on Beer" by BIG TEST STAR (with Hack Journalist drinking
buddy)).
Stephen Devaux
>
> Atherton certainly did not see Lara's 501, since he was playing for
> Lancashire at the time. Nobody who did regarded it as anything more
> than a statistical freak: taking 500 off the Durham 'attack' hardly
> demanded being the best batsman in the world - it needed a deadish
> match and someone with the stamina to bat for n hours scoring at a
> reasonably quick rate.
HEY! The World's Greatest Athlete was bowling for Durham in that match!
On what grounds do I make that estimation? I DEFY you to think of
another player over whose non-participation in a sporting event AN
ENTIRE SOVEREIGN COUNTRY was galavanized into taking economic sanctions
against the offending organization(s)!
Put THAT in your smipe and poke it!
Stephen Devaux
BCL, and SRW into general categories based on characteristics they seem
to share with preceding cricketers. It occurred to me that this sort
of typing is a more interesting (or at least more novel) exercise than
the done-to-death "MY WORLD XI OF AMBIDEXTROUS MUSTACHIOED PLAYERS
1977-1981 FROM COUNTRIES LOCATED BETWEEN 47.8 DEG. E. LAT. AND 12.4 DEG.
W. LAT. WITH MOTHERS WHO HAD BLACK HAIR AND COULDN'T WHISTLE."
Mike Holmans wrote (in snipped form):
> M I NO R A 100 50 HS
> SRT 9 14 2 975 81.25 4 4 177
> BCL 16 27 1 1980 76.15 5 8 375
> SRW 37 60 16 2574 58.50 7 12 177*
>
> Of the three, he'd pick Swaugh first. Why would he do that? Obviously
> the averages can't tell the whole story.
So that's an important point: for this typing,
quality/production/longevity are factors, but so is
style/panache/determination and other "intangibles (atrocious running
between the wickets?).
> But anyone who's watched
> Swaugh come in with his side at <100/4 and grind out yet another
> hundred will know that his is the wicket you want most in all the
> world.
>
> In his comparison between Lara and SRT, he appears to be looking at
> something less definable. I suppose you could call it the fear factor.
> Some batsmen have the ability to cow their opponents by sheer brute
> force. Their approach seems more up-front aggressive.
>
> The supreme example of that in modern times was Viv Richards, perhaps
> with Botham as runner-up. The *manner* in which they destroyed the
> opposition bowling was contemptuous. Their innings were noisy. The bat
> smacked the ball hard, there were huge clumps as the ball crashed to
> the boundary. And you could see in their faces that they were
> relishing the job in hand, laughing at the opposition's futile
> attempts to quell them. Their batting was violent.
>
> Lara, on song, is of a similar type to Richards and Botham. He's
> frightening.
>
> SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
> joy, things of beauty, sweet, economical and graceful. His weapons are
> not the mace and battle-axe but the rapier. In the swashbuckling
> movies, Tendu is the man who waves his sword a few times and his
> opponent's clothes drop off, followed by his arms and legs which have
> been neatly severed. Lara wrecks the banqueting hall and reduces his
> enemy to a bloody pulp. They're dead in both cases - Tendu has done it
> with the minimum of effort and destructive power, Lara less elegantly
> but no less effectively.
Then Mike goes on to talk about which batsman you might prefer under
what circumstances, and which Atherton, specifically, might prefer. But
I'll stop here. Here are three types offered by Mike, with his
selections and my additions to each. I have tried VERY hard to fit
players into these three categories. These additions will probably lean
strongly to WI players, because they are the ones I feel most qualified
to categorize. (Indeed, I have no idea what to do with Zimbabwe
players; WI and Zim have never played a Test series, and I really don't
feel I know enough about Campbell, Goodwin, or the Flowers, etc, to
categorize them. Someone from Zim will need to do that.) I would be
very interested in the additions others might make.
Then I've added my own "types." Only two. But certainly I DON'T think
Mike and I have exhausted the possible types. I'd be interested to see
what other types people feel need to be added.
Type 1: SRT
MWAUGH, GOWER, ZAHEER ABBAS; Worrell, Rowe, Sobers, May, Graveney,
Harvey, Gavaskar, Pollock, Viswanath, Headley, Nurse, ChappellG,
Compton, Hobbs, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Cullinan, Tiger Pataudi, Majid
Khan, Martin Crowe, Hick, Hassett.
Type 2: LARA
RICHARDS, BOTHAM; Bradman, Weekes, Walcott, Kanhai, Bradman, Dexter,
Gooch, Miandad, Keith Miller, Thorpe, Walters, De Silva, Jayasuriya,
Fredericks, Greenidge, Constantine, McCabe, Kapil Dev, Inzi, CD
McMillan, Jonty, Barry Richards, Alec Stewart, Hammond, Azhar, Parks.
Type 3: SWAUGH
ATHERTON; Hutton, Cowdrey, Boycott, Gatting, Hunte, C. Lloyd, Butcher,
Ramprakash, Hanif, Dravid, Chappelli, Lawry, Umrigar, Gomes, Cronje, H.
Sutcliffe, Ranatunga, J. Adams, S. Campbell, Border, Turner, Ponsford,
Bailey, Tavare, Charlie Davis.
Noticed about the above:
A. The large number of English batsmen, as well as openers, in the
SWAUGH category.
B. The fact that many in the latter category COULD have been moved into
one of the others (e.g., Lloyd, Butcher) or vice versa (e.g., Sobers,
Graveney, Gavaskar, Headley).
Now:
Type 4: S****NS
SWilliams, Ragoonath, Arthurton, Wallace, Rutherford, Brearley, Close.
(This category was based on crappiness, but I just noticed that all of
the Windians above are Lara/Viv wannabees. I wonder what that means?)
And:
Type 5: MUSHTAQ MOHAMMED (IOW, anomalies, either because I don't know
enough or becuae they just don't seem to fit any of the above!)
Logie, Wessels, Haynes, Malik, Richardson.
I'm sure people are going to give me a hard time over some of these
choices. "How can ANYONE POSSIBLY list Cronje/Border/Lloyd in the same
category as Boycott/Tavare?" Remember that the archetype for this
category is SWaugh! Based on that, I think Lloyd and Cronje are the two
most fitting this category!
Perhaps this category should be divided so as to put
Boycott/Tavare/Gomes/Bailey/Davis into another type; fine. Then what
are you going to do with Hanif/Dravid etc.? It seems to me that a big
part of this exercise is to keep the number of categories as limited as
possible. But, as you will...
RoshanCat
>the irrelevant nonsense games which you seem to think are so important
>and nobody else, certainly not a reasonably accomplished Test batsman
>and national captain, does.
Whatever it is, it is still very difficult to make an ODI hundred. If you go
through the list of test century makers & ODI century makers, you'll find that
there are many useless batsmen who have scored test hundreds, but you cant say
the same about the list of batsman who have scored ODI hundreds
>Atherton has seen both Tendulkar and Lara at first hand in Test
>Matches,
> with the benefit of being a professional batsman himself,
>with the pro's eye for what makes a good player
^^^^^^^
This is where I beg to differ, A'ton has not most of Sachin & most of Lara to
comment. Probably he has seen the best of Lara & the not-so-best of Sachin. It
may be the other way round too. So I would rather take an I. Chappel, Boycott
or Holding's (who have travelled all across the globe & would have watched more
matches) views on these two batsmen then A'ton who would have seen very very
little of Sachin, considering the amount of cricket coverage in England
>But you have, as usual, allowed your quasi-religious devotion to SRT
>to get in the way of seeing what was actually said. Atherton basically
>ranked the three top men in terms
That was not what I was driving at anyway
>The supreme example of that in modern times was Viv Richards, perhaps
>with Botham as runner-up. The *manner* in which they destroyed the
>opposition bowling was contemptuous.
I dont see why Sachin is different from the above two
>SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
No, Sachin I think is in Viv's mould, If you want Gower, Mark, Zaheer, there is
of course Azza........
>Logic and rationality might well say that you'd be better off picking
>Tendu than Lara.
Sachin has murdered attacks equally as Lara has done
>But how
>much of Lara's performance in this current series have you watched,
>Roshan? Have you been glued to it?
Although you may find hard to believe, I was more interested in the Aus-WI
series than the Pepsi cup. Indian crowds have been very lucky since 1992. They
get to watch *every* cricket match on this planet for *free*. A decent Indian
fan would have known every batsman's weakness & strenghts. We would have first
hand information about even the remotest of player. We knew about Adams bowling
action or Gilly's exploits or Olanga's controversy much much earlier than their
most of their own country's fans.
>You're an Indian, and you probably don't have as high an opinion of
>pre-op Shane Warne as quite a lot of others have
You are speaking to #1 fan of Shane Warne, who still considers him the best
spinner in the world. As I said earlier I have watched almost every ball of
Shane Warne. I completely know the exploits of Robin Smith & was his fan for a
some time too. In fact I used to find it very strange when England dropped him.
And believe me I know all of Lamb's gritty centuries against Windies
>We all see cricket through the prism of our circumstances, and your
>viewpoint is no more unbiased than anyone else's.
I would agree, but atleast I can claim to have seen more matches all over the
globe on all conditions and this is probably true for all Indian fans. We are
glued to each & every match, whether its RSA vs Pak (This is where I was
impressed with Shoib Akthar, & found it quite surprising when he didn't figure
in Pak's matches but for many Shoib is still unknown or very recently known) or
Aus v RSA, Eng v Aus, Pak v Win (where I was impressed with Basit Ali)Eng v
RSA.
In short we are not limited to matches played only in their respective
countries or only when they are playing which is a common complaint for most
RSC'ns
Cheers,
Roshan [
Mike Holmans
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> decided to opine:
Steve proposes sorting batsmen into types, a procedure suggested by my
post in response to Roshan.
>
>Type 1: SRT
>MWAUGH, GOWER, ZAHEER ABBAS; Worrell, Rowe, Sobers, May, Graveney,
>Harvey, Gavaskar, Pollock, Viswanath, Headley, Nurse, ChappellG,
>Compton, Hobbs, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Cullinan, Tiger Pataudi, Majid
>Khan, Martin Crowe, Hick, Hassett.
>
>Type 2: LARA
>RICHARDS, BOTHAM; Bradman, Weekes, Walcott, Kanhai, Bradman, Dexter,
>Gooch, Miandad, Keith Miller, Thorpe, Walters, De Silva, Jayasuriya,
>Fredericks, Greenidge, Constantine, McCabe, Kapil Dev, Inzi, CD
>McMillan, Jonty, Barry Richards, Alec Stewart, Hammond, Azhar, Parks.
>
>Type 3: SWAUGH
>ATHERTON; Hutton, Cowdrey, Boycott, Gatting, Hunte, C. Lloyd, Butcher,
>Ramprakash, Hanif, Dravid, Chappelli, Lawry, Umrigar, Gomes, Cronje, H.
>Sutcliffe, Ranatunga, J. Adams, S. Campbell, Border, Turner, Ponsford,
>Bailey, Tavare, Charlie Davis.
Well, I note that you have Bradman twice under type 2, which implies
that you think he's twice as good as Lara, which can't be bad.
Based on my observations, I would swap Thorpe and Gatting over between
2 and 3 - but I can see why you have them your way round, because
their performances against WI probably fit better. But Gatt certainly
was a type 2 player. Thorpe is more of a type 3. I've not really seen
him try and hit the cover off the ball in an onslaught.
Ramprakash's true game is type 1, but he has only just started,
towards the end of the Ashes series, to show glimpses of it in Tests.
As of now, his performances would make him type 3.
And I'd make Chanders type 3, but then I haven't seen all his games
either.
>Noticed about the above:
>
>A. The large number of English batsmen, as well as openers, in the
>SWAUGH category.
Well, you haven't included Lamb or R Smith, who are type 2s. And
you've only really got Cowdrey, Thorpe (if you accept my swap) and
Ramps (hopefully temporarily), plus Tavare and Bailey who were being
used as openers. And you're going to weight for performances against
WI, and I suspect the pace battery will have subdued some strokemakers
who could really only aspire to survival, or could only adopt those
tactics given the carnage being wrought at the other end.
>
>B. The fact that many in the latter category COULD have been moved into
>one of the others (e.g., Lloyd, Butcher) or vice versa (e.g., Sobers,
>Graveney, Gavaskar, Headley).
>
>Now:
>
>Type 4: S****NS
>SWilliams, Ragoonath, Arthurton, Wallace, Rutherford, Brearley, Close.
>(This category was based on crappiness, but I just noticed that all of
>the Windians above are Lara/Viv wannabees. I wonder what that means?)
Hick, Blewett, Crawley, Larkins, Bevan, Laxman.
>And:
>
>Type 5: MUSHTAQ MOHAMMED (IOW, anomalies, either because I don't know
>enough or becuae they just don't seem to fit any of the above!)
>Logie, Wessels, Haynes, Malik, Richardson.
I'd have put Haynes as a type 3 myself.
>I'm sure people are going to give me a hard time over some of these
>choices. "How can ANYONE POSSIBLY list Cronje/Border/Lloyd in the same
>category as Boycott/Tavare?" Remember that the archetype for this
>category is SWaugh! Based on that, I think Lloyd and Cronje are the two
>most fitting this category!
I don't see what you gain by splitting the categories. You're really
only separating into grind-it-out openers and grind-it-out middle
order people, and we're really talking about approach and demeanour
rather than the shades of tactical difference determined by position
in the order.
Of course, after we've had a discussion of which types players fall
into, we can go on to talk about what proportion of each type makes
the best batting line-up, and that could be a laugh too.
Gecko Van Echoes
>
> with all these comparisons between lara and sachin, i think mike
> atherton's comments on both of them are probably the most accurate.
>
> but lara was the more dangerous strokeplayer and given the choice between
> the two, he'd prefer to have lara in his team. having said that, he
> concluded that he'd pick s.waugh ahead of both!
>
> this was in "the cricketer" magazine, just after india toured england in
> 1996 (tendulkar had a very good series that year)
Atherton also said "SRT is better than WGG (as if he went and saw WGG)"
or something to that effect after the Diana Memorial. If you can get a
pom to compare anyone to Grace, either he thinks SRT is one of the best
or he is insane :-).
Including his heroics in England, Lara's away average is around 45.
Lara has to show a bit more consistency. If WI are back in the same old
mess, then whatever happened in this series was just a flash of
brilliance, nothing more. SRT's heroics when Aus came to India was as
heroic as Lara's performance this series. Lara's performance is more
well-received because he rose from the nadir whereas SRT was not in a
similar position.
Here is a head to head SRT vs Lara [Take it for all it's worth]
SRT Lara
[In India]
34 14
85 0
179 50
54 3
40 40
10 91
[In WI]
7 83
15* 78
88 14
DNB 19
92 19
4 45
DNB 103
83 30
SRT beats Lara 7-3 with no results in 4(1 tie, 1 NO inning and 2DNB)
Regards
gve
> regards,
> G
Mike Holmans
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>
>> Atherton certainly did not see Lara's 501, since he was playing for
>> Lancashire at the time. Nobody who did regarded it as anything more
>> than a statistical freak: taking 500 off the Durham 'attack' hardly
>> demanded being the best batsman in the world - it needed a deadish
>> match and someone with the stamina to bat for n hours scoring at a
>> reasonably quick rate.
>
>On what grounds do I make that estimation? I DEFY you to think of
>another player over whose non-participation in a sporting event AN
>ENTIRE SOVEREIGN COUNTRY was galavanized into taking economic sanctions
>against the offending organization(s)!
>
were selecting a WI XI which would include him, it would also feature
Ragoonath, S****ns, Nureyev and the Binary Man.
Sundarraman Subramanian
> Including his heroics in England, Lara's away average is around 45.
> Lara has to show a bit more consistency. If WI are back in the same old
An away average of 45 is generally considered good, if I am not
incorrect. But probably the high scores against England in 1994,
Lara's peak season thus far, inflated his abroad average to 45.
> brilliance, nothing more. SRT's heroics when Aus came to India was as
> heroic as Lara's performance this series. Lara's performance is more
> well-received because he rose from the nadir whereas SRT was not in a
> similar position.
Not only that. Lara scored his runs against both McGrath and
Gillespie :-) SRT scored only against Warne. So Lara's runs have
greater weight, IMO.
> SRT Lara
> [In India]
> 34 14
> 85 0
> 179 50
> 54 3
> 40 40
> 10 91
In the above series, SRT--Very good. Lara--Average.
> [In WI]
> 7 83
> 15* 78
> 88 14
> DNB 19
> 92 19
> 4 45
> DNB 103
> 83 30
Both were good in this series. That 45 by Lara was crucial though.
I would put Steve Waugh at number 1. Lara and SRT are joint second.
Inzi, if he plays at this rate, will soon overtake all these chaps.
As an aside, I wonder how SRT would have fared against Akram and
Akhtar in Sharjah. Same time last year he was plundering runs
against the Aussies. It is a shame that he is injured. Do you think
that he would have scored as well against Akhtar?
Mercury
RoshanCat
>that he would have scored as well against Akhtar?
>
If Hick can, Sachin would have definitely. Akhtar is still a raw-pace bowler
who is very easy pickings when batsmen get hold of him. I'm sure Sachin would
have got zillions of fours against Akhtar on Sharjah
Cheers,
Roshan [SRT has no weakness against any type of bowling]
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk (Mike Holmans) wrote:
> On 7 Apr 1999 04:25:32 GMT, rosh...@aol.com (RoshanCat) decided to
> opine:
>
> >
> >>i think mike
> >>atherton's comments on both of them are probably the most accurate.
> >>
> >First of all I'll take any Englishman comments on cricket with a pinch of
salt.
> >Nothing personal but they do take into account performances only against
> >England & runs made in England. For them a county season is much more
important
> >then any other series between alien countries. Chances are A'ton would have
> >seen Lara's 501 then all most of Sachin's classy test 100's.
> >
> >And dont even talk about those 21 brilliant centuries Sachin has made.
>
First off, I'd like to say that I dont disagree a lot of what you say below,
Mike, nor do I agree with everything that Roshan said above. But I do disagree
with *some* of what you said - which is the reason for this post.
>
> Atherton has seen both Tendulkar and Lara at first hand in Test
> Matches, with the benefit of being a professional batsman himself,
> with the pro's eye for what makes a good player. I would have thought
> that he would regard this as the best evidence available to him,
> certainly above newspaper reports of ODIous crap in Hong Kong or
> Toronto. Or do you think he would be better off listening to your
> crackpot theories?
>
True. However, opinions vary with people, dont they? There is no question in
my mind that players (and fans) in England have seen much more of Lara
(especially at his best) than they have of Tendulkar. The fact that many of
them (probably most of them) think Lara is the better player is a quite
direct result of this, IMHO.
OTOH, if you listen to or read comments by many of the Australian players
after they returned from the Indian tour a year ago, their views were
diametrically opposed to the English view. Steve Waugh was the person who
said he thought Tendulkar was the best since Bradman, and in fact explicitly
stated that he thought Tendulkar was a far better batsman than Lara. Warne
said something similar, also saying that he personally would have nightmares
of Tendulkar coming down the track and hitting him back over his head (not
that I believe Warne actually feels that way - I just think he's a very
generous and gracious opponent off the field, and always has been). I dont
know if the opinions of most Australians have changed after this series -
they well might have. However, the above was their publicly stated opinion a
year ago. Atherton's opinion even a year ago, IMHO, was probably what has
been quoted on rsc in this piece.
>
> In his comparison between Lara and SRT, he appears to be looking at
> something less definable. I suppose you could call it the fear factor.
> Some batsmen have the ability to cow their opponents by sheer brute
> force. Their approach seems more up-front aggressive.
>
> The supreme example of that in modern times was Viv Richards, perhaps
> with Botham as runner-up. The *manner* in which they destroyed the
> opposition bowling was contemptuous. Their innings were noisy. The bat
> smacked the ball hard, there were huge clumps as the ball crashed to
> the boundary. And you could see in their faces that they were
> relishing the job in hand, laughing at the opposition's futile
> attempts to quell them. Their batting was violent.
>
> Lara, on song, is of a similar type to Richards and Botham. He's
> frightening.
>
> SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
> joy, things of beauty, sweet, economical and graceful. His weapons are
> not the mace and battle-axe but the rapier. In the swashbuckling
> movies, Tendu is the man who waves his sword a few times and his
> opponent's clothes drop off, followed by his arms and legs which have
> been neatly severed. Lara wrecks the banqueting hall and reduces his
> enemy to a bloody pulp. They're dead in both cases - Tendu has done it
> with the minimum of effort and destructive power, Lara less elegantly
> but no less effectively.
>
Now *this* is where I completely and totally disagree with you, Mike :-) I
dont know how much youve seen of Tendulkar, especially at his best. From
everything Ive seen of him and Lara, I'd personally say youve got the
comparisons almost *exactly* the wrong way around :-)
Tendulkar most definitely does not compare to Gower, Mark Waugh or Zaheer
Abbas, in my book. His way *is* the bludgeon, not the rapier. Lara, in fact,
is *much* more of the rapier than Tendulkar is - he is the more artistic of
the two, the timer of the ball, the master of the beautifully placed
back-cut. Tendulkar is a hitter - he hits with great power and violence.
Though he has far more grace than someone like Botham did, I dont think
anyone who has seen them both extensively at their best would say he has
anywhere near the grace of a Lara.
As you probably know, I do like Tendulkar and think he's a heck of a bat :-)
But Ive said this before on rsc and will repeat it now - a lot of the time I
*prefer* watching Lara bat, because of his superior grace and elegance. His
caressed drives through cover are more like Gower than anything Tendulkar
possesses (Gower was my favourite player in the world until he retired, and I
happen to love Mark Waugh's batting as well. I disliked Zaheer - but that was
probably because he kept scoring 200's against my team while I was an
impressionable yute :-)
What distinguishes Tendulkar from a Botham is that he has far better
technique, and also times the ball very well - doesnt *just* bludgeon it. But
dont let that fool you - he is unquestionably a power batsman. He uses the
heaviest bat in world cricket today, for example - only Clive Lloyd and Lance
Cairns have used bats as heavy as he does (that is one of the reasons put
forward for his back trouble, BTW). What distinguishes him from Richards is
mostly only technique - they both play in quite a similar way, other than
technique. Their attitudes to the game are similar. And both Tendulkar and
Richards have a sort of arrogance to their batting - Tendulkar just doesnt
have it off the the field, or at most times when he's *not* batting, unlike
Viv.
