Gavaskar vs. Amarnath. Hype vs. True Class
null pointer logout
Article: 55769 of rec.sport.cricket
Path: mozo.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!decwrl!news.doit.wisc.edu!balakris
From: bala...@cae.wisc.edu (Balakrishnan G Nair)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Best ODI innings by Indian Batsmen ( MY TOP 10)
Date: 3 Apr 1994 03:44:23 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Lines: 44
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <2nle2n$d...@news.doit.wisc.edu>
References: <2nfjb9$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <1994Mar31...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> <CnM14...@news.cis.umn.edu> <CnMz3...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hprisc-26.cae.wisc.edu
In article <CnMz3...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, kh...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (sanjay.a.khan) writes:
|> Agree 100%. When one talks about technique, one should remember that
|> a batsman has to have a great deal of courage to demonstrate his
|> technique in the face of genuinely hostile bowling. Jimmy was about
|> the only Indian batsman who had the guts to play forward to Garner
|> when the occasion demanded, stand on his toes and defend off the back
|> foot when he pitched short of a length and hook the ball when it was
|> short. NOBODY else in the world, with the possible exception of
|> Gooch, came close to matching this ability. So much for Sunil Gavaskar's
|> head and his "technique". I'll take Jimmy's heart and guts any day.
>Oh oh
>Here we go again!
>Gavaskar's technique was immaculate even against the most hostile attacks in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is shooting off the hip. Gavaskar's technique was immaculate against the
Norbert Phillip, Clarke (before he became big in county cricket), a much
injured and shadow of his former self Thommo, Wayne Clarke who never played
a test again, club class bowlers like Sam Gannon, Ian Callen (does anyone
even remember them?), etc.
True he has had some great series like '79 England tour, '82 Pakistan tour.
But too often his runs were made against lousy bowlers on dead wickets in
dull drawn matches when nothing is left at stake. Just pick out the number
of useful hundreds from among his 34 and see how many of them were made against
Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall,Holding and Co (on WI pitches).
The last mentioned is not for discounting Gavaskar's performances in the
post WC '83-84 home series. But in that series he came a cropper when the
match was poised against India. Witness his innings at Kanpur and Calcutta.
People say his 236 n.o at Madras saved the match for Indiajust because he
scored it when India was tottering at 0 for 2. I say MY FOOT. Even Kirmani
and Shastri scored in that innings. If people say that that was because
Gavaskar inspired them I say MY FOOT. Why did no other Indian play any innings
of worth when Amarnath was playing like a God in WI?
In the 83-84 series Gavaskar was not the only Indian to perform well.
Vensarkar did equally well if not better. Scoring against WI on dead
Indian pitches are one thing and doing so against them in WI is something
only the truely classy can do. Only a handful of batsman have done so in
modern cricket (Boycott, Gooch, Border and Miandad) apart from Amarnath
who did it better than any of the ones listed. Infact in that series except for
Amarnath no of the other spineless, paper tiger Indians stood up to the
hostile WI attack. A fact which earned Amarnath the accolade of the best
player of pace in the world from Lloyd, Marshall and Imran. Read Marshall's
book (Marshall Arts) and find out how he derides Gavaskar and admires
Amarnath.
Amarnath's performances in the zip-code like series of innings are touted
against him often but I think Gavaskar's performances in the abovementioned
series in WI were no better. He was lucky to have many lives in his charmed
existence in the middle (5 lives in a shoddy 32 at Georgetown). His 147 n.o
was so typical of a major portion of his career. Scored in a rain marred
match when even the first innings was not completed. Something he always
does to salvage his averages.
In short, Amarnath's performance against WI pace bowlers (the best at that
time in history) was simply the greatest ever by an Indian batsman scored
against the toughest of conditions ever existing in test cricket. None of
the other spineless teammates stood up to them like he did.
If you want to see how truly classy Gavaskar is see the WC '83 Final again
and find out how Garner was harassing Gavaskar. In a 10 ball innings
yielding 2 runs off uneasy edgy shot off Roberts Gavaskar was unable
to connect with anyone of Garner's missiles taking repeated raps on the pads
thigh pads etc. It was the most pathetic of displays I have ever seen. Also
in the same innings Amarnath and Srikkanth the attack with ease espacially
the latter till he got out to an absolutely stunning Holding delivery.