But if youre comparing just the batting styles of Tendulkar and Lara, I submit
to you that its Tendulkar who is the Richards/Botham type, while Lara is Gower
(with a 6 run/inning better average). (I know Geoff Bethell will agree for one
- he compared Tendulkar's batting with Richard's way back in 1994 :-)
> Logic and rationality might well say that you'd be better off picking
> Tendu than Lara. If you consider what's been going on in the
> discussion about stats' relevance, it seems quite likely to me that
> that's what Bharat Rao's theory of value might well come up with. But
> what a numerical analysis cannot really do is show the psychological
> effect that people have.
>
> Despite having an average more than 20 fewer than either SRT or BCL,
> Swaugh is the man whose approach to the crease most causes Englishmen
> to wilt. He's bloody hard to get rid of from the moment he arrives.
> With Lara, you know you've got a hell of a chance to dismiss him early
> in his innings. And if you can keep him under control, *if*, he can be
> neutralised and he'll get himself out for you. But if you can't keep a
> cap on him, you'll be sorry. SRT evokes towering respect. He's damn
> hard to get out, and he can stroke his way to 50 before you've really
> noticed, but he doesn't *seem* as intimidating as Lara in full flow.
>
I think this is the wrong way around too, IMHO :-) I think the above is true
of Lara - in fact there have been a few occasions when he *has* stroked his
way to 50 without us noticing, while watching (a friend, watching the entire
innings during the WC game vs RSA the last time around, thought he was on 25
or so, when he was actually 55, for example). This is almost never the case
with Tendulkar, who usually announces his runs with hard hit blasts down the
ground - his quick innings are usually explosions, not works of art.
> You can say that this is silly if you like. It may be irrational.
> You're also much more likely to be killed by a car than in an air
> crash, but most people are much more scared of flying than of driving.
>
I dont think its silly at all, I think its a very valid reason. By the end of
the Australian tour to India, they were intimidated by Tendulkar (and said
so). They played their cricket that way too - in the ODIs, even when 2
wickets were down, they gave up singles to Tendulkar so that they could bowl
to the chap at the other end (even when that chap was Azhar, sometimes).
Nobody ever gets intimidated by Steve Waugh, though - he just grinds you into
dust over time :-)
> Of course Atherton has a different perspective to you. He's seen
> different games, he's played in the matches against India and WI he's
> been available for, and hasn't played for Australia or Pakistan
> against the same opponents. I'll bet he didn't watch Lara in Australia
> last time round or in RSA a few weeks ago, when he was terrible, nor
> would he have seen SRT against Australia in India last year. But how
> much of Lara's performance in this current series have you watched,
> Roshan? Have you been glued to it? Or have you been more concerned
> with India's performance against Pakistan? Your bias is just as
> evident as anyone else's. Everyone is more affected by what they see
> than what they read about. It's not a crime.
>
Again, I speak for myself, not Roshan - but I saw all of the Australia/WI
series (and what a series it was, too :-) And I loved watching it - Lara was
as magnificent in this series as any batsman could ever be (and none could be
better, IMHO). I also saw the India-Pakistan series, and Lara here was much
better than Tendulkar there - but it was obvious to everyone that Tendulkar
there was hobbled by injury, as well. I thought Tendulkar's 136 was one of
the greatest innings I had ever seen, until I saw Lara's 153* :-) However, it
must be said that Tendulkar's inning was played on a pitch *much* worse than
Lara's - a real minefield.
As of this moment, I dont think there's much doubt that Lara is batting better
than Tendulkar - does anyone really doubt that? But, again, Tendulkar has been
less than fully fit the last few weeks. The question comes down to consistency
over time - and performances in different conditions. When those are the
questions, the answer might not be the same.
One thing, though. I do believe that the viewer of cricket in India is
uniquely suited to make judgements, as few others are (*NOT* the Indian fans
you see on rsc - those are mostly Indians with computer connections, often in
the USA. I mean cricket fans *in* India at the moment). And the reason for
that is very simple - fans in India get to see more cricket from around the
world than fans in any other country. When Australia was in India a year ago,
Peter Roebuck made this very point - he was in Vishakapatnam (small city,
Southern India) for the Board Presidents XI game, and he said he came down to
breakfast in his hotel, and spent 20 minutes arguing with his waiter about an
LBW decision of a Pakistani batsman in South Africa the previous day. He
wondered where else in the world that would be possible - and the obvious
answer is nowhere. For, at that time, viewers in India had the ability to
watch the India/Australia series, the England/WI series, and the RSA/Pakistan
series. This is certainly not the case with the rest of the world -
Australians and the English rarely if ever get to watch *any* cricket from
the subcontinent, do they? Definitely not when their teams arent playing in
the subcontinent - sometimes not even when they are.
Most Australians, for example, did not get to see any of the India/Australia
series in India a year ago - they didnt even have radio commentary for 1 of
the tests ! They didnt get to see the famous 1 wicket win by Pakistan in
Karachi (with the last pair putting on 60, in Taylor's first test as captain)
- they had, I remember well, only hourly 1-minute reports on that test on the
radio. Most Australians didnt even get to watch any of the wonderful
Australia-WI series that ended today - only a few did, on Pay-TV.
Even if you look at cricket fans in the once-wasteland of the USA - in the
past few months, Ive watched (pretty much in their entirety) the following
test series: India in NZ, Pakistan in India, The Asian Test Championships,
Australia in West Indies, and 3 full tests of the Ashes. Plus, bits and
pieces of WI in RSA (most of the first couple of tests, and small chunks
after - but only because sleep was more important than cricket on some days
:-) So, even in the USA, Ive seen 8 test teams play test cricket in the past
few months. In India theyve seen even more (they saw all of the RSA/WI, plus
all of RSA/NZ too).
I dont think I know more than Atherton, mind :-) I actually am a fan of the
guy, and think he's a heck of a bat who has had a small bad patch (and I think
you guys would be incredibly stupid to even think of dropping him from the
tests this summer, BTW). But, would an Atherton (or any fan in England or
Australia) have seen that variety of cricket over the past few months? I doubt
it, but this is a serious question - I know Australia doesnt get much of it,
and while England does (a friend watched India/Pakistan in London,I know), how
easily available is it?
> >
> >For an English fan the wisden is the be-all & end-all of source of cricket
> >knowledge
>
> Have you ever used Wisden? I know it's a bit limited, but it's quite
> useful. If I want to know the scores in any first class game played
......
>
> Does the equivalent Indian publication list all the summary scores in
> the County Championship, Sheffield Shield and Busta Cup?
Of course not :-) But CI does - and thats where I look for my information, as
its far more comprehensive (and far quicker to update) than Wisden :-)
>Does it
> provide coverage of RSA v NZ?
>
It does, actually. Tests and ODIs. Under the section "test cricket in other
lands" :-) However, it isnt a patch on Wisden overall, obviously. Just like
Wisden isnt a patch on CI :-)
However, its also the case (IMHO) that many real cricket fans in India follow
the County Championship with greater interest than many real cricket fans in
England follow the Ranji Trophy. You get county scores in many newspapers,
for example - and the odd game or highlight on TV. And this isnt just in
India either, I dont think - I remember hearing Tony Cozier say the same was
true of the West Indies. Thats more historical reasons than any other,
though, I think.
>
> But I wouldn't regard Wisden as being the be-all and end-all,
> especially with regard to cricket abroad, because there's more to
> cricket than the raw data of who got what, when, and how they were
> out. I'll consult any cricket book which seems to have been written by
> someone who knows what they're talking about (which does not include
> "Batting on Beer" by BIG TEST STAR (with Hack Journalist drinking
> buddy)).
>
Ah, those books are almost as enjoyable as "Cricket XXXX Cricket - England's
Beer-Soaked Pubcrawl Down Under" by Mediocrespinners Loudmouthwife :-)
Sadiq [ who actually has read "Cricket XXXX Cricket" ] Yusuf
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
> RSC's Official Irascible Swine and Pompous Clot
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ravi_k...@my-dejanews.com
> coming back to lara remember his hundreds even though won 2 test matches for
> cos they arnt going to win the series
> tendulkars century against australia helped india to win the series which is
> more important
> so i think tendulkar>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lara
>
Bollocks.
SRT's madras century was matchwinning. His bangalore 100 was useless since
we lost the match :-)
Both the 100s of Lara were matchwinning.
Hence i think Lara >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SRT
regards.
RK-
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
In article <370b17ae...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>,
pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk (Mike Holmans) wrote:
> On 7 Apr 1999 04:25:32 GMT, rosh...@aol.com (RoshanCat) decided to> opine:>
> >> >>i think mike
> >>atherton's comments on both of them are probably the most accurate. > >>
> >First of all I'll take any Englishman comments on cricket with a
pinch of salt.
> >Nothing personal but they do take into account performances only against
> >England & runs made in England. For them a county season is much
more important
> >then any other series between alien countries. Chances are A'ton would have
> >seen Lara's 501 then all most of Sachin's classy test 100's. > >
> >And dont even talk about those 21 brilliant centuries Sachin has made.>
First off, I'd like to say that I dont disagree a lot of what you say
below, Mike, nor do I agree with everything that Roshan said above.
But I do disagree with *some* of what you said - which is the reason
for this post.
>
> Atherton has seen both Tendulkar and Lara at first hand in Test
> Matches, with the benefit of being a professional batsman himself,
> with the pro's eye for what makes a good player. I would have thought
> that he would regard this as the best evidence available to him,
> certainly above newspaper reports of ODIous crap in Hong Kong or
> Toronto. Or do you think he would be better off listening to your
> crackpot theories?
>
True. However, opinions vary with people, dont they? There is no
question in my mind that players (and fans) in England have seen much
more of Lara (especially at his best) than they have of Tendulkar.
The fact that many of them (probably most of them) think Lara is the
better player is a quite direct result of this, IMHO.
OTOH, if you listen to or read comments by many of the Australian
players after they returned from the Indian tour a year ago, their
views were diametrically opposed to the English view. Steve Waugh was
the person who said he thought Tendulkar was the best since Bradman,
and in fact explicitly stated that he thought Tendulkar was a far
better batsman than Lara. Warne said something similar, also saying
that he personally would have nightmares of Tendulkar coming down the
track and hitting him back over his head (not that I believe Warne
actually feels that way - I just think he's a very generous and
gracious opponent off the field, and always has been). I dont know if
the opinions of most Australians have changed after this series -
they well might have. However, the above was their publicly stated
opinion a year ago. Atherton's opinion even a year ago, IMHO, was
probably what has been quoted on rsc in this piece.
>
> In his comparison between Lara and SRT, he appears to be looking at
> something less definable. I suppose you could call it the fear factor.
> Some batsmen have the ability to cow their opponents by sheer brute
> force. Their approach seems more up-front aggressive. >
> The supreme example of that in modern times was Viv Richards, perhaps
> with Botham as runner-up. The *manner* in which they destroyed the
> opposition bowling was contemptuous. Their innings were noisy. The bat
> smacked the ball hard, there were huge clumps as the ball crashed to
> the boundary. And you could see in their faces that they were
> relishing the job in hand, laughing at the opposition's futile
> attempts to quell them. Their batting was violent.>
> Lara, on song, is of a similar type to Richards and Botham. He's
> frightening.
> > SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
> joy, things of beauty, sweet, economical and graceful. His weapons are
> not the mace and battle-axe but the rapier. In the swashbuckling
> movies, Tendu is the man who waves his sword a few times and his
> opponent's clothes drop off, followed by his arms and legs which have
> been neatly severed. Lara wrecks the banqueting hall and reduces his
> enemy to a bloody pulp. They're dead in both cases - Tendu has done it
> with the minimum of effort and destructive power, Lara less elegantly
> but no less effectively.
>
> Logic and rationality might well say that you'd be better off picking
> Tendu than Lara. If you consider what's been going on in the
> discussion about stats' relevance, it seems quite likely to me that
> that's what Bharat Rao's theory of value might well come up with. But
> what a numerical analysis cannot really do is show the psychological
> effect that people have.
>
> Despite having an average more than 20 fewer than either SRT or BCL,
> Swaugh is the man whose approach to the crease most causes Englishmen
> to wilt. He's bloody hard to get rid of from the moment he arrives.
> With Lara, you know you've got a hell of a chance to dismiss him early
> in his innings. And if you can keep him under control, *if*, he can be
> neutralised and he'll get himself out for you. But if you can't keep a
> cap on him, you'll be sorry. SRT evokes towering respect. He's damn
> hard to get out, and he can stroke his way to 50 before you've really
> noticed, but he doesn't *seem* as intimidating as Lara in full flow.
>
I think this is the wrong way around too, IMHO :-) I think the above
is true of Lara - in fact there have been a few occasions when he
*has* stroked his way to 50 without us noticing, while watching (a
friend, watching the entire innings during the WC game vs RSA the
last time around, thought he was on 25 or so, when he was actually
55, for example). This is almost never the case with Tendulkar, who
usually announces his runs with hard hit blasts down the ground - his
quick innings are usually explosions, not works of art.
> You can say that this is silly if you like. It may be irrational.
> You're also much more likely to be killed by a car than in an air
> crash, but most people are much more scared of flying than of driving.
>
I dont think its silly at all, I think its a very valid reason. By
the end of the Australian tour to India, they were intimidated by
Tendulkar (and said so). They played their cricket that way too - in
the ODIs, even when 2 wickets were down, they gave up singles to
Tendulkar so that they could bowl to the chap at the other end (even
when that chap was Azhar, sometimes). Nobody ever gets intimidated by
Steve Waugh, though - he just grinds you into dust over time :-)
> Of course Atherton has a different perspective to you. He's seen
> different games, he's played in the matches against India and WI he's
> been available for, and hasn't played for Australia or Pakistan
> against the same opponents. I'll bet he didn't watch Lara in Australia
> last time round or in RSA a few weeks ago, when he was terrible, nor
> would he have seen SRT against Australia in India last year. But how
> much of Lara's performance in this current series have you watched,
> Roshan? Have you been glued to it? Or have you been more concerned
> with India's performance against Pakistan? Your bias is just as
> evident as anyone else's. Everyone is more affected by what they see
> than what they read about. It's not a crime.>
famous 1 wicket win by Pakistan in Karachi(with the last pair putting
on 60, in Taylor's first test as captain) - they had, I remember
well, only hourly 1-minute reports on that test on the radio. Most
Australians didnt even get to watch any of the wonderful Australia-WI
series that ended today - only a few did, on Pay-TV.
Even if you look at cricket fans in the once-wasteland of the USA -
in the past few months, Ive watched (pretty much in their entirety)
the following test series: India in NZ, Pakistan in India, The Asian
Test Championships, Australia in West Indies, and 3 full tests of the
Ashes. Plus, bits and pieces of WI in RSA (most of the first couple
of tests, and small chunks after - but only because sleep was more
important than cricket on some days :-) So, even in the USA, Ive seen
8 test teams play test cricket in the past few months. In India
theyve seen even more (they saw all of the RSA/WI, plus all of RSA/NZ too).
I dont think I know more than Atherton, mind :-) I actually am a fan
of the guy, and think he's a heck of a bat who has had a small bad
patch (and I think you guys would be incredibly stupid to even think
of dropping him from the tests this summer, BTW). But, would an
Atherton (or any fan in England or Australia) have seen that variety
of cricket over the past few months? I doubt it, but this is a
serious question - I know Australia doesnt get much of it, and while
England does (a friend watched India/Pakistan in London,I know), how
easily available is it?
> >
> >For an English fan the wisden is the be-all & end-all of source of cricket
> >knowledge>
> Have you ever used Wisden? I know it's a bit limited, but it's quite
> useful. If I want to know the scores in any first class game played......>
> Does the equivalent Indian publication list all the summary scores in
> the County Championship, Sheffield Shield and Busta Cup?
Of course not :-) But CI does - and thats where I look for my
information, as its far more comprehensive (and far quicker to
update) than Wisden :-)
>Does it> provide coverage of RSA v NZ?>
It does, actually. Tests and ODIs. Under the section "test cricket in
other lands" :-) However, it isnt a patch on Wisden overall,
obviously. Just like Wisden isnt a patch on CI :-)
However, its also the case (IMHO) that many real cricket fans in
India follow the County Championship with greater interest than many
real cricket fans in England follow the Ranji Trophy. You get county
scores in many newspapers, for example - and the odd game or
highlight on TV. And this isnt just in India either, I dont think - I
remember hearing Tony Cozier say the same was true of the West
Indies. Thats more historical reasons than any other, though, I think.
>
> But I wouldn't regard Wisden as being the be-all and end-all,
> especially with regard to cricket abroad, because there's more to
> cricket than the raw data of who got what, when, and how they were
> out. I'll consult any cricket book which seems to have been written by
> someone who knows what they're talking about (which does not include
> "Batting on Beer" by BIG TEST STAR (with Hack Journalist drinking> buddy)).
>
Ah, those books are almost as enjoyable as "Cricket XXXX Cricket -
England's Beer-Soaked Pubcrawl Down Under" by Mediocrespinners Loudmouthwife
:-)
Sadiq [ who actually has read "Cricket XXXX Cricket" ] Yusuf
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> -- > RSC's Official Irascible Swine and Pompous Clot
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mike Holmans
>
>
>First off, I'd like to say that I dont disagree a lot of what you say below,
>Mike, nor do I agree with everything that Roshan said above. But I do disagree
>with *some* of what you said - which is the reason for this post.
And a good post it was too.
>True. However, opinions vary with people, dont they? There is no question in
>my mind that players (and fans) in England have seen much more of Lara
>(especially at his best) than they have of Tendulkar. The fact that many of
>them (probably most of them) think Lara is the better player is a quite
>direct result of this, IMHO.
I entirely agree. English fans could never understand why Australians
got enthusiastic about Doug Walters because he was always struggling in
England.
>
>OTOH, if you listen to or read comments by many of the Australian players
>after they returned from the Indian tour a year ago, their views were
>diametrically opposed to the English view.
> I dont
>know if the opinions of most Australians have changed after this series -
>they well might have.
Again, what you see will influence you far more than what you don't, and
recent memory is stronger.
>Now *this* is where I completely and totally disagree with you, Mike :-) I
>dont know how much youve seen of Tendulkar, especially at his best. From
>everything Ive seen of him and Lara, I'd personally say youve got the
>comparisons almost *exactly* the wrong way around :-)
>
I clearly haven't seen enough of Tendulkar at his best. It will be a
long time before I see him live in a Test Match: I don't know if India
are touring England in 2002, but that's the first opportunity possible.
I shall now have to refrain from commenting on SRT until after India's
visit to Australia, since he won't be playing any meaningful cricket
before then.
>
>As of this moment, I dont think there's much doubt that Lara is batting better
>than Tendulkar - does anyone really doubt that? But, again, Tendulkar has been
>less than fully fit the last few weeks. The question comes down to consistency
>over time - and performances in different conditions. When those are the
>questions, the answer might not be the same.
Absolutely. But if I'm picking a current team (rather than one of
players with an odd number of letters in their name), I'll pick it on my
feeling at the time.
>
>One thing, though. I do believe that the viewer of cricket in India is
>uniquely suited to make judgements, as few others are (*NOT* the Indian fans
>you see on rsc - those are mostly Indians with computer connections, often in
>the USA. I mean cricket fans *in* India at the moment). And the reason for
>that is very simple - fans in India get to see more cricket from around the
>world than fans in any other country.
How lucky they are in India.
>This is certainly not the case with the rest of the world -
>Australians and the English rarely if ever get to watch *any* cricket from
>the subcontinent, do they? Definitely not when their teams arent playing in
>the subcontinent - sometimes not even when they are.
The amount which the Indian broadcasting company (Doordarshan?) demands
for the rights makes it prohibitively expensive for what would be a very
small audience. We haven't been to the sub-continent since I got my Sky
Sports connection in time for the last England tour of the Caribbean, so
I don't know what it'll be like next time. For what it's worth, Sky
today were showing the Pak/Eng game in Sharjah with occasional glimpses
of the end of the St John's Test.
> I doubt
>it, but this is a serious question - I know Australia doesnt get much of it,
>and while England does (a friend watched India/Pakistan in London,I know), how
>easily available is it?
On the morning after Bridgetown, I went to buy my paper in the newsagent
opposite. An Aussie of my acquaintance was there, so I ribbed him. He'd
been watching it all in a London pub. The signboard outside the pub by
the bus stop this morning had "WI v Australia 3pm" on it. It isn't hard
to find a pub which will show the cricket as long as it doesn't clash
with a major soccer match. Cable and satellite customers can get it for
about 20 quid a month.
We only got bits of RSA v WI live, because the Ashes tour games
naturally took priority.
But I think we've had more cricket this winter than ever before.
>> Does the equivalent Indian publication list all the summary scores in
>> the County Championship, Sheffield Shield and Busta Cup?
>
>Of course not :-) But CI does - and thats where I look for my information, as
>its far more comprehensive (and far quicker to update) than Wisden :-)
>
When you pay time charges on your phone bill and have a slow modem,
leafing through Wisden can be much more attractive than CI. Even on the
high-speed connection at the orifice today the response from CI was so
slow that it took me 20 minutes to find the scorecard of the Warks v
Durham match so as to identify Anderson bloody Cummins.
The other thing I get from using Wisden is much more of a sense of how
things were at the time. In the 1982 Wisden there is no knowledge that
never again would Botham be quite as wonderful as he was in 1981. You
get snapshots of history which CI trades for its up-to-dateness. I know
CI has also got archived articles, but HTML doesn't really lend itself
to showing the neighbouring pages where something else catches your eye.
I don't know how many posts of mine have included "anyway, while I was
looking that one up, I found this....," but it's a lot, and it mostly
comes from Wisden.
>However, its also the case (IMHO) that many real cricket fans in India follow
>the County Championship with greater interest than many real cricket fans in
>England follow the Ranji Trophy. You get county scores in many newspapers,
>for example - and the odd game or highlight on TV. And this isnt just in
>India either, I dont think - I remember hearing Tony Cozier say the same was
>true of the West Indies. Thats more historical reasons than any other,
>though, I think.
>
I'm sure it is. There is really no room for overseas cricket in our
press, because it's during the soccer season.
>
>>
>> But I wouldn't regard Wisden as being the be-all and end-all,
>> especially with regard to cricket abroad, because there's more to
>> cricket than the raw data of who got what, when, and how they were
>> out. I'll consult any cricket book which seems to have been written by
>> someone who knows what they're talking about (which does not include
>> "Batting on Beer" by BIG TEST STAR (with Hack Journalist drinking
>> buddy)).
>>
>
>Ah, those books are almost as enjoyable as "Cricket XXXX Cricket - England's
>Beer-Soaked Pubcrawl Down Under" by Mediocrespinners Loudmouthwife :-)
Hilarious they may well be, but I'd no more think of using drivel from
one of those as support for a decent cricket argument than I'd think of
using one of Ashes' posts.