A lesson in technique against the best in the world which Gavaskar was
never able to equal.
In short it is easy to be brave in the face of calmness but only those
who stand up and get counted in the face of extreme adversity are the
true heroes
.
>the world and Amarnath was defenitely not in the same class. In the pakistan
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Against weaker attacks Gavaskar was the best in the world. Against the best
Amarnath, Vishwanath are much better.
>tour, Gavaskar was no failure by absolute standards(1 hundred where he carried
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed. But Amarnath was as good if not better.
>his bat through the innings and 4 fifties) and if he was disappointing it was
>only by HIS OWN standards and there is a significant difference between the
>two. He also did get a hundred in the WI tour. Agreed, Amarnath got more runs
>on both tours, but that doesn't mean he was the more technically correct
>player. It all boils down to a question of class and Amarnath was defenitely
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>not in the same class as Gavaskar. When the Windies came back to India, for the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Absolutely untrue if you ask me. That might be your opinion. I don't revere
Gavaskar just because he is Indian and so I should. The intrinsic value of
his performances are just far less than what his bionic statistics indicate.
Amarnath to me was God because he gave the word 'courage' a new definition.
>'revenge series' after the world cup, It was Sunil who stood up to Marshall and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is absolute baloney. Where was gavaskar when India neede him at Kanpur.
The way he got in the second was morale shattering. It was the likes Vengsarkar
Madan Lal, Binny who kept the Indian flag flying. Where was he when he when
he was badly needed at Calcutta. The way he got out and played in the second
innings when Indian was fighting against an innings defeat should have led his
dropping in the next test on disciplinary grounds if what he did to kapil
was justified. In Ahmedabad I accept he played one of the alltime great Indian
knocks in the first innings but went promptly back to the pavilion when he
was needed in the second. The innings he played at Madras brought out all
his selfishness in its true glory. When nothing is there to fight for make
the last impression and corner all the glory. That is what he has done most
of his cricketing life. Kapil was right in asking why he did not play such
an innings at Kanpur, Calcutta etc.
>co while Amarnath was busy scoring in binary. Not every batsman has to be a
>great hooker to be a great player of fast bowling. Gavaskar was short and so
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>hook shots were more risky as the chances of getting a top edge were higher. On
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a highly misunderstood issue. When a bowler bowls a bouncer he aims
for the batsman's body neck upwards. If Gavaskar is shorter the bowler would
bowl it appropriately short so that it will bounce enough to Gavskar's head.
If WI bowlers tried to dismantle Gavaskar's technique and tried to aim at
his head or body then he should have hooked and if had done it well they
would have stopped bowling short at him. He didn't and Amarnath did and
the rest is plain for all to see. In short, by hooking you will be a better
player of fast bowling. Witness someone like Azhar. Great against anyone
except WI. No bowler (esp Wi ones) is stupid enough to bowl bouncers at
Gavaskar which would fly 20 feet above his head. Just because he was short
does not disadvantage him in anyway in playing the hook. In fact, short of a good legth balls become bouncers to gavaskar and he has greater opportunities to hook.
>the other hand Gavaskar is the only player I've seen who NEVER took his eyes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>off the ball, whether it was short or of good length. That is the single most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any good test player does that. There have been players who have been great
against genuine fast bowling like Richards, Boycott, Gooch Miandad etc. Do you
think they all did that without keeping their eyes on the ball. Boycott, Miandad
are famed for their concentration levels just as much as Gavaskar was.
>successful way of tackling genuine pace. For a guy who played various pace
>attacks for about 17 years, Gavaskar hardly ever got hit on the body because he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He did. Witness the short WC 83 final innings. He got rapped his thighs and
waist 5 times in 10 balls. Also he took a hit on the jaw against Willis in
Madras in 1981. I saw that.
Amarnath as far as I know got hit only 2 or 3 times. One against Sam Gannon
in Australia and once against Marshall in WI. But he came back to play an
astounding innings.