Cheers
Mike
Gecko Van Echoes
>>Lara's performance is more
> > well-received because he rose from the nadir whereas SRT was not in a
> > similar position.
>
> Not only that. Lara scored his runs against both McGrath and
> Gillespie :-) SRT scored only against Warne. So Lara's runs have
> greater weight, IMO.
You cannot hold the fact that McG did not play against SRT. Bear in
mind that I am not discrediting Lara.
In this ng, after these two knocks we had people saying "He is the best
after Bradman". What happens if he fails in the next away tour? He gets
forgotten and SRT is the chosen one and the cycle continues. While it is
OK to change your views in time, it is foolish if it is done too
frequently in the best-after-bradman-talent-search.
>
> > SRT Lara
> > [In India]
> > 34 14
> > 85 0
> > 179 50
> > 54 3
> > 40 40
> > 10 91
>
> In the above series, SRT--Very good. Lara--Average.
>
> > [In WI]
> > 7 83
> > 15* 78
> > 88 14
> > DNB 19
> > 92 19
> > 4 45
> > DNB 103
> > 83 30
>
> Both were good in this series. That 45 by Lara was crucial though.
Crucial was decided after the outcome. The fact is head-to-head Sachin
has been higher. It is true that both have come a long way after this
tour, which would make the next test very interesting.
>
> I would put Steve Waugh at number 1. Lara and SRT are joint second.
SWaugh #1 agreed.
A minor nitpick : Say "SRT and Lara are joint second". SRT has been in
that region for sometime, Lara is the one who is challenging that
Major nitpick: With 8 (and counting) straight losses, all is not well
with WI when they are touring [look who's talking :-)]. I have already
presented the argument about the possibility of their being an
odd-streak instead of being a pattern. That is why I believe Lara is a
shade short of SRT now.
Being a staunch fan of SRT, I hope he learns a few things about Lara
(mental stamina to hang out for couple of 100 runs, finishing the job
himself).
> Inzi, if he plays at this rate, will soon overtake all these chaps.
*ROTFL* I have half a suspicion that you are just throwing around
names.
Screw world, he is not even the best in his side. Dravid, MWaugh,
uninjured Thorpe, Chanders > Inzi.
>
> As an aside, I wonder how SRT would have fared against Akram and
> Akhtar in Sharjah. Same time last year he was plundering runs
> against the Aussies. It is a shame that he is injured. Do you think
> that he would have scored as well against Akhtar?
On current Akhtar form, I don't know. But on SRT's 1998 Sharjah form,
he would have done any bowler in Sharjah.
Tomorrow's match:
Pakistan have a clean edge. I would have much preferred if Ramesh
opened ahead of Khurasiya since he is the stand-in opener. Still, unlike
Revolutionary Leaderess (Puratchi Thalaivi), I'll sticky by my team :-)
However, much depends on our batting (mainly Ganguly and Dravid).
Regards
gve
>
> Mercury
Uday Rajan
--On Wednesday, April 07, 1999, 8:58 PM +0000 cricke...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> OTOH, if you listen to or read comments by many of the Australian players
> after they returned from the Indian tour a year ago, their views were
> said he thought Tendulkar was the best since Bradman, and in fact
> explicitly stated that he thought Tendulkar was a far better batsman than
> Lara.
Wonder what tune Steve Waugh is singing now. As you say elsewhere, Lara
has just played two of the best innings ever played in Tests. Add to that
his 375 and 501 (which are records, even though they may not have been
great innings), and it's a very impressive list of achievements. In
comparison, Tendulkar has...er...well, he has played a few nice innings
here or there, and he's almost single-handedly won a lot of matches for
India (not).
> Now *this* is where I completely and totally disagree with you, Mike :-) I
> dont know how much youve seen of Tendulkar, especially at his best. From
> everything Ive seen of him and Lara, I'd personally say youve got the
> comparisons almost *exactly* the wrong way around :-)
Absolutely. It's inconceivable that anyone who has seen Tendulkar would
bracket him with Gower or Zaheer. Lara has the silken touch in some of his
strokeplay, absolutely beautiful timing. Tendulkar is much more of a hitter
(which is not to denigrate his batting; he's a tremendous bat, of course,
but that's his style). I notice that the Bajan has picked up on this
thread, and repeated this same classification elsewhere ---Tendulkar with
Gower and Richards with Lara. Maybe I haven't seen enough of Lara (I did
see chunks of his 213 and 153*, though), but I agree with Sadiq: it should
be the other way around.
> As of this moment, I dont think there's much doubt that Lara is batting
> better than Tendulkar - does anyone really doubt that?
There's more to it than that, I think. Lara has, over his career, scaled
heights of greatness that remain an aspiration for Tendulkar. I regard the
375 and 501 as tremendous achievements, even though they were not made
under difficult circumstances. But these last two innings (i.e., his 213
and 153*) of Lara touched the soul of greatness in a way that Tendulkar has
never done. Tendulkar came close with his 136 against Pakistan, but a 150*
there would have taken it all the way. I said it just over a year ago on
rsc: Tendulkar is yet to play a truly great innings. A year has gone by,
and I'm left repeating it. He came close with his 155* against Australia,
and the 136 against Pakistan. But for a batsman of his calibre, close is
not quite good enough.
JR Smith
> Atherton also said "SRT is better than WGG (as if he went and saw WGG)"
> or something to that effect after the Diana Memorial. If you can get a
> pom to compare anyone to Grace, either he thinks SRT is one of the best
> or he is insane :-).
>
He is one of the best. I cant wait to see him here in Australia next
summer.
Jim.
G I A N
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Lara, on song, is of a similar type to Richards and Botham. He's
> frightening.
>
> SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
> joy, things of beauty, sweet, economical and graceful. His weapons are
> not the mace and battle-axe but the rapier. In the swashbuckling
> movies, Tendu is the man who waves his sword a few times and his
> opponent's clothes drop off, followed by his arms and legs which have
> been neatly severed. Lara wrecks the banqueting hall and reduces his
> enemy to a bloody pulp. They're dead in both cases - Tendu has done it
> with the minimum of effort and destructive power, Lara less elegantly
> but no less effectively.
i don't think that tendulkar's batting could be catagorised as "graceful"
and "elegant" like m.waugh or gower. if anything, srt is more of a hitter.
in shane warne's autobiogrophy, he says that he has never seen any
batsman in the world hit the ball as hard as srt. m.waugh says the same.
mcgrath writes that tendulkar's best qualities are his determination and
pure timing. he even says that srt has the top qualities of s.waugh and
lara combined.
if anthing, from what i've seen of tendulkar, he cannot be classified as a
"one dimensional" player. i think that's why the aussies have so much
respect for him. i'll never forget that 155* he made against australia
last year. his first 100 runs were made with brute hitting. but after he
reached 100, the field was so well spread out, that he changed his game.
he started playing delicate cuts, glides, dabs and glances which raced to
the fence. it was as if i was watching a different player altogether.
i know that s.waugh is strictly a "grafter" and from what i've seen of
lara, he falls more into the "elegant" catagory. but tendulkar, is, imo, a
combination of elegance and brutality.
regards,
G
Mike Holmans
<u97...@student.canberra.edu.au> decided to opine:
>
>On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>> Lara, on song, is of a similar type to Richards and Botham. He's
>> frightening.
>>
>> SRT is more like a Gower, Mwaugh, or Zaheer Abbas. His innings are a
>> joy, things of beauty, sweet, economical and graceful.
>
>i don't think that tendulkar's batting could be catagorised as "graceful"
>and "elegant" like m.waugh or gower. if anything, srt is more of a hitter.
Several people have said this. I was beginning to doubt my sanity
until I read the following, though:
>
after he
>reached 100, the field was so well spread out, that he changed his game.
>he started playing delicate cuts, glides, dabs and glances which raced to
>the fence. it was as if i was watching a different player altogether.
This is clearly the only Tendulkar I've seen. My most recent sighting
of him was in the WG Grace game last season. OK, it was under ODIous
rules, but it was gorgeous batting. Economical in technique, it was an
exhibition of placement and timing, not raw power. And his Test
centuries in England have been of a similar stripe.
I happen to admire that sort of batting above all else. Gower and
Zaheer are, to me, the best batsmen I've seen in my time at cricket
grounds, where 'best' is defined as the answer to "if you could be
guaranteed that he would score a century, whom would you most
willingly pay to see?".
I am, naturally, somewhat surprised, since I've seen a reasonable
amount of SRT, been very impressed, and now I find out that I've only
seen one side of him. I can only hope that his relative youth means
that I'll get to see him in this more violent mode before he retires.
Is there, then, something about English conditions which makes him
play differently, or is it just that when he's been here, he's faced
such crappy bowling that he hasn't seen the need to try and marmalise
them?
Mike Holmans
decided to opine:
> Absolutely. It's inconceivable that anyone who has seen Tendulkar would
>bracket him with Gower or Zaheer.
See my other post. We haven't seen all that much of him in England,
and although it's been impressive, this discussion shows that it's
been a very skewed sample.
>Lara has the silken touch in some of his
>strokeplay, absolutely beautiful timing.
Again, I can only go on what I've seen. I would entirely agree that
Lara has fantastic timing. He's the only batsman I've ever seen change
his shot three times after the ball was delivered and still time it
sweetly enough for a boundary. And he's capable of shots of great
artistry, no doubt.
But I have seen a great deal more of Lara than I have of SRT, and I'm
not about to back down on him. He plays a power game. It's not just
against cruddy English bowling that he does it - that 213 was
monstrous too. That he can do it with finesse, panache, and style on
top makes him amazing, but his game is based around power shots, at
least when he's in the mood for a big score.
Look, both Lara and Tendulkar are at the pinnacle of batting ability,
able to play with both power and grace. I'm quite happy to accept that
SRT is a power player too, because so many obviously knowledgeable
people say it is so. It just means that I can anticipate the pleasure
of discovery of that which the rest of you already know. But it's not
just about type of shot, but also about intimidation.
You could never imagine Gower or Zaheer or Azhar or Graveney being
warned for intimidatory batting. Lauded to the skies for their
artistry, quite able to turn a match, but they win by outwitting their
opponents. Lara, SRT, Bradman, Vivi, though, these are men who unman
their opposition and subjugate them to their will. And the type 3, the
Swaugh/Boycott/Boon type, wears the opposition out.
>> As of this moment, I dont think there's much doubt that Lara is batting
>> better than Tendulkar - does anyone really doubt that?
>
> There's more to it than that, I think. Lara has, over his career, scaled
>heights of greatness that remain an aspiration for Tendulkar. I regard the
>375 and 501 as tremendous achievements, even though they were not made
>under difficult circumstances. But these last two innings (i.e., his 213
>and 153*) of Lara touched the soul of greatness in a way that Tendulkar has
>never done. Tendulkar came close with his 136 against Pakistan, but a 150*
>there would have taken it all the way. I said it just over a year ago on
>rsc: Tendulkar is yet to play a truly great innings. A year has gone by,
>and I'm left repeating it. He came close with his 155* against Australia,
>and the 136 against Pakistan. But for a batsman of his calibre, close is
>not quite good enough.
If Lara had only managed the 375 and 501*, he would have gone down in
history as a batsman who never achieved the greatness he once
promised. He would no more be elevated to the pantheon than Hanif
Mohammad, fine cricketer though Hanif was.
But with this series, Lara has indeed achieved something awesome. Two
immortal innings which won matches against huge odds and massively
against the formbook and expectation. With these innings, he has in
effect legitimised the 375 and 501*. He is now a worthy record holder
deserving of an honoured place in history; if you want an example of
an unworthy record holder, the most wickets in an Ashes Test for an
Australian bowler is held by RAL Massie, who took 16 at Lord's and did
sod all else.
And you're right about SRT too. To get on to the highest plane, he has
to achieve something more than scoring lots of runs very well.
Arguably, England have the best World Cup record of all the countries
- no-one else has made the Final three times - but we've never
actually won it. Tendulkar has to win a Test Match virtually on his
own sometime. Other than Grace, for whom Test cricket was invented too
late for him to get the opportunity when he was in his prime, I can't
think of a truly great player who didn't do it once in his career.
And I think that's a fairer criterion than a 50+ average or some other
arbitrary numerical dividing line. There are lots of examples of
little oddities where a list of players who have achieved X contains a
clutch of legendary names and one "who he?". And there are poeple
who've ended up with inflated averages because they cashed in on flat
tracks on which naught but draws were possible, but who never managed
anything very much when the heat was turned up.
There are plenty of batsmen who have been excellent and achieved a
lot, especially statistically. But what elevates them from the merely
excellent and outstanding to greatness is the stature to win a Test, I
think. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'd like to know
whether anyone believes that an individual can be accounted a great
batsman or bowler unless he has laid waste to an international side. I
might be tempted to include Gavaskar's double hundred at the Oval even
though India didn't win, because it was time rather than the
opposition which prevented the improbable victory, but I can't see how
an heroic effort in an actually losing cause can do it.
Until a month ago, Lara hadn't done it, and neither had SRT. Now Lara
has. What would be really special is if SRT were to do it in
Australia. At the WACA, for preference, with Tendu getting as many as
the two Australian innings combined.
Mike Holmans
<fr...@louie.roadkill> decided to opine:
>If you can get a
>pom to compare anyone to Grace, either he thinks SRT is one of the best
>or he is insane :-).
This is just a wind-up, surely.
What I don't understand is why Indians in particular seem to have some
kind of downer on WG.
In his prime, which really preceded Test cricket, he was as
pre-eminent in the cricket world as any player has ever been. In the
highest class of cricket available to him in his day, he was
consistently the top performer for a period of several years, and
no-one can do better than that.
He was as far ahead of his contemporaries as a batsman as Bradman was
of his. A lot of that was to do with the fact that he actually
invented modern batting. Before WG, batsmen were either forward
players or backward players, never both. Grace played off both the
front foot and the back foot, depending on the ball, which was a
revolution.
As a bowler, he was no champion, but he was one of the leading bowlers
of his time too. And he was a fantastic fielder.
Sobers too was the best batsman in the world for a period around 1960.
Relative to his contemporaries, Sobers was a better bowler than Grace,
since Sobers would have ranked with the McGraths and Donalds of his
day rather than the Srinaths and Frasers who rank more where Grace did
in his time as a bowler. If it means anything, I suspect that Sobers
was a better player, but Grace was the Sobers of his time, make no
mistake.
It's unfortunate that the only surviving pictures and film of WG show
him when he was a bulky middle-aged man, because it's hard to imagine
how this enormous barrel could possibly have been a great player, but
those who did see him in 1875-1880 were not moved to say that they had
seen anyone to seriously compare with him until Trumper came along in
1902.
It's also a misconception to say that the English worship at his feet
all the time. In fact, most people I meet tend to take a fairly
sceptical view about him, dismissing his period as one of extremely
low standard, and also wittering on about his fairly irrelevant Test
record - ignoring that all his best years (apart from his glorious
throwback season in 1895 at the age of 47) occurred before Test
cricket itself.
Sundarraman Subramanian
> actually won it. Tendulkar has to win a Test Match virtually on his
> own sometime. Other than Grace, for whom Test cricket was invented too
He did! That 155* against Aussies was won by SRT and SRT alone.
Without that gem of a knock, that Test would have been consigned
to the annals of drawn matches. However, it was scored when McGrath
and Gillespie were not available for Aussies. I am sure you won't
hold that against SRT :-) That was the Test when Warne was put in
his place, so to say. After he scalped SRT in the first innings,
he pronounced that people never bowled their wicket-taking
deliveries in three-day matches (a reference to SRT's 205 for
Bombay against Aussies, where he caned Warne). So one must admit
that Warne was in prime form, ready to do a Cullinan or Gatting to
our best bat. How quickly history changed!
Mercury
Neil Selby
: I happen to admire that sort of batting above all else. Gower and
: Zaheer are, to me, the best batsmen I've seen in my time at cricket
: grounds, where 'best' is defined as the answer to "if you could be
: guaranteed that he would score a century, whom would you most
: willingly pay to see?".
Don't agree. It would just drive me mad at all the other times he
couldn't be bothered.
Now a Devon Malcolm century, that would be worth paying for.
cheers,
Neil
Gecko Van Echoes
>
> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 18:19:20 +0000, Gecko Van Echoes
> <fr...@louie.roadkill> decided to opine:
> >If you can get a
> >pom to compare anyone to Grace, either he thinks SRT is one of the best
> >or he is insane :-).
>
> This is just a wind-up, surely.
It was more a reference to how SRT was inflated during the D
memorial. Best thing since Bradman! nightmares of Shane Warne! better
than WGG! what not? Now, it is the turn of BCL.
The fact is, the media pushes into the spotlight anyone who beats up
the hero of the day. It is upto the discerning reader whether to grab
the bait or not.
Recently, an Indian on-line mag had an interview of Richards. Now, if
you get to interview Richards what questions do you ask? About his
experiences, current scenario, WI etc or do you ask only about Sachin
Tendulkar? About 80% of the questions were about SRT. Enough to put off
even his best fans. The same thing is happening with BCL.
>
> What I don't understand is why Indians in particular seem to have some
> kind of downer on WG.
If you see it in context, it was more a comment on Athers than
WGG. I referred to this comment because G I A N used Athers comment to
prop the case of Lara.
When India last toured England (96) Athers publicly said that he
enjoyed captaining and that his performance got better with his
increased responsibilities. We all know why he had to step down.
Bottom Line: I don't give much weight to Athers' comments either way.
<The piece about WG snipped>
Regarding WGG: I don't deny his contribution to English cricket. I've
never belittled WGG in a public forum either. However that doesn't mean
that I don't make jokes about the stereotypical English supporter who
loves WGG, the Australian who says Bradman is (99.9/54.5) times the
batsman that SRT is or the Indian who builds cyber-temples for GOD
Regards
gve
Stephen Devaux
>
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> felt like saying:
> >Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Lancashire at the time. Nobody who did regarded it as anything more
> >> than a statistical freak: taking 500 off the Durham 'attack' hardly
> >> demanded being the best batsman in the world - it needed a deadish
> >> match and someone with the stamina to bat for n hours scoring at a
> >> reasonably quick rate.
> >
> >On what grounds do I make that estimation? I DEFY you to think of
> >another player over whose non-participation in a sporting event AN
> >ENTIRE SOVEREIGN COUNTRY was galavanized into taking economic sanctions
> >against the offending organization(s)!
> >
> World's Greatest Athlete he may have been, but I would bet that if you
> were selecting a WI XI which would include him, it would also feature
> Ragoonath, S****ns, Nureyev and the Binary Man.
Hm. Ragoonought, Nureyev, Tobagan, The Trini Bajan (capt.), Binary,
S****ns, WORLD'S GREATEST ATHLETE, Little Willie (wk), Rawl (Over &
Die), Nixon (the One), Patto Thommo.
Fearsome. And all but Andy in the past three years! (All others but
but Thommo in the last two!) Can any other country match that XI over
that time?
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:40:49 -0400, Stephen Devaux
> <ap...@ix.netcom.com> decided to opine:
>
> Steve proposes sorting batsmen into types, a procedure suggested by my
> post in response to Roshan.
> >
> >MWAUGH, GOWER, ZAHEER ABBAS; Worrell, Rowe, Sobers, May, Graveney,
> >Harvey, Gavaskar, Pollock, Viswanath, Headley, Nurse, ChappellG,
> >Compton, Hobbs, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Cullinan, Tiger Pataudi, Majid
> >Khan, Martin Crowe, Hick, Hassett.
> >
> >Type 2: LARA
> >RICHARDS, BOTHAM; Bradman, Weekes, Walcott, Kanhai, Bradman, Dexter,
> >Gooch, Miandad, Keith Miller, Thorpe, Walters, De Silva, Jayasuriya,
> >Fredericks, Greenidge, Constantine, McCabe, Kapil Dev, Inzi, CD
> >McMillan, Jonty, Barry Richards, Alec Stewart, Hammond, Azhar, Parks.
> >
> >Type 3: SWAUGH
> >ATHERTON; Hutton, Cowdrey, Boycott, Gatting, Hunte, C. Lloyd, Butcher,
> >Ramprakash, Hanif, Dravid, Chappelli, Lawry, Umrigar, Gomes, Cronje, H.
> >Sutcliffe, Ranatunga, J. Adams, S. Campbell, Border, Turner, Ponsford,
> >Bailey, Tavare, Charlie Davis.
>
> that you think he's twice as good as Lara, which can't be bad.
Hm. Would you have preferred if I had just typoed "Bradmen"?
> Based on my observations, I would swap Thorpe and Gatting over between
> 2 and 3 - but I can see why you have them your way round, because
> their performances against WI probably fit better. But Gatt certainly
> was a type 2 player. Thorpe is more of a type 3. I've not really seen
> him try and hit the cover off the ball in an onslaught.
>
> Ramprakash's true game is type 1, but he has only just started,
> towards the end of the Ashes series, to show glimpses of it in Tests.
> As of now, his performances would make him type 3.
Yes, I'm aware of the difference in his f-c style. It will be
interesting to see if there's a permanent change.
> And I'd make Chanders type 3, but then I haven't seen all his games
> either.
With the complaints that so many have had over your selection of SRT as
the paradigm of the stylist (on which I agreed with you), I guess
perhaps Gower or Worrell would be the best archetype for that category.
And I would say that Chanderpaul reminds me more of Worrell than any
other WI player in the last 35 years.
I have to say that I am still not sure if the disagreement over SRT is
not one of simply picking up on different things in his technique/style.
Worrell could certainly dominate, and hit the ball VERY hard. As could
Sobers, may, Graveney, Headley, Nurse, all of whom I also inserted in
that category.
Weekes I put in the Lara category. That does NOT mean that he wasn't a
supreme stylist -- his footwork was the essence of batting technique and
his coverdriving was magnificent. I just felt that the "brutalness" of
his shots (a quality the i.r.c. comms used constantly in describing
Lara's shots) outweighed the artistry of the technique.
Perhaps it is the inclusion of Gower in the SRT category that is
throwing people a bit -- that half-batted languor and ease. But
Worrell's signature stroke was the sweep. and Sobers hit every shot in
the book, and could score like the wind.
If SRT changes categories, then I would certainly have to move Nurse,
Sobers, and Headley, and perhaps May and Graveney. (Indeed, from the
television/vidoes I've seen of SRT, and the one series when I saw him
live, in Toronto, and the descriptions I've read of Headley, those are
the two that seem most alike to me. and I DON'T think that's an insult
to either!)
> >Noticed about the above:
> >
> >A. The large number of English batsmen, as well as openers, in the
> >SWAUGH category.
>
> Well, you haven't included Lamb or R Smith, who are type 2s.
True. But I don't think including those two as type 2s does much to
negate the inference of a propensity among English batsmen toward the
SWAUGH category. The British bulldog; John Bull; "...fight them on the
beaches..." IMO, there is something quite deep within the English
culture that causes admiration for the "hang in there and grind it out"
temperament. It is certainly NOT something I ever observe in the
American culture!
> And
> you've only really got Cowdrey, Thorpe (if you accept my swap) and
> Ramps (hopefully temporarily), plus Tavare and Bailey who were being
> used as openers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bailey played most of his career well down
the order. It was his SWAUGH temperament that made people occasionally
decide that he should open.
> And you're going to weight for performances against
> WI, and I suspect the pace battery will have subdued some strokemakers
> who could really only aspire to survival, or could only adopt those
> tactics given the carnage being wrought at the other end.
And manage to survive sometimes, as a result of resorting to SWAUGH
tactics. As I point out, such as S****ns, Nureyev, etc., try to be
Viv's even when they've got 20-odd Tests behind them as evidence that
they can't! (of course, they still get picked, so...) I actually saw an
interview with SWilliams right before the England series where he said
that he was going to stick with his shot-making style, no matter what!
> >B. The fact that many in the latter category COULD have been moved into
> >one of the others (e.g., Lloyd, Butcher) or vice versa (e.g., Sobers,
> >Graveney, Gavaskar, Headley).
> >
> >Now:
> >
> >Type 4: S****NS
> >SWilliams, Ragoonath, Arthurton, Wallace, Rutherford, Brearley, Close.
> >(This category was based on crappiness, but I just noticed that all of
> >the Windians above are Lara/Viv wannabees. I wonder what that means?)
>
> Hick, Blewett, Crawley, Larkins, Bevan, Laxman.
Again, though, not ALL these are Viv wannabees -- Crawley, Laxman,..
> >And:
> >
> >Type 5: MUSHTAQ MOHAMMED (IOW, anomalies, either because I don't know
> >enough or becuae they just don't seem to fit any of the above!)
> >Logie, Wessels, Haynes, Malik, Richardson.
>
> I'd have put Haynes as a type 3 myself.
Probably. He was certainly more "dig it out" than Greenidge. But after
GG retired, Haynes actually became much freer a strokeplayer. But I
guess overall i agree with you.
> >I'm sure people are going to give me a hard time over some of these
> >choices. "How can ANYONE POSSIBLY list Cronje/Border/Lloyd in the same
> >category as Boycott/Tavare?" Remember that the archetype for this
> >category is SWaugh! Based on that, I think Lloyd and Cronje are the two
> >most fitting this category!
>
> I don't see what you gain by splitting the categories. You're really
> only separating into grind-it-out openers and grind-it-out middle
> order people, and we're really talking about approach and demeanour
> rather than the shades of tactical difference determined by position
> in the order.
I completely agree.
> Of course, after we've had a discussion of which types players fall
> into, we can go on to talk about what proportion of each type makes
> the best batting line-up, and that could be a laugh too.
Perhaps a Myers-Briggs sorting of all batsmen into a four-dimensional
typography?
Harish Chandramouli
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>And I would say that Chanderpaul reminds me more of Worrell than any
>other WI player in the last 35 years.
Gee, and here I was, under the impression that Worrell was one of the
more definitively graceful players of his era. By drawing a comparison
to (the ever ugly and quite unwatchable, imo) Chanders, you've quite
managed to throw that theory out of the window, alright.
>I have to say that I am still not sure if the disagreement over SRT is
>not one of simply picking up on different things in his technique/style.
>
>Weekes I put in the Lara category. That does NOT mean that he wasn't a
>supreme stylist -- his footwork was the essence of batting technique and
>his coverdriving was magnificent. I just felt that the "brutalness" of
>his shots (a quality the i.r.c. comms used constantly in describing
>Lara's shots) outweighed the artistry of the technique.
To me, you've summed up Tendulkar to a tee, in the paragraph above.
He may well be definitively classy and artistic to watch (at times),
but those are almost by-products of his batting. To me, and having
seen him over the years, there's no doubt in my mind that he's a
singularly brute-hitter of the ball and relies more on sheer muscle
than anything else. But the thing is, he has such a good cricketing
brain (something we didn't see when he was captain, sadly :-), that
at times he tends to compromise his "normal" style of play for one
that is slightly more subtle and aesthetically pleasing to behold:
not a bad trade-off, the purists would say.
Still, I just wouldn't say he's a natural finesse player like Lara
is, either. I saw the 213 just recently, and what struck me was
even when the man did go for broke, there was just so much natural
artistry and touch-play involved, it was very difficult for me to
sit there and classify his knock as a truly "murderous" effort
(which it certainly was, in the overall context of the game): with
Sachin though, I've never quite had that problem where some of his
more rampant essays have been concerned. There's just a physical
presence to the man that almost adds to the intimidation of his
batting: and thats an aspect that the Lara's, Azhar's, Ganguly's
et al just don't have, IMO.
Harish
--
World XI: 1. Jadeja 2. Kirsten 3. Blewett 4. Hooper 5. Azhar (c)
6. Bevan 7. Moin (wk) 8. Akram 9. M. Ahmed 10. Donald 11. Prasad
samarth harish shah
but about the fact that the Indian cricket viewer _gets to see_ and _sees_
every test match played on planet earth. I doubt if any other country's
fans get to see _every test match_ on planet earth (yes, even Pak vs Zim
and SL vs SA).
I suppose Pakistani fans also get this privilege, but I can safely assume
that they're not as fanatic as Indian cricket fans. I base my assumptions
of a couple of observations:
1) a major portion of the Gaddafi Stadium was empty on the day of the WC
final in 1996.
2) 20,000 fans watched a Kenya vs Bangladesh match in Madras on a
Wednesday in May - _THAT_ in Madras, of all places, is the height of it.
> >We all see cricket through the prism of our circumstances, and your
> >viewpoint is no more unbiased than anyone else's.
>
> I would agree, but atleast I can claim to have seen more matches all over the
> globe on all conditions and this is probably true for all Indian fans. We are
> glued to each & every match, whether its RSA vs Pak (This is where I was
> impressed with Shoib Akthar, & found it quite surprising when he didn't figure
> in Pak's matches but for many Shoib is still unknown or very recently known) or
> Aus v RSA, Eng v Aus, Pak v Win (where I was impressed with Basit Ali)Eng v
> RSA.
Second every word of this.
-Samarth.
Mike Holmans
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> decided to opine:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> World's Greatest Athlete he may have been, but I would bet that if you
>> were selecting a WI XI which would include him, it would also feature
>> Ragoonath, S****ns, Nureyev and the Binary Man.
>
>Hm. Ragoonought, Nureyev, Tobagan, The Trini Bajan (capt.), Binary,
>S****ns, WORLD'S GREATEST ATHLETE, Little Willie (wk), Rawl (Over &
>Die), Nixon (the One), Patto Thommo.
>
>Fearsome. And all but Andy in the past three years! (All others but
>but Thommo in the last two!) Can any other country match that XI over
>that time?
I'm surprised you've got him 'batting' as high as 7.
But really, you should know better than to issue a challenge like that
to an England supporter.
Using the last three years as the field, let's have a look at the pool
of talent available to an English selector:
Openers: Steve James, Nick Knight.
Middle-order: Crawley, Hick, Stewart when he's keeping as well
Seamers: AM Smith, Martin, Silverwood, S Brown, Lewis, Caddick (yes I
know he has the odd innings where he's devastating, but try predicting
which)
"Spinners": Croft, Giles, Salisbury
But of course our real strength comes in the all-rounder category:
Hollioakes A&B, Flintoff, Ealham, and the finest all-rounder of all,
the majestic Shite.
I think that I'll pick this XI:
Knight, James, Hick, Crawley, Stewart (c,k), Shite, A Hollioake,
Sevenanover, Smith, Martin, Silverwood
You've got to admit that that team would run yours pretty close, and
that we've also got some excellent backup should any of these players
have any success.
Stephen Devaux
Mike, I'm sorry, but the old imperialist power just won't accept that,
when it comes to cricket, the pupil has learned the teachings well, and
has ultimately surpassed the master. No one would attempt to argue that
English selectors used to be past-masters at selecting worthless
players. But the truth is, Mike, that your XI is pitiless, I say
PITILESS, compared to the WI XI I selected. And looking back on it, the
XI I selected is not even the worst! I mean, I selected it, I'll stand
by it, and I have full confidence it can stink up any oval. But HOW
could I ever select a young player like Roberts, who really hasn't had
TIME to prove his total lack of quality, when a specialist batsman like
Floyd Reifer awaits with 63 runs from 8 test innings!
In cases such as these, one must ALWAYS rely on solid statistical
evidence, IMHO. So let's look at your England XI. (I am assuming that
Sevenanover is Flintoff. I apologize if I am wrong -- it historically
has been awfully hard to figure out which England bowler would most
deserve such a moniker, you must admit! Also, I am estimating Stewart's
keeper-match stats -- if you feel I'm way off, please feel free to
correct me. Under any circumstances, WI have three choices in
DWilliams, Browne and Murray any of whom is worse as both keeper AND
batsman than a keeping/batting/captaining/selling toothpaste Alec
Stewart!)
NAME M I NO RUNS AVE 100s 50s RUNS WKT AVE
James 2 4 0 71 17.75 - -
Knight 12 21 0 585 27.85 1 4
Hick 53 93 6 2993 34.40 5 17 1248 22 56.72
Crawley 29 47 5 1329 31.64 3 7
Stewart (wk) 40? 70? 5? 1625? 25.00? 3? 8?
(W)hite 8 12 0 166 13.83 - 1 452 11 41.09
A. Hollioake 4 6 0 65 10.83 - - 67 2 33.50
Flintoff 2 3 0 17 5.66 - - 112 1 112.00
Martin 8 13 0 115 8.84 - - 580 17 34.11
Smith 1 2 1 4 4.00 - - 89 0 --
Silverwood (Toured, but no Tests! Not fair!)
Brown (repl.) 1 2 1 11 11.00 - - 138 2 69.00
TOTALS 160 273 18 6981 27.38 12 37 2686 55 48.84
Compare to:
NAME M I NO RUNS AVE 100s 50s RUNS WKT AVE
Ragoo 2 4 1 13 4.33 - -
Nureyev 28 47 2 1092 24.26 1 3 19 0 -
Roberts 1 1 0 0 0.00 - -
Holder 11 17 2 380 25.33 - 2
Binary 33 50 5 1382 30.71 2 8 183 1 183.00
S****ns 26 47 2 1002 22.26 1 4 257 4 64.25
Boycott 5 6 1 98 19.60 - 1 342 8 42.75
(aka W.G.A.)
DWilliams 11 19 1 242 13.44 - 1
Lewis 3 6 0 26 4.33 - - 318 1 318.00
McLean 8 12 1 187 17.00 - - 660 17 38.82
Thompson 2 3 1 17 8.50 - - 215 5 43.00
WI TOTALS 130 212 16 4439 22.65 4 19 1994 36 55.39
Compare to:
ENG TOTALS 160 273 18 6981 27.38 12 37 2686 55 48.84
Now, Mike, the England XI has substantially better batting and bowling
averages, as well as thre times as many 100s and almost twice as many
50s. But England's First XI Mediocrities have played 30 more Tests,
suggesting, prima facie, that English selectors have relied on this
bunch of yahoos more than the WI selectors have relied on THEIR
front-line yahoos!
But, if we look closely, we will see that almost all of this comes from
one GA Hick. Christ, Mike, if we'd had Hick, he'd have been a mainstay
of our Test batting for the past 8 years! In fact, compare his record
with OUR equivalent, whose career has quite paralleled Hick's:
GA Hick 53 93 6 2993 34.40 5 17 1248 22 56.72
CL Hooper 80 136 13 4153 33.76 9 18 4372 93 47.01
And Hoops has ENTRENCHED in our line-up. (Rohan's gonna kill me!)
Now, without Hick, the England selectors' batting line-up certainly
becomes "competitive" with that of their WI counterparts:
ENG sans Hick 107 180 12 3988 23.74 7 20 1438 33 43.58
WI TOTALS 130 212 16 4439 22.65 4 19 1994 36 55.39
But now England's bowling becomes FAR superior (classic addition by
subtraction!), and the WI Mediocrities have been select 23 more times
with 3 fewer centuries!
> You've got to admit that that team would run yours pretty close,
Sorry! Not a chance! Statistics don't lie!
> and
> that we've also got some excellent backup should any of these players
> have any success.
Yeah? Try these babies on for size! WI Mediocrities Second XI gets
selected from the following XIV:
Wallace 7 13 0 279 21.46 - 2
Lambert 5 9 0 284 31.55 1 1 5 1 5.00
Ganga 3 6 0 75 12.50 - -
Griffith 3 6 0 114 19.00 - 1
Reifer 4 8 0 63 7.87 - -
Joseph 4 7 0 141 20.14 - 1
C. Browne 13 20 6 250 17.85 - -
Gibson 2 4 0 93 23.25 - - 275 3 91.66
Dillon 7 13 1 84 7.00 - - 742 21 35.33
Collins 3 5 0 14 2.80 - - 361 8 45.12
Cuffy 3 5 2 6 2.00 - - 306 7 43.71
King 1 2 1 2 2.00 - - 130 0 -
IBA Allen 2 2 2 5 - - - 180 5 36.00
Dhanraj 4 4 0 17 4.25 - - 595 8 74.37
TOTALS 61 104 12 1427 15.51 1 5 2494 53 47.06
Now, an argument can be made that, like Roberts in the first XI, several
of these have not proven themselves to be totally mediocre. Any of
Ganga, Griffith, Joseph, Dillon, Collins or King *could* become a decent
Test player. But the other 8 aren't; and so I'm betting that three of
those six won't either, giving us XI out of the XIV. If Ganga,
Griffith, and Joseph all have good Test careers, this XI might be a bit
"bottom-mediocre." But with a batting keeper like Browne and an
allrounder of the quality of Ottis Gibson, we should be just fine!
Charles Levy
Stephen Devaux (ap...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:40:49 -0400, Stephen Devaux
> ><ap...@ix.netcom.com> decided to opine:
>>
> >Steve proposes sorting batsmen into types, a procedure suggested by my
> >post in response to Roshan.
> >>
> >>Type 1: SRT
> >>MWAUGH, GOWER, ZAHEER ABBAS; Worrell, Rowe, Sobers, May, >>>Graveney,
> >>Harvey, Gavaskar, Pollock, Viswanath, Headley, Nurse, ChappellG,
> >>Compton, Hobbs, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Cullinan, Tiger Pataudi, Majid
> >>Khan, Martin Crowe, Hick, Hassett.
I very much doubt that the unpredictable - even though often classic -
Compton could be categorised as stylish! Although he was not normally
the master-blaster type, he *could* knock the leather off the ball, and
you certainly couldn't call him a grafter, so perhaps he belongs in yet
another category .... the swashbuckler?
>> >Type 2: LARA
>> >RICHARDS, BOTHAM; Bradman, Weekes, Walcott, Kanhai, Bradman, >>>Dexter,
> >>Gooch, Miandad, Keith Miller, Thorpe, Walters, De Silva, Jayasuriya,
> >>Fredericks, Greenidge, Constantine, McCabe, Kapil Dev, Inzi, CD
> >>McMillan, Jonty, Barry Richards, Alec Stewart, Hammond, Azhar, Parks.
> >>
> >>Type 3: SWAUGH
> >>ATHERTON; Hutton, Cowdrey, Boycott, Gatting, Hunte, C. Lloyd, Butcher,
> >>Ramprakash, Hanif, Dravid, Chappelli, Lawry, Umrigar, Gomes, Cronje, H.
> >>Sutcliffe, Ranatunga, J. Adams, S. Campbell, Border, Turner, Ponsford,
> >>Bailey, Tavare, Charlie Davis.
> And I'd make Chanders type 3, but then I haven't seen all his games
> either.
[snip]
>With the complaints that so many have had over your selection of SRT as
>the paradigm of the stylist (on which I agreed with you), I guess
>perhaps Gower or Worrell would be the best archetype for that category.
>And I would say that Chanderpaul reminds me more of Worrell than any
>other WI player in the last 35 years.
I would not quarrel with a decision to make either Gower or Worrell the
archetype as you call it of the stylist .... but I cannot see how anyone
can complain about SRT's claim to sharing that podium. IMO, he is easily
the most stylish batsman around at the moment.
>Weekes I put in the Lara category. That does NOT mean that he wasn't a
>supreme stylist -- his footwork was the essence of batting technique and
>his coverdriving was magnificent. I just felt that the "brutalness" of
>his shots (a quality the i.r.c. comms used constantly in describing
>Lara's shots) outweighed the artistry of the technique.
Well said! Arlottt used to describe his technique as "elegant savagery!"
>If SRT changes categories, then I would certainly have to move Nurse,
>Sobers, and Headley, and perhaps May and Graveney. (Indeed, from the
>television/vidoes I've seen of SRT, and the one series when I saw him
>live, in Toronto, and the descriptions I've read of Headley, those are
>the two that seem most alike to me. and I DON'T think that's an insult
>to either!)
None whatsoever ... and this from one who reveres the memory of the Great
George. As a small boy, I can remember seeing Headley, and though no
longer at his best, there was no gainsaying the artistry of the man. I've
seen SRT (against the WI in '96), and although he is "chunkier", he is not
unlike Headley in height and stance. George was perhaps more aggressive,
but SRT has his fiercer moments too, and I have seen him hit the ball
quite as hard as Lara ever has (though perhaps not as consistently so!)
Cheers!
Charles
Mike Holmans
>> of talent available to an English selector:
>>
>> Openers: Steve James, Nick Knight.
>>
>> Middle-order: Crawley, Hick, Stewart when he's keeping as well
>>
>> Seamers: AM Smith, Martin, Silverwood, S Brown, Lewis, Caddick (yes I
>> know he has the odd innings where he's devastating, but try predicting
>> which)
>>
>> "Spinners": Croft, Giles, Salisbury
>>
>> But of course our real strength comes in the all-rounder category:
>> Hollioakes A&B, Flintoff, Ealham, and the finest all-rounder of all,
>> the majestic Shite.
>>
>> I think that I'll pick this XI:
>>
>> Knight, James, Hick, Crawley, Stewart (c,k), Shite, A Hollioake,
>> Sevenanover, Smith, Martin, Silverwood
>>
>
>Mike, I'm sorry, but the old imperialist power just won't accept that,
>when it comes to cricket, the pupil has learned the teachings well, and
>has ultimately surpassed the master. No one would attempt to argue that
>English selectors used to be past-masters at selecting worthless
>players. But the truth is, Mike, that your XI is pitiless, I say
>PITILESS, compared to the WI XI I selected.
I am, reluctantly, forced to agree. As selected. And I know it's
cheating, but I want to try again.
>In cases such as these, one must ALWAYS rely on solid statistical
>evidence, IMHO. So let's look at your England XI. (I am assuming that
>Sevenanover is Flintoff. I apologize if I am wrong -- it historically
>has been awfully hard to figure out which England bowler would most
>deserve such a moniker, you must admit!
You were wrong. Sevenanover is the redoubtable, nay peerless, IDK
Salisbury. But I'm going to have Flintoff too. I'm dropping Hick and
promoting Shite to 5.
Honestly, I had seriously considered this before I posted. It's not
*just* an attempt to weasel.
>Also, I am estimating Stewart's
>keeper-match stats -- if you feel I'm way off, please feel free to
>correct me.
I went and looked it up. You were pretty accurate in your guess. I only
counted the matches where he both kept and batted at 4 or lower.
>Under any circumstances, WI have three choices in
>DWilliams, Browne and Murray any of whom is worse as both keeper AND
>batsman than a keeping/batting/captaining/selling toothpaste Alec
>Stewart!)
I've got to give you that. Stewart may not be a great keeper, but he
might be as good as a second-rater like Gilchrist (hi Ben!), and you've
named some fine fourth-raters there.
>
But here's my adjusted XI.
>NAME M I NO RUNS AVE 100s 50s RUNS WKT AVE
>James 2 4 0 71 17.75 - -
>Knight 12 21 0 585 27.85 1 4
>Crawley 29 47 5 1329 31.64 3 7
>Stewart (wk) 21 42 3 1169 29.97 1 6
>(W)hite 8 12 0 166 13.83 - 1 452 11 41.09
A Hollioake 4 6 0 65 10.83 - - 67 2 33.50
Flintoff 2 3 0 17 5.67 - - 112 1 112.00
Salisbury 12 22 2 284 14.20 - 1 1346 19 70.84
>Martin 8 13 0 115 8.84 - - 580 17 34.11
>Smith 1 2 1 4 4.00 - - 89 0 --
>Silverwood (Toured, but no Tests! Not fair!)
'Scuse me. He played against Zimbabwe. His stats:
Silverwood 1 1 0 0 0.00 - - 71 4 17.75
>TOTALS 98 171 11 3784 23.65 5 19 2717 54 50.31
>
>Compare to:
>
>NAME M I NO RUNS AVE 100s 50s RUNS WKT AVE
>Ragoo 2 4 1 13 4.33 - -
>Nureyev 28 47 2 1092 24.26 1 3 19 0 -
>Roberts 1 1 0 0 0.00 - -
>Holder 11 17 2 380 25.33 - 2
>Binary 33 50 5 1382 30.71 2 8 183 1 183.00
>S****ns 26 47 2 1002 22.26 1 4 257 4 64.25
>Boycott 5 6 1 98 19.60 - 1 342 8 42.75
>(aka W.G.A.)
>DWilliams 11 19 1 242 13.44 - 1
>Lewis 3 6 0 26 4.33 - - 318 1 318.00
>McLean 8 12 1 187 17.00 - - 660 17 38.82
>Thompson 2 3 1 17 8.50 - - 215 5 43.00
>
>WI TOTALS 130 212 16 4439 22.65 4 19 1994 36 55.39
>Compare to:
>ENG TOTALS 98 171 11 3784 23.65 5 19 2717 54 50.31
>
>Now, Mike, the England XI has substantially better batting and bowling
>averages, as well as thre times as many 100s and almost twice as many
>50s.
Not any more. Our bowling is admittedly more penetrative, but I would
wish to point out that they were relied on more, because yours only had
to fill in between bursts of Walsh and Amby, whereas we were trying to
take wickets with Toady, Mullally Mk 1, Headley, Caddick, and dear old
Dev, with occasional help from Gus and Goughie if they could get off the
physio's table. But our batting is now very comparable indeed.
> But England's First XI Mediocrities have played 30 more Tests,
>suggesting, prima facie, that English selectors have relied on this
>bunch of yahoos more than the WI selectors have relied on THEIR
>front-line yahoos!
32 less now. I don't really know what this proves, by the way.
>> You've got to admit that that team would run yours pretty close,
>
>Sorry! Not a chance! Statistics don't lie!
>
Well, now you'll admit we're more evenly matched, I hope.
>> and
>> that we've also got some excellent backup should any of these players
>> have any success.
>
>Yeah? Try these babies on for size! WI Mediocrities Second XI gets
>selected from the following XIV:
And a very convincing pool of slime it is. You have certainly tried an
awful lot of different bits of rubbish.
If we were really going to be rigorous about this, we ought to exclude
players who only played three Tests or less in a row. If someone
survives for four Tests, or, worse still, gets a recall, then that's
surely a better qualification than if they get tried for a game or two
and dropped immediately it's obvious they're useless.
But I can't be bothered to try and work that one out.
Cheers,
Mike
Stephen Devaux
> You were wrong. Sevenanover is the redoubtable, nay peerless, IDK
> Salisbury.
Okay, but you must admit, it's tough to figure out which English bowler
actually is most deserving of that appellation!
> But I'm going to have Flintoff too. I'm dropping Hick and
> promoting Shite to 5.
Sure. Or if you want to replace Hick with, Ramps, that's okay too.
> Honestly, I had seriously considered this before I posted. It's not
> *just* an attempt to weasel.
U-huh!
Please forgive me! For some reason, he is NOT listed on CricInfo among
the career stats for current England players! (Does someone know
something?) I knew he toured WI and did not play. But actually, it
looks like he bowled well vs. Zim!
Again, apologies, but please understand that it was CricInfo's fault!
This is a GREAT argument, I must admit!
>But our batting is now very comparable indeed.
>
> > But England's First XI Mediocrities have played 30 more Tests,
> >suggesting, prima facie, that English selectors have relied on this
> >bunch of yahoos more than the WI selectors have relied on THEIR
> >front-line yahoos!
>
> 32 less now. I don't really know what this proves, by the way.
Nor do I. But it must have SOME relevance, surely!
> >> You've got to admit that that team would run yours pretty close,
> >
> >Sorry! Not a chance! Statistics don't lie!
> >
> Well, now you'll admit we're more evenly matched, I hope.
Indeed. But the fact that WI have had Amby and Walsh is the only thing
that stops us from slaughtering you!
> >> and
> >> that we've also got some excellent backup should any of these players
> >> have any success.
> >
> >Yeah? Try these babies on for size! WI Mediocrities Second XI gets
> >selected from the following XIV:
>
> And a very convincing pool of slime it is. You have certainly tried an
> awful lot of different bits of rubbish.
>
> If we were really going to be rigorous about this, we ought to exclude
> players who only played three Tests or less in a row. If someone
> survives for four Tests, or, worse still, gets a recall, then that's
> surely a better qualification than if they get tried for a game or two
> and dropped immediately it's obvious they're useless.
HEY! You're just trying to get Thompo, Lewis, and Ragoonaught out of
our side! No fair! They're ours and we're keeping them! And it was
obvious LONG before they were picked the FIRST time that they were
useless!
Mike Holmans
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> felt like saying:
>> >Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>> You were wrong. Sevenanover is the redoubtable, nay peerless, IDK
>> Salisbury.
>
>Okay, but you must admit, it's tough to figure out which English bowler
>actually is most deserving of that appellation!
Actually, I'm not sure that I agree. English crap bowling is mostly
remarkable for its boringness. It's not that it's particularly easy to
score off - more that it's exceptionally hard to get out to.
In the way I was talking earlier today about batsmen dealing with good
bowling, the trouble with England Test attacks over quite a lot of time
has been their inability to bowl balls rated at 9+ rather than their
profligacy with balls rated below 7.
Of course people have made lots of runs against England, but they
haven't necessarily made them in double-quick time, unless they've been
chancing their arms a lot.
>> But here's my adjusted XI.
>>
>> >NAME M I NO RUNS AVE 100s 50s RUNS WKT AVE
>> >James 2 4 0 71 17.75 - -
>> >Knight 12 21 0 585 27.85 1 4
>> >Crawley 29 47 5 1329 31.64 3 7
>> >Stewart (wk) 21 42 3 1169 29.97 1 6
>> >(W)hite 8 12 0 166 13.83 - 1 452 11 41.09
>> A Hollioake 4 6 0 65 10.83 - - 67 2 33.50
>> Flintoff 2 3 0 17 5.67 - - 112 1 112.00
>> Salisbury 12 22 2 284 14.20 - 1 1346 19 70.84
>> >Martin 8 13 0 115 8.84 - - 580 17 34.11
>> >Smith 1 2 1 4 4.00 - - 89 0 --
>> >Silverwood (Toured, but no Tests! Not fair!)
>> 'Scuse me. He played against Zimbabwe. His stats:
>> Silverwood 1 1 0 0 0.00 - - 71 4 17.75
>
>Please forgive me! For some reason, he is NOT listed on CricInfo among
>the career stats for current England players! (Does someone know
>something?) I knew he toured WI and did not play. But actually, it
>looks like he bowled well vs. Zim!
Does, doesn't it? Interesting how closely his bowling figures resemble
James's batting figures.
>
>Again, apologies, but please understand that it was CricInfo's fault!
I knew there was a reason I usually use khel.com for player research.
Furthermore, Binary and Nureyev wouldn't claim to be anything more than
occasional bowlers. The selectors don't really have their bowling in
mind when picking them. If you only use the figures for those who would
at least claim competence as bowlers, such as S****ns, then the combined
WI average is 51.20.
>> >
>> Well, now you'll admit we're more evenly matched, I hope.
>
>Indeed. But the fact that WI have had Amby and Walsh is the only thing
>that stops us from slaughtering you!
>
I'm not so sure, because:
>> If we were really going to be rigorous about this, we ought to exclude
>> players who only played three Tests or less in a row. If someone
>> survives for four Tests, or, worse still, gets a recall, then that's
>> surely a better qualification than if they get tried for a game or two
>> and dropped immediately it's obvious they're useless.
>
>HEY! You're just trying to get Thompo, Lewis, and Ragoonaught out of
>our side! No fair! They're ours and we're keeping them! And it was
>obvious LONG before they were picked the FIRST time that they were
>useless!
It would also rule James out of my side, and then I've got to choose
between Butcher and Atherton, given that Stewart is already at 4. Even
with Knight at 2, I reckon that gives us opening partnerships of 150
more often than not against your bowlers, since I think Butcher's proved
he's Test class, even if only just.
Look, I'm not denying that you've got a side which is VERY BAD INDEED.
Surprisingly England can't quite match it.
But James was picked as injury cover. And so were some of yours.
I wonder what happens if we take anyone who played the majority of their
9 or more Tests in the 90s? You still get S****ns and Binary as examples
of persistent no-hopers. I have to have Hick back and I can't have a
single Flintioake, not even Crappy Craig (Although I do have Chris Lewis
up my sleeve on that front).
My suspicion is that even though my batting will improve dramatically,
your bowling will become much, much better. But, even more importantly,
my bowling will hardly improve at all, assuming you allow me Mullally Mk
1 (because he underwent a transformation and remodelled his action
between his lengthy run of mediocrity in 1996-7 and his return against
SL at the end of 1998,and became a different, Test class, bowler).
Cheers,
Mike
Uzair Amir
samarth harish shah wrote in message ...
>I must agree with Roshan here - not about Sachin > Lara or Lara > Sachin,
>but about the fact that the Indian cricket viewer _gets to see_ and _sees_
>every test match played on planet earth. I doubt if any other country's
>fans get to see _every test match_ on planet earth (yes, even Pak vs Zim
>and SL vs SA).
>
>I suppose Pakistani fans also get this privilege, but I can safely assume
>that they're not as fanatic as Indian cricket fans. I base my assumptions
>of a couple of observations:
>
>1) a major portion of the Gaddafi Stadium was empty on the day of the WC
>final in 1996.
I was there, didnt see a major portion of the stadium empty. But then I was
busy cheering on the Lankans, maybe u had a better view from TV.
But I agree with the rest of your post. Judging from stadium attendance
India seems more cricket crazy than Pakistan. But then India also has 900
million ppl to fill up those stadiums :-)
samarth harish shah
Not a major portion. But a few empty seats, nevertheless. For a WC final,
that's rather, rather strange.
> busy cheering on the Lankans, maybe u had a better view from TV.
Oh, the cameraman focussed on a whole block of empty seats rather
quizzically. Even the commentators were dumbfounded. Of course, they came
up with the usual, "the stadium will fill up as the match progresses and
becomes more exciting" stuff.
> But I agree with the rest of your post. Judging from stadium attendance
> India seems more cricket crazy than Pakistan. But then India also has 900
> million ppl to fill up those stadiums :-)
Hmmm... pity, a few of them are unsporting, though. Especially since their
team itself is rather generous towards their guests :-).
-Samarth [ who lost a bet to a person who actually predicted a crowd
strength of > 20,000 for the Ken/Bang match in Madras - even I didn't know
my countrymen were that jobless ].
Ravi Iyengar
> strength of > 20,000 for the Ken/Bang match in Madras - even I didn't
know
> my countrymen were that jobless ].
Jobless? I recently met someone who had just come in from bangalore ... he
was telling how the whole city came to an halt at 10:00 am for the final
which started around 2:00 pm ...
not just that, they have these pubs which show the match live, then show
the match highlights [assuming india won, there would be a lot of demand]
and then show the full match again for those who want to see it ;)
never been to bangalore, but i believe its true
now i dont feel guilty hitting ctrl-r while working that much ;-)
cheers,
ravi
>
>
vijay...@my-dejanews.com
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
>
> > Atherton certainly did not see Lara's 501, since he was playing for
> > Lancashire at the time. Nobody who did regarded it as anything more
> > than a statistical freak: taking 500 off the Durham 'attack' hardly
> > demanded being the best batsman in the world - it needed a deadish
> > match and someone with the stamina to bat for n hours scoring at a
> > reasonably quick rate.
>
> HEY! The World's Greatest Athlete was bowling for Durham in that match!
> On what grounds do I make that estimation? I DEFY you to think of
> another player over whose non-participation in a sporting event AN
> ENTIRE SOVEREIGN COUNTRY was galavanized into taking economic sanctions
> against the offending organization(s)!
>
>
> Fraternally in cricket,
>
> Steve the Bajan
>
I had to do quite a bit of research with CricInfo before I came up with the
following :
http://www-usa12.cricket.org/link_to_database/PLAYERS/WI/C/CUMMINS_AC_0400207
6/ Anderson Cleophas Cummins
Born: 07 May 1966, Packer's Valley, Barbados
Major Teams: West Indies, Durham, Barbados.
Known As: Andy Cummins
Batting Style: Right Hand Bat
Bowling Style: Right Arm Fast Medium
Statistical Record:
TESTS
(including 10/12/1994)
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
5 6 1 98 50 19.60 - 1 1 -
O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
103 11 342 8 42.75 4-54 - - 77.2 3.32
ONE-DAY INTERNATIONALS
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
63 41 11 459 44* 15.30 - - 11 -
O M R W Ave Best 4w 5w SR Econ
523.5 23 2246 78 28.79 5-31 2 1 40.2 4.28
which should be the W.G.A or Boycott you refer to in the rest of this strand.
What is the story of the Boycott? Sorry if this has been repeated umpteen
times on RSC.
BTW, the 5-31 in an ODI was a winning effort against India and I do recall
thinking he wasn't all that bad. If he were to play for India and with his
kind of test record, India could well have been hailing it as the second
coming of Kapil Dev. Look at one H Kanitkar for heavens sake.
Vijay (nearly the Bajan...I live in Barbados)
Stephen Devaux
>
> In article <370B4F...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Mike Holmans wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Atherton certainly did not see Lara's 501, since he was playing for
> > > Lancashire at the time. Nobody who did regarded it as anything more
> > > than a statistical freak: taking 500 off the Durham 'attack' hardly
> > > demanded being the best batsman in the world - it needed a deadish
> > > match and someone with the stamina to bat for n hours scoring at a
> > > reasonably quick rate.
> >
> > HEY! The World's Greatest Athlete was bowling for Durham in that match!
> > On what grounds do I make that estimation? I DEFY you to think of
> > another player over whose non-participation in a sporting event AN
> > ENTIRE SOVEREIGN COUNTRY was galavanized into taking economic sanctions
> > against the offending organization(s)!
> following :
> http://www-usa12.cricket.org/link_to_database/PLAYERS/WI/C/CUMMINS_AC_0400207
> 6/ Anderson Cleophas Cummins
>
> Born: 07 May 1966, Packer's Valley, Barbados
> Major Teams: West Indies, Durham, Barbados.
> Known As: Andy Cummins
> Batting Style: Right Hand Bat
> Bowling Style: Right Arm Fast Medium
>
> Statistical Record:
> TESTS
> (including 10/12/1994)
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
> 5 6 1 98 50 19.60 - 1 1 -
>
> O M R W Ave Best 5 10 SR Econ
> 103 11 342 8 42.75 4-54 - - 77.2 3.32
>
> ONE-DAY INTERNATIONALS
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
> 63 41 11 459 44* 15.30 - - 11 -
> O M R W Ave Best 4w 5w SR Econ
> 523.5 23 2246 78 28.79 5-31 2 1 40.2 4.28
>
> which should be the W.G.A or Boycott you refer to in the rest of this strand.
> What is the story of the Boycott? Sorry if this has been repeated umpteen
> times on RSC.
When RSA travelled to WI in 1992, Barbados found itself in an
unaccustomed situation -- with Greenidge and Marshall both retired, the
only two Bajans competing for the Test side were Haynes and Anderson
Cummins. Since Barbados was used to having much better representation
(we once had 7 players in the Test XI for 4 Tests in a row, and they
weren't exackully chopped liver -- Sobers, Hunte, Nurse, Hall,
Griffith, and Holford, plus either Lashley or Allan), this could clearly
only happen as a result of anti-Bajan conspiracy (a fact borne out by
Richardson being named skipper over Haynes).
As a result, when Cummins, who had played in the preceding ODIous
series, was not included for the first-ever Test vs. S. Africa at
Kensington, a significant portion of the local populace decided to
organize a boycott. As I recall, the gate for the first day was about
1,800, ranging down to the low hundreds for the final day when, needing
201 to win, RSA went from 118/2 to 148 all out. Amby took 6 for 34 and
Walsh 4 for 41.
Never in the course of human events have so many done so much for such a
nothing.
>
> BTW, the 5-31 in an ODI was a winning effort against India and I do recall
> thinking he wasn't all that bad. If he were to play for India and with his
> kind of test record, India could well have been hailing it as the second
> coming of Kapil Dev. Look at one H Kanitkar for heavens sake.
We-ell, I can't imagine 900 million Indians organizing a boycott on
Kanitkar's behalf, however.
>
> Vijay (nearly the Bajan...I live in Barbados)
Lucky guy!
Stephen Devaux
>
> I wonder what happens if we take anyone who played the majority of their
> 9 or more Tests in the 90s? You still get S****ns and Binary as examples
> of persistent no-hopers. I have to have Hick back and I can't have a
> single Flintioake, not even Crappy Craig (Although I do have Chris Lewis
> up my sleeve on that front).
>
> My suspicion is that even though my batting will improve dramatically,
> your bowling will become much, much better. But, even more importantly,
> my bowling will hardly improve at all, assuming you allow me Mullally Mk
> 1 (because he underwent a transformation and remodelled his action
> between his lengthy run of mediocrity in 1996-7 and his return against
> SL at the end of 1998,and became a different, Test class, bowler).
{Next, he's going to be wanting Ramprakash Model 1 and Model 2!}
Stephen Devaux
>
> Stephen Devaux (ap...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> >Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:40:49 -0400, Stephen Devaux
> > ><ap...@ix.netcom.com> decided to opine:
> >>
> > >Steve proposes sorting batsmen into types, a procedure suggested by my
> > >post in response to Roshan.
> > >>
> > >>Type 1: SRT
> > >>MWAUGH, GOWER, ZAHEER ABBAS; Worrell, Rowe, Sobers, May, >>>Graveney,
> > >>Harvey, Gavaskar, Pollock, Viswanath, Headley, Nurse, ChappellG,
> > >>Compton, Hobbs, Chanderpaul, Hooper, Cullinan, Tiger Pataudi, Majid
> > >>Khan, Martin Crowe, Hick, Hassett.
>
> Compton could be categorised as stylish! Although he was not normally
> the master-blaster type, he *could* knock the leather off the ball, and
> you certainly couldn't call him a grafter, so perhaps he belongs in yet
> another category .... the swashbuckler?
Charles, I would say that many of those above could also do likewise.
Certainly Harvey, Rowe, Sobers, Nurse, Pollock, Headley, ChappellG,
Hooper, et. perhaps al. could all knock the cover off. But, in general,
they did it with great style rather than with brutality.
> >> >Type 2: LARA
> >> >RICHARDS, BOTHAM; Bradman, Weekes, Walcott, Kanhai, Bradman, >>>Dexter,
> > >>Gooch, Miandad, Keith Miller, Thorpe, Walters, De Silva, Jayasuriya,
> > >>Fredericks, Greenidge, Constantine, McCabe, Kapil Dev, Inzi, CD
> > >>McMillan, Jonty, Barry Richards, Alec Stewart, Hammond, Azhar, Parks.
> > >>
> > >>Type 3: SWAUGH
> > >>ATHERTON; Hutton, Cowdrey, Boycott, Gatting, Hunte, C. Lloyd, Butcher,
> > >>Ramprakash, Hanif, Dravid, Chappelli, Lawry, Umrigar, Gomes, Cronje, H.
> > >>Sutcliffe, Ranatunga, J. Adams, S. Campbell, Border, Turner, Ponsford,
> > >>Bailey, Tavare, Charlie Davis.
> > And I'd make Chanders type 3, but then I haven't seen all his games
> > either.
>
> [snip]
>
> >With the complaints that so many have had over your selection of SRT as
> >the paradigm of the stylist (on which I agreed with you), I guess
> >perhaps Gower or Worrell would be the best archetype for that category.
> >And I would say that Chanderpaul reminds me more of Worrell than any
> >other WI player in the last 35 years.
>
> I would not quarrel with a decision to make either Gower or Worrell the
> archetype as you call it of the stylist .... but I cannot see how anyone
> can complain about SRT's claim to sharing that podium. IMO, he is easily
> the most stylish batsman around at the moment.
I've been thinking a bit more about this categorization business, and
wondering if one of the main issues that separates knowledgeable people
in this category is those who tend to use the "straight bat" and those
who don't? SRT, for instance, may murder the ball, and may have all the
shots. But my impression of him remains that he is most at home playing
his power shots in the V -- extra cover to long on. Most of those in
this category, I think, are similar EXCEPT those like Worrell/Gower who
use the languorous late cuts and leg glances (and, yes, I know about
Worrell's sweep on his knee).
OTOH, Lara/Viv specialize in the pull and square drive for their power
shots. Indeed, I'd say that the pull is the signature shot for both.
For Weekes it was the cover drive and square cut, again both with less
of a straight bat. Nurse, IMO, actually hit the ball harder than
Weekes, but more in the V.
> >Weekes I put in the Lara category. That does NOT mean that he wasn't a
> >supreme stylist -- his footwork was the essence of batting technique and
> >his coverdriving was magnificent. I just felt that the "brutalness" of
> >his shots (a quality the i.r.c. comms used constantly in describing
> >Lara's shots) outweighed the artistry of the technique.
>
> Well said! Arlottt used to describe his technique as "elegant savagery!"
>
> >If SRT changes categories, then I would certainly have to move Nurse,
> >Sobers, and Headley, and perhaps May and Graveney. (Indeed, from the
> >television/vidoes I've seen of SRT, and the one series when I saw him
> >live, in Toronto, and the descriptions I've read of Headley, those are
> >the two that seem most alike to me. and I DON'T think that's an insult
> >to either!)
>
> None whatsoever ... and this from one who reveres the memory of the Great
> George. As a small boy, I can remember seeing Headley, and though no
> longer at his best, there was no gainsaying the artistry of the man. I've
> seen SRT (against the WI in '96), and although he is "chunkier", he is not
> unlike Headley in height and stance. George was perhaps more aggressive,
> but SRT has his fiercer moments too, and I have seen him hit the ball
> quite as hard as Lara ever has (though perhaps not as consistently so!)
Charles, you have no idea how much I envy you your memory of George 9or
any who remember Bradman)! But I must mollify myself that there are
some on here who envy me my memories of the W's! (Hell, there are some
on here who probably envy those of us who saw Viv!)
Stephen Devaux
consider knowledgeable, and who have made no attempt to be dismissve of
each other, that I find it completely confounding! Clearly, Roshan,
Harish, Mike, Sadiq, Charles, et. al. honestly disagree with one
another's views. Why?
Harish Chandramouli wrote:
>
> In article <370D0F...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >And I would say that Chanderpaul reminds me more of Worrell than any
> >other WI player in the last 35 years.
>
> Gee, and here I was, under the impression that Worrell was one of the
> more definitively graceful players of his era. By drawing a comparison
> to (the ever ugly and quite unwatchable, imo) Chanders, you've quite
> managed to throw that theory out of the window, alright.
>
> >I have to say that I am still not sure if the disagreement over SRT is
> >not one of simply picking up on different things in his technique/style.
> >
> >Weekes I put in the Lara category. That does NOT mean that he wasn't a
> >supreme stylist -- his footwork was the essence of batting technique and
> >his coverdriving was magnificent. I just felt that the "brutalness" of
> >his shots (a quality the i.r.c. comms used constantly in describing
> >Lara's shots) outweighed the artistry of the technique.
>
> To me, you've summed up Tendulkar to a tee, in the paragraph above.
> He may well be definitively classy and artistic to watch (at times),
> but those are almost by-products of his batting. To me, and having
> seen him over the years, there's no doubt in my mind that he's a
> singularly brute-hitter of the ball and relies more on sheer muscle
> than anything else. But the thing is, he has such a good cricketing
> brain (something we didn't see when he was captain, sadly :-), that
> at times he tends to compromise his "normal" style of play for one
> that is slightly more subtle and aesthetically pleasing to behold:
> not a bad trade-off, the purists would say.
But, Harish, correct me if I am wrong, but my belief is that Tendulkar's
power shots tend to be far more in the V than Lara, or Viv, or even
Weekes. This is NOT to say that Tendu never hooks, or pulls, or cuts,
or square drives, just that those are NOT his signature shots. He, like
Sobers, May, Graveney, Nurse, plays primarily with a straight bat. His
drives tend to range between extra cover and long on, as was the case
with Sobers and Nurse. OTOH, Weekes' cover drive tended to go between
cover point and extra cover, implying a much less "classical" straight
bat approach.
> Still, I just wouldn't say he's a natural finesse player like Lara
> is, either.
I would NEVER call Lara a finesse player. The 100 he got in Antigua,
off 82 balls, was Lara truly unbound. His signature shots, surely, are
both across the line; the pull and the square drive.
My impression is that to Charles, Mike and myself (and to Ramaswamy whom
I talked with by phone and who seems to agree 100% with Mike's
taxonomy), SRT is more "correct" than Lara because he plays across the
line so much less. Charles, Ramaswamy and I are all relics of the
'50s. Mike, I believe, is a bit younger. Nevertheless, could there be
a generational difference here? Is this the bequest of Viv, that his
style has become "classical?"
> I saw the 213 just recently, and what struck me was
> even when the man did go for broke, there was just so much natural
> artistry and touch-play involved, it was very difficult for me to
> sit there and classify his knock as a truly "murderous" effort
> (which it certainly was, in the overall context of the game):
His 213 was actually a VERY constrained innings, for Lara. Everything
was on his shoulders, including his entire captaincy career. His first
58 balls yielded just 11 runs. His 50 took 140 balls. Yes, his second
50 was rapidfire (56 balls) and then he started to play his game much
more. But he still was curbing himself slightly, his 200 coming off 317
deliveries.
Again in his innings at Bridgetown, everything was on his shoulders. He
took 118 deliveries to reach 50. Then he took only 51 more to reach
100. But his last 50, to win the match, saw him farming the strike and
took 87 balls, 5 more than his entire ton at Antigua took. That Antigua
innings was, OVER ALL, much closer to the real Lara than either of his
two previous tons. And, IMO, the closest thing the cricket world has
seen to Viv since '91.
> Sachin though, I've never quite had that problem where some of his
> more rampant essays have been concerned. There's just a physical
> presence to the man that almost adds to the intimidation of his
> batting: and thats an aspect that the Lara's, Azhar's, Ganguly's
> et al just don't have, IMO.
Harish, this is so INTERESTING! Because I just couldn't agree less. The
intimidation of lara's 213 and his 100 were like nothing since Viv, IMO.
And I feel sure that, somehow, our disagreement is a matter of
definitions and semantics.
BTW, not that it would prove anything, but I wonder what their
respective strike rates are in both Tests and ODIs?
Harish Chandramouli
[snip]
>But, Harish, correct me if I am wrong, but my belief is that Tendulkar's
>power shots tend to be far more in the V than Lara, or Viv, or even
>Weekes. This is NOT to say that Tendu never hooks, or pulls, or cuts,
>or square drives, just that those are NOT his signature shots.
Absolutely, Steve. If you asked me which of Tendulkar's strokes I'd
rather watch than any other, I would probably reply without hesitation
"why, ANY of his delectable straight drives in the V, and if you want me
to be really picky, the on-drive played just to the right of the bowler,
with a minimum amount of follow through". So yes, I do think that when
one talks about Tendulkar, one is primarily talking about a player who's
real forte is driving in the V, and who plays vertical bat shots with a
certain amount of grace and timing. But where I started to disagree with
Mike in his original post was when he drew a comparison between Sachin
and Gower: and IMHO, the two are poles apart! Whilst Sachin may well
possess a certain natural artistry to his batting, when he's in full
flow, make no mistake about it: he is a brutal, brutal strokeplayer,
and one who hits the ball so hard that you can't help but be somewhat
overawed by his sheer presence at the wicket.
And thats just not something I've ever felt about Lara. Don't ask me
why, but even if I were to watch Lara score the fourth fastest century
in test cricket today, I still couldn't picture him as the savage
demolition man I've seen Tendulkar be. And this I suspect has as much
to do with the personalities of the two individuals concerned as it
does with anything else. Of course I don't think that the Australian
bowlers and fielders quite felt the same way when Lara took them apart
for that 82 ball 100, but hey, we're not talking about them here, now
are we?
>He, like
>Sobers, May, Graveney, Nurse, plays primarily with a straight bat. His
>drives tend to range between extra cover and long on, as was the case
>with Sobers and Nurse. OTOH, Weekes' cover drive tended to go between
>cover point and extra cover, implying a much less "classical" straight
>bat approach.
I never saw Weekes obviously but I've always had the impression that
he was an absolutely murderous puller/hooker of the ball. A guy who
would basically have you for breakfast if you kept pitching it short.
Any truth in that at all?
>> Still, I just wouldn't say he's a natural finesse player like Lara
>> is, either.
>
>I would NEVER call Lara a finesse player. The 100 he got in Antigua,
>off 82 balls, was Lara truly unbound. His signature shots, surely, are
>both across the line; the pull and the square drive.
Well, as you say, it does boil down to the semantics then. To me, Lara
has always been a beacon of artistry and natural elegance. Perhaps it
is just that being a left-hander, he has an innate sense of grace to
his batting, but I do think that even when he is on a rampage there is
a certain style and subliminal grace about his batting that Tendulkar
quite abandons when *he's* in a destructive mood. Lara may hit across
the line and he may well give the ball a real thump, but he's no Viv
to me. IMO, Tendulkar comes a lot closer to that.
>>took 87 balls, 5 more than his entire ton at Antigua took. That Antigua
>innings was, OVER ALL, much closer to the real Lara than either of his
>two previous tons. And, IMO, the closest thing the cricket world has
>seen to Viv since '91.
Well, if you're talking solely in terms of the rate at which it was
scored, then I doubt anyone will disagree with you. And yet, I can
never for the life of me see Lara quite in the way as I've seen Viv
on occasion. Sure, he has that raw genius and that high level of
aggression in him that makes him take apart an attack to bits, but
on the whole, he's just so much more a watchable (in terms of
natural style) entity. And that in turn makes him all the less
intimidating to me anyway.
>Harish, this is so INTERESTING! Because I just couldn't agree less. The
>intimidation of lara's 213 and his 100 were like nothing since Viv, IMO.
Well I've seen Tendulkar go after the bowling in both forms of the
game (far, far rarer in tests of course, because he does bat with
the burden of the whole country on his shoulders and that affects
his natural aggression to no uncertain extent) and at the risk of
making a highly odious and absurd comparison, I have to say that
I've never seen Lara play an innings anywhere near as intimidating
as the 91 Tendulkar racked up in the last World Cup against Aus:
for sheer brutality and execution, that really was something to
behold. Risky, with plenty of cross-batted shots (pulls, mainly),
but incredibly destructive.
>BTW, not that it would prove anything, but I wonder what their
>respective strike rates are in both Tests and ODIs?
I looked through one or two places and nothing seemed to come up
all that easily, so I am just going to hazard a guess instead:
Tests: Lara -- 60-65, Tendulkar ~50
ODIS: Lara -- 80-85, Tendulkar (as opener) 90-95.
Or at least, reasonably close, I'd think.
Cheers,
Mike Holmans
>
Every time someone comes up with his career Test stats and says he's
crap because he only averages 32 or whatever, I'll be replying with his
stats starting from the final Ashes Test of 1997, which followed a two-
year absence.
I am entirely bored with hearing about how Ramprakash was several years
ago, and how that makes him unfit for the team. As far as I'm concerned,
his meaningful Test career started 20 months ago.
If that means I can have the earlier Ramps in the 90s Mediocrities XI,
well, that's fine with me too.
Cheers,
Mike
Harish Chandramouli
Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve and I are on record over and over again as taking no notice
>whatever of ODIous cricket.
Fair enough, but having seen Sachin score those two centuries in
England three summers ago (the 177, in particular), I still can't
believe you'd see him more as a delicate rapier wielder, than the
cold-blooded hard-hitting batsman that he really is, when in full
flow. And I only brought up the ODI game because that was the
occasion on which I've seen him blitz it more than in any other:
not because he hasn't done it on a fair number of occasions in
test matches before, because he has.
>If those estimates are right, then it explains everything. Lara is a
>more destructive Test batsman, and SRT is relatively subdued, so Steve
>and I think of the two in those modes and come to our conclusions. The
>rest of you watch these pesky ODIs, see the two play in their ODIous
>modes and you come to opposite conclusions.
See above. And I was only speaking for myself, of course.
>It's interesting to find that we are supposed to be rating SRT alongside
>Hick, Bevan, Jayasuriya, and Gilchrist, since that would seem to be the
>corollary of placing such importance on Sachin's ODIous performances.
Now thats below the belt, Mike.
Mike Holmans
>>Harish, this is so INTERESTING! Because I just couldn't agree less. The
>>intimidation of lara's 213 and his 100 were like nothing since Viv, IMO.
>
>Well I've seen Tendulkar go after the bowling in both forms of the
>game (far, far rarer in tests of course, because he does bat with
>the burden of the whole country on his shoulders and that affects
>his natural aggression to no uncertain extent)
Now we have the key to why Steve and I have taken one line and everyone
else has taken another.
>and at the risk of
>making a highly odious and absurd comparison, I have to say that
>I've never seen Lara play an innings anywhere near as intimidating
>as the 91 Tendulkar racked up in the last World Cup against Aus:
>for sheer brutality and execution, that really was something to
>behold. Risky, with plenty of cross-batted shots (pulls, mainly),
>but incredibly destructive.
>
>>BTW, not that it would prove anything, but I wonder what their
>>respective strike rates are in both Tests and ODIs?
>
>I looked through one or two places and nothing seemed to come up
>all that easily, so I am just going to hazard a guess instead:
>
>Tests: Lara -- 60-65, Tendulkar ~50
>ODIS: Lara -- 80-85, Tendulkar (as opener) 90-95.
Steve and I are on record over and over again as taking no notice
whatever of ODIous cricket.
If those estimates are right, then it explains everything. Lara is a
more destructive Test batsman, and SRT is relatively subdued, so Steve
and I think of the two in those modes and come to our conclusions. The
rest of you watch these pesky ODIs, see the two play in their ODIous
modes and you come to opposite conclusions.
It's interesting to find that we are supposed to be rating SRT alongside
Hick, Bevan, Jayasuriya, and Gilchrist, since that would seem to be the
corollary of placing such importance on Sachin's ODIous performances.
Cheers,
Mike
Rohan Chandran
>The contents of this thread have been so contradictory, among people I
>consider knowledgeable, and who have made no attempt to be dismissve of
>each other, that I find it completely confounding! Clearly, Roshan,
>Harish, Mike, Sadiq, Charles, et. al. honestly disagree with one
>another's views. Why?
The problem, my dear curried crow-eating old thing, appears to lie in
your definition of knowledgeable :-)
I'm always on the verge of contributing to this thread (but not with
the benefit of any knowledge of significance, of course), but it's far
too complicated. Every post has something which I agree with, and
something which I vehemently disagree with, and that's just too much
typing for my own good.
What that means of course, is that all of the above agree with me.
There's something trying to come out here, isn't there....
Rohan [ sitting on the fence and taking the catch ]
Ramaswamy
wrote:
>
>--On Wednesday, April 07, 1999, 8:58 PM +0000 cricke...@my-dejanews.com
>wrote:
>
>> OTOH, if you listen to or read comments by many of the Australian players
>> after they returned from the Indian tour a year ago, their views were
>> diametrically opposed to the English view. Steve Waugh was the person who
>> said he thought Tendulkar was the best since Bradman, and in fact
>> explicitly stated that he thought Tendulkar was a far better batsman than
>> Lara.
But that was when Lara had hit an almost 2-year dry patch. And I have no
doubt Waugh was influenced by remarks made by the Don in that TV
interview more than a year ago.
> Wonder what tune Steve Waugh is singing now. As you say elsewhere, Lara
>has just played two of the best innings ever played in Tests. Add to that
>his 375 and 501 (which are records, even though they may not have been
>great innings), and it's a very impressive list of achievements. In
>comparison, Tendulkar has...er...well, he has played a few nice innings
>here or there, and he's almost single-handedly won a lot of matches for
>India (not).
No argument there, except perhaps at Chennai against the Aussies. Still,
I have trouble correlating match-winning innings with great innings.
Perhaps a defense mechanism for dealing with the rare wins :-)
> Absolutely. It's inconceivable that anyone who has seen Tendulkar would
>bracket him with Gower or Zaheer. Lara has the silken touch in some of his
>strokeplay, absolutely beautiful timing. Tendulkar is much more of a hitter
>(which is not to denigrate his batting; he's a tremendous bat, of course,
>but that's his style). I notice that the Bajan has picked up on this
>thread, and repeated this same classification elsewhere ---Tendulkar with
>Gower and Richards with Lara. Maybe I haven't seen enough of Lara (I did
>see chunks of his 213 and 153*, though), but I agree with Sadiq: it should
>be the other way around.
And around, and around. I can still picture Tendulkar cover-driving
Wasim and off-driving Waqar to the fence at Chennai, and if they were
not silken, I don't know what is. Effortless too, late in that innings,
with the bat almost vertical and pointed down at the end of the stroke.
And with his back bothering him mightily as it turns out.
He may have a great cricketing mind, but one thing Tendulkar hasn't
learnt is how to manage his innings, especially if circumstances are not
ideal. Were he to do that, I think he can march to greater heights, get
past the 200 barrier. At Sabina, Adams had the physio out in the middle
to deal with his cramps, and lots of trips by the 12th man with water
bottles. Never saw that at Chennai with SRT. Hell, Gaekwad and Azhar sat
like potted plants in pavilion toward the end, totally oblivious to what
was going on in the middle. It is just possible that had Tendulkar paced
himself and not tried to hit a 3rd four off Saqlain, well, one can only
speculate. Just as if Healy had not lunged and ruined Warne's catch, who
knows how Walsh might have fared.
The 136 and the 153* are to my mind like twin time-tracks of the type
J.B. Priestley was a master of.
>> As of this moment, I dont think there's much doubt that Lara is batting
>> better than Tendulkar - does anyone really doubt that?
>
> There's more to it than that, I think. Lara has, over his career, scaled
>heights of greatness that remain an aspiration for Tendulkar. I regard the
>375 and 501 as tremendous achievements, even though they were not made
>under difficult circumstances. But these last two innings (i.e., his 213
>and 153*) of Lara touched the soul of greatness in a way that Tendulkar has
>never done. Tendulkar came close with his 136 against Pakistan, but a 150*
>there would have taken it all the way. I said it just over a year ago on
>rsc: Tendulkar is yet to play a truly great innings. A year has gone by,
>and I'm left repeating it. He came close with his 155* against Australia,
>and the 136 against Pakistan. But for a batsman of his calibre, close is
>not quite good enough.
Perhaps. And yet close can be defining. One of my first posts in this
forum was a follow-up to the Bajan's glorious description of Bradman's
last dismissal. I made my cliched comments about the four that could
have been and Bharat Rao followed-up; I even saved it. To me SRT's 136
is memorable for the same reason:
<<
Personally, I am glad he didn't make those 4 extra runs along the way.
The average of -- oh-so-nearly-but-not-quite-100 -- just 4 runs short,
why even the worst bat around can make 4 -- just adds to the Bradman
legend. In fact, thats probably the single biggest reason Bradman
went from revered-but-hated demi-god, to a loved-and-respected father
figure. An average of 100 would have been just too good;
awe-inspiring respect yes, but affection no -- one doesn't love Shiva.
For his sake, and because I believe it so quintessentially cricket --
the greatest bat to walk this earth, ever, out for a duck in his last
innings -- why, you couldn't sell that script to Hollywood. I am
fervently glad he didn't make those 4 extra runs...
Bharat
>>
Allowed a baseball analogy, even if Tendulkar does not take India to any
pinnacles, I'll admire him the way I admire Tony Gwynn of the San Diego
Padres.
Cheers,
Ramaswamy
Stephen Devaux
[snip]
> Absolutely, Steve. If you asked me which of Tendulkar's strokes I'd
> rather watch than any other, I would probably reply without hesitation
> "why, ANY of his delectable straight drives in the V, and if you want me
> to be really picky, the on-drive played just to the right of the bowler,
> with a minimum amount of follow through". So yes, I do think that when
> one talks about Tendulkar, one is primarily talking about a player who's
> real forte is driving in the V, and who plays vertical bat shots with a
> certain amount of grace and timing. But where I started to disagree with
> Mike in his original post was when he drew a comparison between Sachin
> and Gower: and IMHO, the two are poles apart! Whilst Sachin may well
> possess a certain natural artistry to his batting, when he's in full
> flow, make no mistake about it: he is a brutal, brutal strokeplayer,
> and one who hits the ball so hard that you can't help but be somewhat
> overawed by his sheer presence at the wicket.
It MAY be that there is a need for a fourth category. In one, I'd have
SRTs, Nurses, Mays, Soberses, and, yes, Charles, Comptons. In the
other, Gower, Worrell,.. who else?
However, I continue to insist that SRT, etc., belong in a different
category from Weekes, Kanhai, Lara, etc. And the difference is the
crossbatted square hitter vs. the straightbatted V hitter. Which for me
is a HUGE distinction.
> And thats just not something I've ever felt about Lara. Don't ask me
> why, but even if I were to watch Lara score the fourth fastest century
> in test cricket today, I still couldn't picture him as the savage
> demolition man I've seen Tendulkar be. And this I suspect has as much
> to do with the personalities of the two individuals concerned as it
> does with anything else. Of course I don't think that the Australian
> bowlers and fielders quite felt the same way when Lara took them apart
> for that 82 ball 100, but hey, we're not talking about them here, now
> are we?
I have to admit, I considered taking them into account!
> >He, like
> >Sobers, May, Graveney, Nurse, plays primarily with a straight bat. His
> >drives tend to range between extra cover and long on, as was the case
> >with Sobers and Nurse. OTOH, Weekes' cover drive tended to go between
> >cover point and extra cover, implying a much less "classical" straight
> >bat approach.
>
> I never saw Weekes obviously but I've always had the impression that
> he was an absolutely murderous puller/hooker of the ball. A guy who
> would basically have you for breakfast if you kept pitching it short.
> Any truth in that at all?
It's not UNtrue. Weekes certainly could pull and hook. But almost
ALWAYS along the ground. He appears to have taken the Bradman advice
("Don't get out caught!") very much to heart. He hit only ONE six in
his entire Test career -- and that off a no ball! But perhaps his own
words about his approach to batting are the most revealing. In 1991,
during the Kensington Test against Aus, I asked him about that one six
story. He confirmed it, and then said, "Whatever you do in life, the
key to success is always -- control! Control!"
> >> Still, I just wouldn't say he's a natural finesse player like Lara
> >> is, either.
> >
> >I would NEVER call Lara a finesse player. The 100 he got in Antigua,
> >off 82 balls, was Lara truly unbound. His signature shots, surely, are
> >both across the line; the pull and the square drive.
>
> Well, as you say, it does boil down to the semantics then. To me, Lara
> has always been a beacon of artistry and natural elegance. Perhaps it
> is just that being a left-hander, he has an innate sense of grace to
> his batting, but I do think that even when he is on a rampage there is
> a certain style and subliminal grace about his batting that Tendulkar
> quite abandons when *he's* in a destructive mood.
And that sentence above may be, as Mike has pointed out, the key to our
disagreement -- it makes much more sense to abandon style and grace
during a "destructive mood" in ODIous cricket!
> Lara may hit across
> the line and he may well give the ball a real thump, but he's no Viv
> to me. IMO, Tendulkar comes a lot closer to that.
I can't understand this! How can you, in one breath, agree that SRT is
a V hitter, and then say that, stylistically, he is similar to Viv? The
ESSENCE of Viv' style was hitting across the line! His autobiography is
called "Hitting Across the Line"!!
>
> >>took 87 balls, 5 more than his entire ton at Antigua took. That Antigua
> >innings was, OVER ALL, much closer to the real Lara than either of his
> >two previous tons. And, IMO, the closest thing the cricket world has
> >seen to Viv since '91.
>
> Well, if you're talking solely in terms of the rate at which it was
> scored, then I doubt anyone will disagree with you. And yet, I can
> never for the life of me see Lara quite in the way as I've seen Viv
> on occasion. Sure, he has that raw genius and that high level of
> aggression in him that makes him take apart an attack to bits, but
> on the whole, he's just so much more a watchable (in terms of
> natural style) entity. And that in turn makes him all the less
> intimidating to me anyway.
>
> >Harish, this is so INTERESTING! Because I just couldn't agree less. The
> >intimidation of lara's 213 and his 100 were like nothing since Viv, IMO.
>
> Well I've seen Tendulkar go after the bowling in both forms of the
> game (far, far rarer in tests of course, because he does bat with
> the burden of the whole country on his shoulders and that affects
> his natural aggression to no uncertain extent)
I agree. And Lara did much the same thing at Sabina and Kensington.
Then he reverted to form at St. John.
> and at the risk of
> making a highly odious and absurd comparison, I have to say that
> I've never seen Lara play an innings anywhere near as intimidating
> as the 91 Tendulkar racked up in the last World Cup against Aus:
> for sheer brutality and execution, that really was something to
> behold. Risky, with plenty of cross-batted shots (pulls, mainly),
> but incredibly destructive.
Mike's already commented on this, so I won't, other than to say that I
think we have, among us, made more salient another characteristic that
differentiates the two forms. The more I think about it, it's really
not apples and oranges, it's apples and orangutans.
> >BTW, not that it would prove anything, but I wonder what their
> >respective strike rates are in both Tests and ODIs?
>
> I looked through one or two places and nothing seemed to come up
> all that easily, so I am just going to hazard a guess instead:
>
> Tests: Lara -- 60-65, Tendulkar ~50
> ODIS: Lara -- 80-85, Tendulkar (as opener) 90-95.
>
> Or at least, reasonably close, I'd think.
And, if such, surely we have identified the source of our disagreement?
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:14:56 -0400 Uday Rajan <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >--On Wednesday, April 07, 1999, 8:58 PM +0000 cricke...@my-dejanews.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > He came close with his 155* against Australia,
> >and the 136 against Pakistan. But for a batsman of his calibre, close is
> >not quite good enough.
>
> Perhaps. And yet close can be defining. One of my first posts in this
> forum was a follow-up to the Bajan's glorious description of Bradman's
> last dismissal. I made my cliched comments about the four that could
> have been and Bharat Rao followed-up; I even saved it. To me SRT's 136
> is memorable for the same reason:
>
> <<
> Personally, I am glad he didn't make those 4 extra runs along the way.
> The average of -- oh-so-nearly-but-not-quite-100 -- just 4 runs short,
> why even the worst bat around can make 4 -- just adds to the Bradman
> legend. In fact, thats probably the single biggest reason Bradman
> went from revered-but-hated demi-god, to a loved-and-respected father
> figure. An average of 100 would have been just too good;
> awe-inspiring respect yes, but affection no -- one doesn't love Shiva.
>
> For his sake, and because I believe it so quintessentially cricket --
> the greatest bat to walk this earth, ever, out for a duck in his last
> innings -- why, you couldn't sell that script to Hollywood. I am
> fervently glad he didn't make those 4 extra runs...
>
> Bharat
Which brings me to a rumination I engaged in last weekend: Why do
Japanese waste their time on baseball, when cricket would fit their
culture so much more seamlessly?
> Allowed a baseball analogy, even if Tendulkar does not take India to any
> pinnacles, I'll admire him the way I admire Tony Gwynn of the San Diego
> Padres.
>
> Cheers,
> Ramaswamy
(Thank God he didn't say Clemente!)
Uday Rajan
--On Tuesday, April 13, 1999, 12:41 AM +0100 Mike Holmans
<pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Harish Chandramouli <ch...@cs.utexas.edu> felt like saying:
>>
>> Well I've seen Tendulkar go after the bowling in both forms of the
>> game (far, far rarer in tests of course, because he does bat with
>> the burden of the whole country on his shoulders and that affects
>> his natural aggression to no uncertain extent)
>
> Now we have the key to why Steve and I have taken one line and everyone
> else has taken another.
Hmm...I remain bemused that anyone who has seen Tendulkar play an innings
of any length in any form of the game would think of bracketing him with
Gower. Much as I like Tendulkar, that thought is almost blasphemous. Harish
is commenting very specifically (this bit about burdens of whole countries,
etc.) on one innings played by Tendulkar against Pakistan recently, 136 off
271 or so balls (a S/R of about 50). Even there, after curbing all his
strokes for a good 4 hours or so, he finally let loose. His attacking
strokes have "power" written all over them in a way that a player like
Gower would never need to resort to.
>>> BTW, not that it would prove anything, but I wonder what their
>>> respective strike rates are in both Tests and ODIs?
>>
>> I looked through one or two places and nothing seemed to come up
>> all that easily, so I am just going to hazard a guess instead:
>>
>> Tests: Lara -- 60-65, Tendulkar ~50
>> ODIS: Lara -- 80-85, Tendulkar (as opener) 90-95.
And a very hazardous guess it is, indeed. CI actually shows series strike
rates with their series averages. A quick calculation shows that
Tendulkar's last 1071 runs in Tests (starting with the series against Aus
in India last year, which was India's first series in a while) have come at
a S/R of 66.6. Not sure about Lara.
> Steve and I are on record over and over again as taking no notice
> whatever of ODIous cricket.
>
> If those estimates are right, then it explains everything. Lara is a
> more destructive Test batsman, and SRT is relatively subdued, so Steve
> and I think of the two in those modes and come to our conclusions. The
> rest of you watch these pesky ODIs, see the two play in their ODIous
> modes and you come to opposite conclusions.
Speak for yourself. The last time I saw Tendulkar batting live in an ODI
was in the WC in '96, and saw a very subdued 30-odd runs. I do confess to
sinning occasionally; I have seen a video of his 142 at Sharjah in an ODI.
But I've also seen him bat recently in Tests, against NZ. He may not come
out swinging from the word go, but his style remains essentially that of a
hitter.
And perhaps Steve is right, but I did see a fair bit of Lara batting
against RSA, and chunks of his 213 and 153* against Aus. What I've seen of
him, Lara is an elegant player, more elegance than power.
> It's interesting to find that we are supposed to be rating SRT alongside
> Hick, Bevan, Jayasuriya, and Gilchrist, since that would seem to be the
> corollary of placing such importance on Sachin's ODIous performances.
Other than Harish and you, I don't think anyone else in this debate is
worrying too much about ODI performances and batting styles. The first I
saw of Tendulkar was highlights of his 112 at Perth against Aus in 1991-92.
I was immediately struck by the power of his strokeplay; on a quickish
pitch, while the rest of the Indian batting did its usual folding act, he
stood up and hit the bowling. The dabs he seems to have displayed of late
have actually come into his batting in ODIs more than anything else; with
spread out fields, he's adjusted to placing the ball sometimes rather than
trying to smash it.
Steve has commented elsewhere on playing in the V as opposed to square of
the wicket. I'm not sure that's a guide to elegance at all. My abiding
memory of Zaheer Abbas, as elegant a player as they come, is of his square
and cover driving, off either foot. Viswanath, another elegant bat, was
known for his square cuts and flicks to mid-wicket. Greg Chappell too was
an elegant player, but in a much more classical style. Tendulkar does have
a reasonably correct technique, but that doesn't make him a graceful
strokeplayer.
Mike Holmans
>>
>> And thats just not something I've ever felt about Lara. Don't ask me
>> why, but even if I were to watch Lara score the fourth fastest century
>> in test cricket today, I still couldn't picture him as the savage
>> demolition man I've seen Tendulkar be. And this I suspect has as much
>> to do with the personalities of the two individuals concerned as it
>> does with anything else. Of course I don't think that the Australian
>> bowlers and fielders quite felt the same way when Lara took them apart
>> for that 82 ball 100, but hey, we're not talking about them here, now
>> are we?
>
>I have to admit, I considered taking them into account!
I had a chat with Justin Langer a couple of hours ago. Apparently, the
really frightening thing about Lara is how hard he hits the ball. I
realise that Langer, being only a Test cricketer, hasn't got the insight
into these matters which experts like Harish and Roshan have, but I
thought you might like his view just for interest's sake.
Cheers
Mike
Charles Levy
Harish Chandramouli (ch...@cs.utexas.edu) writes:
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>But, Harish, correct me if I am wrong, but my belief is that Tendulkar's
>>power shots tend to be far more in the V than Lara, or Viv, or even
>>Weekes. This is NOT to say that Tendu never hooks, or pulls, or cuts,
>>or square drives, just that those are NOT his signature shots.
>Whilst Sachin may well
>possess a certain natural artistry to his batting, when he's in full
>flow, make no mistake about it: he is a brutal, brutal strokeplayer,
>and one who hits the ball so hard that you can't help but be somewhat
>overawed by his sheer presence at the wicket.
>And thats just not something I've ever felt about Lara. Don't ask me
>why, but even if I were to watch Lara score the fourth fastest century
>in test cricket today, I still couldn't picture him as the savage
>demolition man I've seen Tendulkar be.
You would if you could have seen him savaging the Indian bowling on a
placid Sabina Park wicket in March 1997 when he raced to 78 in 83 balls in
the second innings of the 1st test, after making 83 in the first innings!
I haven't seen the tape of the Antigua century ...yet (its coming to me
though!) ... but there is enough indication in the tape I *did* see of the
1st Test against Aus to confirm his destructive power ... just ask McGill!
I do agree that SRT can be brutal, but I see him vs Lara from the
diametrically opposite angle to your view! Lara to my eye is the brutal
strokeplayer, SRT the stylish hard hitter. It may be rash to make a
judgement on Sachin when I have only seen him in person on one occasion
(though several times on tape), but I have no reservations about
categorising Lara (whom I have seen several times in person and on tape) as
savage.
>>He, like
>>Sobers, May, Graveney, Nurse, plays primarily with a straight bat. His
>>drives tend to range between extra cover and long on, as was the case
>>with Sobers and Nurse. OTOH, Weekes' cover drive tended to go between
>>cover point and extra cover, implying a much less "classical" straight
>>bat approach.
>I never saw Weekes obviously but I've always had the impression that
>he was an absolutely murderous puller/hooker of the ball. A guy who
>would basically have you for breakfast if you kept pitching it short.
>Any truth in that at all?
Certainly Weekes could hook and pull, but his forte was the cover drive
and the square cut. I can still hear Arlott describing how he went after a
Bedser off cutter with commentary that sounded like: "And that was a yard
outside the off stump ... every other batsman in the world would have left
that alone, but not Weekes! He smashes it past point to the boundary for
four!"
But I think the bottom line is all in perception. You see SRT as the
master blaster type .... others (like me) see him as an elegant though
punishing stylist ... which I gather is how you see Lara, who to me could
be a reincarnation of IVAR.
Aint cricket a grand game?
Cheers!
Charles
>Cheers,
>Harish
--
>World XI: 1. Jadeja 2. Kirsten 3. Blewett 4. Hooper 5. Azhar (c)
>6. Bevan 7. Moin (wk) 8. Akram 9. M. Ahmed 10. Donald 11. Prasad
Nice team! Why dont you use it in UC? ;-)
Stephen Devaux
>
> I had a chat with Justin Langer a couple of hours ago. Apparently, the
> really frightening thing about Lara is how hard he hits the ball. I
> realise that Langer, being only a Test cricketer, hasn't got the insight
> into these matters which experts like Harish and Roshan have, but I
> thought you might like his view just for interest's sake.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike
Do tell! More! More!
Harish Chandramouli
>However, I continue to insist that SRT, etc., belong in a different
>category from Weekes, Kanhai, Lara, etc. And the difference is the
>crossbatted square hitter vs. the straightbatted V hitter. Which for
>me is a HUGE distinction.
Clearly :) And yet I do think that you just haven't seen Tendulkar
at his aggressive best, if you haven't seen him play shots across the
line on a seemingly regular basis: because believe me, he does! Now
I threw in a silly ODI in my earlier post not so much to attempt to
draw a parallel between two forms of the game that are as disparate
as they come, but to point out that if you haven't seen Tendulkar bat
in anything but a wholly classical and straight-batted fashion, then
you haven't seem of the test 100's I think about when I think of his
style of play either: the 114 at Perth, the 111 at the Wanderers,
the 179 at Nagpur (vs the WI), the 155* vs Australia etc. Some fairly
furious stroke-play in those, with more than the odd cross-batted shot
and hammer-and-tongs slug back down the ground thrown in to boot. And
if you did see any artistry in those innings, as I said earlier, they
were more by-products of the exhilarating stroke-play, then they were
anything else.
>But perhaps his own
>words about his approach to batting are the most revealing. In 1991,
>during the Kensington Test against Aus, I asked him about that one six
>story. He confirmed it, and then said, "Whatever you do in life, the
>key to success is always -- control! Control!"
Words we all strive to live by, I am sure :)
>And that sentence above may be, as Mike has pointed out, the key to our
>disagreement -- it makes much more sense to abandon style and grace
>during a "destructive mood" in ODIous cricket!
It does, but that said, I don't think you've quite seen Tendulkar at
his rampant best (and its not so rare that it only comes about every
once in 10 or 15 innings mind you, its just that at times he does
tend to get just a little too defensive for his own good) in a test
setting either. And I think thats a pity, because as much as even I
like some of the classical shots he plays, what I'd *really* like to
see is for him to come out and try and dominate from the word go
(as he did against a weakened Australian attack recently, for eg)
and look to completely annihilate an attack and not just be content
with caressing it aorund and milking it for a couple. Whether or not
he's good enough to do it on a consistent enough basis (ala a Viv),
only time will tell.
>I can't understand this! How can you, in one breath, agree that SRT is
>a V hitter, and then say that, stylistically, he is similar to Viv? The
>ESSENCE of Viv' style was hitting across the line! His autobiography is
>called "Hitting Across the Line"!!
Look Steve, even when Lara slugs them across the line, there's a
certain elegance and panache to his strokeplay that Viv never had.
When Viv went on a rampage, doggone it, it was just brute power,
and boy you could almost *feel* it. And when I see Tendulkar go
after an attack, I am reminisced of exactly that. Sure, Tendulkar
may be a whole lot more classical in his approach *at times*, but
his game does revolve around sheer power to no uncertain extent
either: and if you haven't seen enough of him to come to that
conclusion, then it is only because he tends to eschew his natural
natural aggression at times - not because he doesn't do all the
Lara does, and some.
> Well I've seen Tendulkar go after the bowling in both forms of the
> game (far, far rarer in tests of course, because he does bat with
> the burden of the whole country on his shoulders and that affects
> his natural aggression to no uncertain extent)
>>I agree. And Lara did much the same thing at Sabina and Kensington.
>>Then he reverted to form at St. John.
The only difference is, Lara in "curbed" form, still managed to
rack up 200 off 317 deliveries! And his century in the next test
rapidly picked up in pace as well, once he got past the very
early stages. The problem with Tendulkar (that I've seen) is
that when he gets into a rut, he tends to get into a real rut:
and when he's cutting loose, he's really cutting loose.
Balancing the two consistently seems to be somewhat of an issue
for him, unfortunately.
>think we have, among us, made more salient another characteristic that
>differentiates the two forms. The more I think about it, it's really
>not apples and oranges, it's apples and orangutans.
I hope not, and I trust this post is a little clearer in terms of
what I was driving at earlier. If I were talking just ODIS, then
why bother with even SRT? Jayasuriya, there's your Viv model!
[rest snipped]
RoshanCat
>really frightening thing about Lara is how hard he hits the ball.
Of course you must take into account that Langer has never seen Sachin bat
live. Again I take this comment with a pinch of salt.
I repeat I'll take Ian Chappel, M. Holding, or G.Boycotts (not Tony Grieg,
G'skar, Shastri) opinion on this matter than any other simply because most of
them would not have seen Lara/Sachin completely rather than random samples.
I again claim among RSC'n present here Sadiq, Harish, Myself (& many resident
Indians )have seen most of everyone's game to have a fairly reasonable view of
things (of course the biased tag will always go with it)
Of course it is always easier to hit the ball harder in test cricket merely
bcoz the less risk involved, what with most of the fielders around your bat
Cheers,
Roshan
Stephen Devaux
>
> Steve had earlier written:
>
> [rest snipped]
Okay, Harish, you've seen a lot more of SRT than I have (and, I suspect,
than Mike or Ramaswamy). Under such circumstances, I can only say that
I have, thus far, not had the pleasure. But, believe me, I look forward
to it!
Harish Chandramouli
>You would if you could have seen him savaging the Indian bowling on a
>placid Sabina Park wicket in March 1997 when he raced to 78 in 83 balls in
>the second innings of the 1st test, after making 83 in the first innings!
I doubt it, Charles. I've seen plenty of aggressive Lara knocks (the
167 off 210 balls vs England a few years back, a couple of his other
efforts against the same team, the 132 at Perth vs Aus, etc) in the
past, but despite the fact that the man does *cream* the ball when he
gets going, I still find him far too stylish and watchable to club
him as a real bludgeoner and master blaster, ala Viv.
>But I think the bottom line is all in perception. You see SRT as the
>master blaster type .... others (like me) see him as an elegant though
>punishing stylist ... which I gather is how you see Lara, who to me could
>be a reincarnation of IVAR.
Nicely said, Charles. And yes, without all these diametrically
opposing views, and the discussions generated from within,
wouldn't life on this planet be just a downright bore?
Mike Holmans
>>I had a chat with Justin Langer a couple of hours ago. Apparently, the
>>really frightening thing about Lara is how hard he hits the ball.
>
>Of course you must take into account that Langer has never seen Sachin bat
>live. Again I take this comment with a pinch of salt.
>
*miles* harder than Lara, the power of whose strokeplay Langer considers
frightening?
What's next - SRT's strike rate is "nearly" two runs a ball?
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
>>
>
>
>> I had a chat with Justin Langer a couple of hours ago. Apparently, the
>> realise that Langer, being only a Test cricketer, hasn't got the insight
>> into these matters which experts like Harish and Roshan have, but I
>> thought you might like his view just for interest's sake.
>
Mostly we talked about the pictures on the wall in the Long Room.
I asked what it had been like fielding during those Lara innings, and he
said it was frightening and that the amazing thing about Lara was how
hard he hits the ball. He thinks SRT is a brilliant bat too, but we
didn't discuss how hard he hits it.
Cheers,
Mike
Stephen Devaux
Tch! I bet you also didn't ask him whether Gilly or Healy has a better
byes-per-runs rate off leggie bowlers bowling wrong 'uns, didja?
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
ch...@cs.utexas.edu (Harish Chandramouli) wrote:
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >But, Harish, correct me if I am wrong, but my belief is that Tendulkar's
> >power shots tend to be far more in the V than Lara, or Viv, or even
> >Weekes. This is NOT to say that Tendu never hooks, or pulls, or cuts,
> >or square drives, just that those are NOT his signature shots.
>
> Absolutely, Steve. If you asked me which of Tendulkar's strokes I'd
> rather watch than any other, I would probably reply without hesitation
> "why, ANY of his delectable straight drives in the V, and if you want me
> to be really picky, the on-drive played just to the right of the bowler,
> with a minimum amount of follow through". So yes, I do think that when
> one talks about Tendulkar, one is primarily talking about a player who's
> real forte is driving in the V, and who plays vertical bat shots with a
> certain amount of grace and timing. But where I started to disagree with
> Mike in his original post was when he drew a comparison between Sachin
> and Gower: and IMHO, the two are poles apart! Whilst Sachin may well
> possess a certain natural artistry to his batting, when he's in full
> flow, make no mistake about it: he is a brutal, brutal strokeplayer,
> and one who hits the ball so hard that you can't help but be somewhat
> overawed by his sheer presence at the wicket.
>
The thing with SRT is, his *prettiest* power shots are in the V. Not all the
V- shots are power shots - there are some great timing straight boundaries,
and some brutally struck straight sixes. But Iam not sure I'd say a great
majority of his power shots are in the V - it sort of depends on the bowling
:-) If people pitch up to him, you'll see a lot of power in the V. If they
dont (or on pitches that offer more bounce - especially RSA and Australia), a
great majority of his power shots are played square of the wicket on the
offside - the trash thru point (or over point) being a very common one. He
doesnt hook much (or particularly well), but he does pull often enough -
often from outside off stump. And one of his signature shots is actually to
the pitched up ball on leg-stump - a very unusual stroke in which his wrist
sort of roll overs the other and he *hits* it thru square-leg (rather than
glides it, like Azhar or Vishy used to - or even Gavaskar).
I can only agree with Harish here - I dont think you and Mike have seen
enough of him, Steve :-) I dont think people familiar with his great innings
would call him anything but a quite brutal batsman - almost no one describes
him as a touch artist based on them. He hits the ball very hard, unlike a lot
of his Indian contemporaries (most of whom are timing bats).
> And thats just not something I've ever felt about Lara. Don't ask me
> why, but even if I were to watch Lara score the fourth fastest century
> in test cricket today, I still couldn't picture him as the savage
> demolition man I've seen Tendulkar be. And this I suspect has as much
> to do with the personalities of the two individuals concerned as it
> does with anything else. Of course I don't think that the Australian
> bowlers and fielders quite felt the same way when Lara took them apart
> for that 82 ball 100, but hey, we're not talking about them here, now
> are we?
>
Ive seen quite a bit of Lara too - a few of those centuries now, including all
of these last 3 that are vivid in the memory. And, I would *still* consider
Lara a touch player - which is why I love watching him so much. The *only*
brutal innings I have seen from Lara was the Antigua 100 in the final test -
and that seemed to be partly at least because he was so mentally tired that he
didnt think he could play a very long innings. He was sedate until about 30*,
and then played maybe the most brutal innings Ive ever seen - his last 68 runs
took him 27 balls (and that doesnt come close to describing the carnage :-)
Apart from that one innings, I'd say all of Lara's tons are memorable mostly
for the brilliant timing and placement. He does *hit* the pull, but a lot of
the off-side shots (and there are plenty in every big innings) are silken -
great timing, and Lara's signature, to me, is the unbelievable placement. He
sort of glides the ball between 4 fielders on the off-side with ease, and it
races away to the boundary. I would call that more of Lara's signature
off-side shot, rather than the thrash thru the offside (the power shot) which
he plays far less often, IMHO.
> >He, like
> >Sobers, May, Graveney, Nurse, plays primarily with a straight bat. His
> >drives tend to range between extra cover and long on, as was the case
> >with Sobers and Nurse. OTOH, Weekes' cover drive tended to go between
> >cover point and extra cover, implying a much less "classical" straight
> >bat approach.
>
> I never saw Weekes obviously but I've always had the impression that
> he was an absolutely murderous puller/hooker of the ball. A guy who
> would basically have you for breakfast if you kept pitching it short.
> Any truth in that at all?
>
> >> Still, I just wouldn't say he's a natural finesse player like Lara
> >> is, either.
> >
> >I would NEVER call Lara a finesse player. The 100 he got in Antigua,
> >off 82 balls, was Lara truly unbound. His signature shots, surely, are
> >both across the line; the pull and the square drive.
>
As I said, the cover drive, to me, more than the square drive. And yes, the
pull - but I dont actually consider that a very good Lara shot, except to the
relatively slower bowlers :-) And yes, that 100 off 82 balls in Antigua was
definitely not a touch innings - but of all of Lara's tons Ive seen (and
there are quite a few now, both tests and ODIs), that was easily the most
brutal (and the most abberation-al, IMHO :-)
> Well, as you say, it does boil down to the semantics then. To me, Lara
> has always been a beacon of artistry and natural elegance. Perhaps it
> is just that being a left-hander, he has an innate sense of grace to
> his batting, but I do think that even when he is on a rampage there is
> a certain style and subliminal grace about his batting that Tendulkar
> quite abandons when *he's* in a destructive mood. Lara may hit across
> the line and he may well give the ball a real thump, but he's no Viv
> to me. IMO, Tendulkar comes a lot closer to that.
>
> >>took 87 balls, 5 more than his entire ton at Antigua took. That Antigua
> >innings was, OVER ALL, much closer to the real Lara than either of his
> >two previous tons. And, IMO, the closest thing the cricket world has
> >seen to Viv since '91.
>
> Well, if you're talking solely in terms of the rate at which it was
> scored, then I doubt anyone will disagree with you. And yet, I can
> never for the life of me see Lara quite in the way as I've seen Viv
> on occasion. Sure, he has that raw genius and that high level of
> aggression in him that makes him take apart an attack to bits, but
> on the whole, he's just so much more a watchable (in terms of
> natural style) entity. And that in turn makes him all the less
> intimidating to me anyway.
>
> >Harish, this is so INTERESTING! Because I just couldn't agree less. The
> >intimidation of lara's 213 and his 100 were like nothing since Viv, IMO.
>
Well, I suppose we just disagree :-) I dont think the 213 is remotely
comparable to the 100 off 82 at all, myself - *very* different innings. Ive
seen several Tendulkar innings more brutal than the 213, IMHO - but none
compared to the 100 at Antigua.
The 213 - his first 50 runs took him 140 balls. His next 50 came off 55 balls,
with 8 fours and a six . The third 50 came off 62 balls with 4 fours and 2
sixes. The fourth 50 came off 60 balls with 10 fours.
In Antigua, his first 50 came off 61 balls with 8 fours and a six. The second
50 came off 21 balls with 7 fours and 2 sixes. And even that doesnt tell the
whole story - he took 12 balls to score his first run, and had 15 off his
first 32 balls. He then scored 16 off his next 12, before tea intervened. He
took a couple overs to get going after tea - was 31* off 52 balls. And then
scored 68 off his next 27 balls, including 22 off an over to go from 77* at
the start of the over to 99* at the end of it. I dont think I'll ever forget
the TV cutting to the sidelines at the end of the over, showing Michael
Holding sitting at a table, sort of bongo-drumming on it while laughing so
hard it looked as if he would explode - and Viv Richards standing, leant over
on the table, grinning broadly :-) I dont think even Richards had been quite
as explosive as that, for a 27 ball period :-)
BTW, did you see Lara's 277 at Sydney at all? Lara toured Australia during
the 1992 World Cup where he got some runs - and he was touted by some of the
old cricketers as batting almost exactly like Sobers used to. When he made
that 277, that was what almost *all* the old cricketers said - that it was
just like Sobers used to bat. Having never seen Sobers, I took it to mean
brilliant placement, great timing, with the occasional power shot thrown in
:-)
Anyway. As I say, IMHO Lara is that sort of player, bar that one Antigua
innings. Which is why I love watching him - because of his touch and artistry.
Though, I must say, I wouldnt mind much if he played like Antigua all the time
- it was the most amazing half hour of cricket to watch :-)
Sadiq [ who enjoyed Antigua, what with Lara and Langer ] Yusuf
>
> Cheers,
>
> Harish
> --
> World XI: 1. Jadeja 2. Kirsten 3. Blewett 4. Hooper 5. Azhar (c)
> 6. Bevan 7. Moin (wk) 8. Akram 9. M. Ahmed 10. Donald 11. Prasad
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Soam Acharya
> He may have a great cricketing mind, but one thing Tendulkar hasn't
> learnt is how to manage his innings, especially if circumstances are not
Absolutely. Although, I think he may be trying to change it off late. In
his century against SL in the Test Championship, he did seem to be making
more of an effort to pace himself. Granted that particular track was as
flat as a chapati so I am not sure how this will apply to him when India
tours Australia later this year.
> ideal. Were he to do that, I think he can march to greater heights, get
> past the 200 barrier. At Sabina, Adams had the physio out in the middle
> to deal with his cramps, and lots of trips by the 12th man with water
> bottles. Never saw that at Chennai with SRT. Hell, Gaekwad and Azhar sat
> like potted plants in pavilion toward the end, totally oblivious to what
> was going on in the middle.
Yes, I too was wondering why did they not make more of an effort to slow
SRT down. I can postulate three possible explanations. One is that everyone
was way too caught up in the situation. Azhar is normally relaxed when he's
back in the pavillions. I've never seen him that tense. He was holding his
breath along with the rest of the country :-) The second reason could be
ODItis and how it has affected test matches - the way everyone was playing
you could've sworn it was the fifth day and time was almost up. The third
reason why SRT did not slow down was because, as he said later, his body
was in agony. He wanted to finish the game off as soon as possible. It's
only now that we realize the real seriousness of his injury. Who knows if
halting the game really would've helped his situation?
--
soam_acharya cornell edu http://www.ee.cornell.edu/~soam/
at dot
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Harish Chandramouli wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Lara may hit across
> > the line and he may well give the ball a real thump, but he's no Viv
> > to me. IMO, Tendulkar comes a lot closer to that.
>
> I can't understand this! How can you, in one breath, agree that SRT is
> a V hitter, and then say that, stylistically, he is similar to Viv? The
> ESSENCE of Viv' style was hitting across the line! His autobiography is
> called "Hitting Across the Line"!!
>
It might be pointed out that picking up a ball from just outside off stump and
depositing it to (or over) the midwicket boundary (a pet Tendulkar stroke, and
one which often comes in for *severe* criticism from purists when it gets him
out) *is* hitting across the line :-) And this is actually quite like a Viv
shot, though not played precisely the same way stylistically - Viv used to
actually walk across his stumps to the off, and sort of flick it to the
midwicket boundary. Tendulkar seems to just pick it up from thereabouts, and
deposit it *slightly* straighter than Viv did (ie more wide long-on to
midwicket, maybe, than midwicket to wide midwicket).
>
> > >BTW, not that it would prove anything, but I wonder what their
> > >respective strike rates are in both Tests and ODIs?
> >
> > I looked through one or two places and nothing seemed to come up
> > all that easily, so I am just going to hazard a guess instead:
> >
> > Tests: Lara -- 60-65, Tendulkar ~50
> > ODIS: Lara -- 80-85, Tendulkar (as opener) 90-95.
> >
> > Or at least, reasonably close, I'd think.
>
> And, if such, surely we have identified the source of our disagreement?
>
Naah, cos Harish is probably wrong (so whats new about that? ;-)
Its a major pain to find these things, so I just did a short little bit -
terrible sample size, and doesnt mean a whole lot. Anyway.
In ODIs, Howzstat lists Strikerates for some innings - they dont have them
all, but they list a majority of innings for both Tendulkar and Lara. They
have:
Tendulkar ODI strike rate : 88
Lara ODI strike rate: 80
Which seems about right - Tendulkar is actually over 88 as opener for sure,
and probably overall, but the margin seems about right to me.
But, for tests, we have no real figures. So I went back and checked the past
few series to get some sort of idea. I know this isnt a fair comparison as
Lara was probably in poor form (which might me made up a bit by the sublime
form of the past series), but still. What I got was the following, for their
past few test innings:
Lara's last 1402 test runs : Strike rate => 57.5
Tendulkar's last 1227 test runs: Strike rate => 63.3
While this includes the poor form of Lara, it must be pointed out that it isnt
just all of Tendulkar's best form either - it includes his mostly unfit
Pakistan series, his Zimbabwe struggle, and the last period of his captaincy
when his form was the worst of his life (early part of the Sri Lanka in India
series in 1997). At the very least, it shows there isnt a major gap in
strikerate between the 2 batsmen, IMHO.
Also, BTW, if you look at the test series vs Australia by both batsmen - you
have :
Lara : Tests : 4 ; Runs: 546; Average 91.00 ; StrikeRate 65.00
SRT: Tests: 3 ; Runs: 446; Average 111.50 ; StrikeRate 80.65
Once again, I believe it shows that the 50 to 65 strikerate comparsion is
probably not totally accurate. At the very least, theyre much more even than
that - at least over the past few years.
Sadiq [ attempting to look up numbers ] Yusuf
> Fraternally in cricket,
>
> Steve the Bajan
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
Mike Holmans <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> felt like saying:
> >Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >> I had a chat with Justin Langer a couple of hours ago. Apparently, the
> >> really frightening thing about Lara is how hard he hits the ball. I
> >> realise that Langer, being only a Test cricketer, hasn't got the insight
> >> into these matters which experts like Harish and Roshan have, but I
> >> thought you might like his view just for interest's sake.
> >
> >Do tell! More! More!
>
> Mostly we talked about the pictures on the wall in the Long Room.
>
> I asked what it had been like fielding during those Lara innings, and he
> said it was frightening and that the amazing thing about Lara was how
> hard he hits the ball. He thinks SRT is a brilliant bat too, but we
> didn't discuss how hard he hits it.
>
Iam glad :-) Ive been a Justin fan for a long time, and I'd hate to think he
was wrong about something as basic as that :-)
Because, one wonders, when was the last time Justin saw Tendulkar bat,
anyway? In 1991, when India toured Australia, on the telly? Because, the
stupid Aussie selectors havent picked him to tour India on either of their 2
tours (1 off test and 3 test series) in the past 3 years - they went with
Blewett at #3 instead (for which all Indian fans thank them :-) And Justin,
of course, is not on the ODI team, and so doesnt get to see Tendulkar in any
of those tournaments. He didnt see him in the 1996 World Cup either - he
wasnt on the squad. He *was* on the squad for one game vs India, way back in
about 1994, at Sharjah - but Tendulkar was out early in that game, for about
2 (leaving it to schoolchum Kambli to hit 22 off a Warne over instead :-)
My own guess would be that Justin's impressions of SRT are almost entirely
from TV and what his teammates have told him second-hand. Mostly from the
latter, since we're all aware that they dont actually show much cricket from
the subcontinent on the telly down there in Australia :-)
Sadiq [ who still wishes Justin had toured India last year ] Yusuf
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Ramaswamy wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:14:56 -0400 Uday Rajan <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >--On Wednesday, April 07, 1999, 8:58 PM +0000 cricke...@my-dejanews.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
>
> > >and the 136 against Pakistan. But for a batsman of his calibre, close is
> > >not quite good enough.
> >
> > Perhaps. And yet close can be defining. One of my first posts in this
Not that I still quite understand how that was merely "close", of course :-)
India were effectively 44/2 on the morning of the 4th day (half an hour into
the morning of the 4th day, actually - 15 runs for 1 wicket up until that
point on the 4th morning), on a pitch taking spin. SRT came in half an hour
into the day, and made 155* off 191 balls enabling India to declare having
scored another 303 runs in the next 64 overs. Australia came in and lost 3
wickets by the days end, and the game was effectively over.
BTW, in Bangalore in the 3rd test, India were effectively 135/3 15 minutes
into the morning of the 4th test - a not dissimilar position. This time
Tendulkar failed - out for 31 to Kaspro. Australia won by 8 wickets with a
day to spare.
>
> > Allowed a baseball analogy, even if Tendulkar does not take India to any
> > pinnacles, I'll admire him the way I admire Tony Gwynn of the San Diego
> > Padres.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ramaswamy
>
> (Thank God he didn't say Clemente!)
>
Well, to a Bostonian, he should have said Ted, really :-)
Sadiq [ not to mention Ernie Banks ] Yusuf
> Fraternally in cricket,
>
> Steve the Bajan
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rohan Chandran
>
>Which brings me to a rumination I engaged in last weekend: Why do
>Japanese waste their time on baseball, when cricket would fit their
>culture so much more seamlessly?
Cricket is slowly making itself felt in Japan actually. Unfortunately,
it's more other people's cricket that Japan feels the brunt of in
Asian competition, but there's one thing to note - Japan play with 11
native Japanese players in their side - none of the other Asian
minnows can claim anything remotely similar. We've always had a strong
side in Hong Kong, but there's been all of two locals in history to
have represented us. Unless you count the likes of me as local, but I
wouldn't. Of course, Sadiq has different opinions on that...
Rohan.
Harish Chandramouli
<cricke...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Its a major pain to find these things, so I just did a short little bit -
>terrible sample size, and doesnt mean a whole lot. Anyway.
And you're damn right it doesn't. For two primary reasons (1) SRT
has made most of his recent runs at home and/or against terribly
weakened/mediocre attacks (2) Lara has not only been in a real
form slump, but in addition he's recently had the weight of
captaincy thrust upon his shoulders.
Now I don't necessarily claim that my test numbers are *spot on*,
but if you consider them over their careers, I don't think there's
any real doubt at all that Lara's test s/r is a whole lot better
than Tendulkar's. And my personal estimate is, Lara gets his runs
on average at about 10-20% under a run a minute (which in turn
translates to about 60 runs per 100 balls, or thereabouts), and
Tendulkar slightly less.
Not that its a cause for any real debate, either way, but still
there's no way on earth I am willing to buy that Tendulkar has
gotten his runs quicker in tests (over a full career) than Lara
has, either.
Ramaswamy
>In article <37134E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Ramaswamy wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 21:14:56 -0400 Uday Rajan <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > He came close with his 155* against Australia,
>> > >and the 136 against Pakistan. But for a batsman of his calibre, close is
>> > >not quite good enough.
>> >
>> > Perhaps. And yet close can be defining. One of my first posts in this
>
>
>Not that I still quite understand how that was merely "close", of course :-)
>India were effectively 44/2 on the morning of the 4th day (half an hour into
>the morning of the 4th day, actually - 15 runs for 1 wicket up until that
>point on the 4th morning), on a pitch taking spin. SRT came in half an hour
>into the day, and made 155* off 191 balls enabling India to declare having
>scored another 303 runs in the next 64 overs. Australia came in and lost 3
>wickets by the days end, and the game was effectively over.
Actually I was implying the 136 as having come close, the 155 having
worked for all practical purposes doesn't hit my argument :-)
>> > Allowed a baseball analogy, even if Tendulkar does not take India to any
>> > pinnacles, I'll admire him the way I admire Tony Gwynn of the San Diego
>> > Padres.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ramaswamy
>>
>> (Thank God he didn't say Clemente!)
>
>Well, to a Bostonian, he should have said Ted, really :-)
Geez! The next thing I know you'll be calling me a Boston Brahmin. I am
not bloody Bostonian, I am a New Hampshirite, matey! Live Free or Die
and such nonsense.
I used to be a Pittsburgher ages ago, hence the Clemente reference.
>Sadiq [ not to mention Ernie Banks ] Yusuf
Ah yes, Mr. Cubs. Like my favourite Jamaican - Herb McKinley. Don't ask
why that name popped up, evidently I'm in a Jamaican frame of mind
today.
Cheers,
Ramaswamy
Ramaswamy
wrote:
>Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> said
>>The contents of this thread have been so contradictory, among people I
>>consider knowledgeable, and who have made no attempt to be dismissve of
>>each other, that I find it completely confounding! Clearly, Roshan,
>>Harish, Mike, Sadiq, Charles, et. al. honestly disagree with one
>>another's views. Why?
You mean it wasn't another troll then? I could have sworn it was!
>The problem, my dear curried crow-eating old thing, appears to lie in
>your definition of knowledgeable :-)
>
>I'm always on the verge of contributing to this thread (but not with
>the benefit of any knowledge of significance, of course),
There is always one of those in every crowd... a Cardinal.
> but it's far
>too complicated. Every post has something which I agree with, and
>something which I vehemently disagree with, and that's just too much
>typing for my own good.
>
>What that means of course, is that all of the above agree with me.
>
>There's something trying to come out here, isn't there....
No there isn't. All these gyrations remind me of Ptolemy's epicycles,
epicycles within epicycles, all to make the Earth center of all
Universe. Or was it to fit bloody elliptical trajectories into circular
patterns? No wonder there are so many circular arguments here :-)
I feel like putting on John Cleese's papal robes in the "Last Supper"
sketch and yell: "I may not know much about stylish batting or blaster
batting, but I know what I like in Lara and Tendulkar!"
(Sorry, couldn't bring myself to hit the Caps Lock key)
>Rohan [ sitting on the fence and taking the catch ]
But not appealing, I hope. The *would* be disturbing.
Cheers,
Ramaswamy
Alvey_S...@yahoo.com
The opposite of Jimmy Adams.
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
Fear not, Ramaswamy. Rohan is singularly unappealing.
Sadiq [ who knows of what he speaks ] Yusuf
> Cheers,
> Ramaswamy
Stephen Devaux
>
> In article <37134E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Ramaswamy wrote:
> > > Allowed a baseball analogy, even if Tendulkar does not take India to any
> > > pinnacles, I'll admire him the way I admire Tony Gwynn of the San Diego
> > > Padres.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Ramaswamy
> >
> > (Thank God he didn't say Clemente!)
> >
>
> Well, to a Bostonian, he should have said Ted, really :-)
>
> Sadiq [ not to mention Ernie Banks ] Yusuf
Well, at least Ernie was a legitimately great offensive player (unlike
Clemente). But that's for another newsgroup.
Stephen Devaux
Sadiq, very interesting comments and analysis. Except I hope he DOESN'T
play like at Antigua! We WON the other two where he got tons!
cricke...@my-dejanews.com
ch...@cs.utexas.edu (Harish Chandramouli) wrote:
> In article <7f0bc4$ma1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <cricke...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >Its a major pain to find these things, so I just did a short little bit -
> >terrible sample size, and doesnt mean a whole lot. Anyway.
>
> And you're damn right it doesn't. For two primary reasons (1) SRT
> has made most of his recent runs at home and/or against terribly
> weakened/mediocre attacks (2) Lara has not only been in a real
> form slump, but in addition he's recently had the weight of
> captaincy thrust upon his shoulders.
>
Tendular, of course, had both about a year and a half ago :-)
> Now I don't necessarily claim that my test numbers are *spot on*,
> but if you consider them over their careers, I don't think there's
> any real doubt at all that Lara's test s/r is a whole lot better
> than Tendulkar's. And my personal estimate is, Lara gets his runs
> on average at about 10-20% under a run a minute (which in turn
> translates to about 60 runs per 100 balls, or thereabouts), and
> Tendulkar slightly less.
>
> Not that its a cause for any real debate, either way, but still
> there's no way on earth I am willing to buy that Tendulkar has
> gotten his runs quicker in tests (over a full career) than Lara
> has, either.
>
Well, nobody has numbers to back this up one way or the other. I personally
think youre numbers are quite a bit off - I'd be shocked if Tendulkar's test
S/R was as much as 15 runs less over a 100 balls than Lara. I think they both
score at a pretty similar pace, actually, especially in the past few years.
Over an entire career, that may not be true - Tendulkar was not a very fast
scorer when he came into test cricket at age 16, for example. He wasnt even a
good ODI player - his strikerate would not compare to Lara's at all in ODIs
then. He started opening in ODIs only in about 1994 - and thats when he
became a good ODI player. He now has an ODI strikerate of about 88 (according
to the partial figures in Howzstat), and that I believe is almost entirely
after 1994.
When Tendulkar started opening and became more explosive in ODIs, he also
started scoring faster in tests, IMHO. That was a while ago - 5 years now
(starting from the time Tendulkar was about 20). And in that time his scoring
rate in tests is, I believe, at least comparable to Lara's.
I went back further and came up with more numbers, to try and bolster my
claim. This is what I have - and I can do no better, since there are no
strikerates listed before this :-) For Tendulkar it includes all his bad form
times and captaincy pressures - it goes back to before his captaincy, the
same as Lara. Its the last 51 completed test innings for Lara and the last 46
completed test innings for Tendulkar (not out innings have been included in
the totals too, of course - just that I didnt count those, for purposes of
doing a batting average :-) So, this is what I have:
Tendulkar 46 innings, 2566 runs, 4611 balls. Avg: 55.78; S/R: 55.7
Lara 51 innings, 2209 runs, 3869 balls. Avg: 43.31; S/R: 57
Either way, I dont think there is that much in it - at least nowhere near as
much as you think (ie the 15 run differential). And this includes all the
rough periods for Sachin as well, all the abroad games - the terrible home
series vs South Africa (where his strikerate was 32, the worst of his
career), the bad form home series vs SL (strikerate of 42 or so), the tours
of South Africa and West Indies, the tour of England (where he played maybe
the longest slow innings of his life - 177 off 360 balls in the 3rd test).
Anyway. I dont suppose the argument can be settled one way or the other until
the total real numbers are found :-) However, at least one can say from the
above numbers that, over the past 4 or 5 years, their strikerates in tests
have been quite similar?
Sadiq [ who thinks a 15 run differential probably
holds true for Tendulkar and Dravid :-) ] Yusuf
> Harish
> --
> World XI: 1. Jadeja 2. Kirsten 3. Blewett 4. Hooper 5. Azhar (c)
> 6. Bevan 7. Moin (wk) 8. Akram 9. M. Ahmed 10. Donald 11. Prasad
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Rohan Chandran
>In article <371bec39...@news.ultranet.com>,
> ra...@ultranet.com wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 1999 00:32:57 GMT ro...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rohan Chandran)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Rohan [ sitting on the fence and taking the catch ]
>>
>> But not appealing, I hope. The *would* be disturbing.
>
>Fear not, Ramaswamy. Rohan is singularly unappealing.
>
>Sadiq [ who knows of what he speaks ] Yusuf
Indeed, the question most certainly is, who knows of what he speaks ?
For that matter, who speaks of what he knows ? And then there are
those who know not, and yet speak of what they know, without knowing
of what they speak.
He be he, for them be wondering.
All that be buggered though, cos we're off to Wembley :-)
Rohan.
Harish Chandramouli
<cricke...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Well, nobody has numbers to back this up one way or the other. I personally
>think youre numbers are quite a bit off - I'd be shocked if Tendulkar's test
>S/R was as much as 15 runs less over a 100 balls than Lara.
Well, 10 :-), if Lara's is around 60. And to be even more pedantic
about it all, I did say *~*50 for Tendulkar, ya know. I suspect you're
right and it may be a little higher than that. Say a compromise, SRT
at about 52-53, and Lara around 60? Thats not quite 15 anymore, now
is it? :-)
>When Tendulkar started opening and became more explosive in ODIs, he also
>started scoring faster in tests, IMHO. That was a while ago - 5 years now
>(starting from the time Tendulkar was about 20). And in that time his scoring
>rate in tests is, I believe, at least comparable to Lara's.
True, Sadiq. But bear in mind that most of Tendulkar's *quick* big
scores have come at the rate of about a run a minute, whereas when
Lara gets going, he usually gets his runs *at least* that quickly.
How many times has Sachin gotten tons at nearly a run a ball huh?
And its not just that either, I've seen Tendulkar get some rather
painfully slow largish/moderately-largish scores, and thats not
something you can really accuse Lara of having done. So based on
what I've seen and what my overall perception is, I would have to
say that Lara has the *comfortably* better s/r of the two ie the
overall stats (imho) aren't as close as the recent numbers portray
them to be.
>Anyway. I dont suppose the argument can be settled one way or the other until
>the total real numbers are found :-) However, at least one can say from the
>above numbers that, over the past 4 or 5 years, their strikerates in tests
>have been quite similar?
Accepted. But I never really doubted _that_, myself. Still, a
point well made, as always.
Ramaswamy
wrote:
>cricke...@my-dejanews.com said
>>In article <371bec39...@news.ultranet.com>,
>> ra...@ultranet.com wrote:
>>> On 13 Apr 1999 00:32:57 GMT ro...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rohan Chandran)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Rohan [ sitting on the fence and taking the catch ]
>>>
>>> But not appealing, I hope. The *would* be disturbing.
>>
>>Fear not, Ramaswamy. Rohan is singularly unappealing.
>>
>>Sadiq [ who knows of what he speaks ] Yusuf
>
>Indeed, the question most certainly is, who knows of what he speaks ?
>
>For that matter, who speaks of what he knows ? And then there are
>those who know not, and yet speak of what they know, without knowing
>of what they speak.
>
>He be he, for them be wondering.
Apropos nothing, and with apologies to Di, Linda, Mac and Sheila:
A man who knows and knows that he knows is a sage,
A man who knows and knows not that he knows is a simpleton,
A man who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student,
A man who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.
(Simply doesn't work with 'person' or he/she for me).
Then there's the ditty about transparent and virtual, for not for this
group still recovering from the Lily craze :-)
Cheers,
Ramaswamy
Meghashyam S Tamvada
who is the opener ???