>was just too good in dealing with the short balls. The moral of the story:'Heart
>and guts' can get you one successful series, maybe two, but genuine class goes
>a lot further than that'. And extrapolating your own logic a guy like Wayne
>Phillips should be a better batsmen than Kim Hughes as he scored a big flashy
>hundred in the West Indies when Hughes failed. Or Allan Lamb should be a better
>batsman than Gower, Boycott, Gooch etc. or Sandeep Patil should be a better
>batsman than Gavaskar or Vishwanath. And that guy who defined the word 'guts',
>Amshuman Gaekwad should be better than most Indian batsmen, Wasim Raja should
>be better than Javed Miandad or Zaheer Abbas. I dont think so.
In short, I would vouch for Amarnath anyday. Amarnath was the Javed Miandad
of India and Gavaskar was the Zaheer. Zaheer scored and scored against India
but came a cropper against everyone else who was little more classy.
The above mentioned reasons are why I rate Gavaskar as the most overrated
cricketer in history. I feel that Kapil, Amarnath, and Vishwanath are the
true warriors who came good at difficult times for India.
The same are the reasons why i feel that Kapil, Imran are superior to
Botham as allrounders. They have shown their class against all kinds of
opposition under all kinds of conditions.
Amarnath was unfairly treated throughout his carrer. If he had played like
Gavaskar did in the 82 series in WI he would have been dropped. If he had
played like Gavaskar did in 81 against Lillee and Hadlee he would have been
dropped. Gavaskar become too powerful with the establishment and too often
visualised himself to be savior of Indian cricket and shamelessly exploited this fact
to his own advantage quite often (Witness the dropping of Kapil and the
the disgusting walkout at Melbourne). He is definitely among the best of
Indian batsman but definitely not the best (which is pretty easy considering
how many such good ones there have been in the past before him and since).
>-Balky
>(The Debo-Nair)
Sankara.
Ravi Kapadia
>
>In article <CnMz3...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, kh...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (sanjay.a.khan) writes:
>|> Gooch, came close to matching this ability. So much for Sunil Gavaskar's
>|> head and his "technique". I'll take Jimmy's heart and guts any day.
>
>>Oh oh
>>Here we go again!
>
>>Gavaskar's technique was immaculate even against the most hostile attacks in
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is shooting off the hip. Gavaskar's technique was immaculate against the
>Norbert Phillip, Clarke (before he became big in county cricket), a much
>injured and shadow of his former self Thommo, Wayne Clarke who never played
>a test again, club class bowlers like Sam Gannon, Ian Callen (does anyone
>even remember them?), etc.
>
>True he has had some great series like '79 England tour, '82 Pakistan tour.
>But too often his runs were made against lousy bowlers on dead wickets in
>dull drawn matches when nothing is left at stake. Just pick out the number
>of useful hundreds from among his 34 and see how many of them were made against
>Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall,Holding and Co (on WI pitches).
>
>The last mentioned is not for discounting Gavaskar's performances in the
>post WC '83-84 home series. But in that series he came a cropper when the
>match was poised against India. Witness his innings at Kanpur and Calcutta.
>People say his 236 n.o at Madras saved the match for Indiajust because he
>scored it when India was tottering at 0 for 2. I say MY FOOT. Even Kirmani
The same Vengsarkar, whom you later describe as having performed
better than Gavaskar in that series, was one of the 0 for 2.
Remember that in the previous test, after Gavaskar fell for 20
we collapsed to 90 all out, on a pitch where Andy Roberts and
Clive Lloyd defied our bowlers to put on ~160 runs for the 9th wkt!!
With that debacle in the background, it was likely that Marshall
would roll over us again. Gavaskar's batting that afternoon, with
Sidhu, and later Malhotra, was outstanding. He finished the
day 36* out of India's 5-72. The next day, with Shastri,
he saved the game. Admittedly, after the point where
he got to his 100, the game became less intense, and the
last one hundred or so runs were not as meaningful (in the context
of the game).
In fact, that really wasn't his best innings in the series.
If you believe Gavaskar couldn't handle the pace of Marshall
you probably did not witness his 90 at Ahmedabad --- perhaps
the finest exhibition of attacking cricket ever seen in India!
I guess I could go on for ever trying to describe that knock :-)
>and Shastri scored in that innings. If people say that that was because
>Gavaskar inspired them I say MY FOOT. Why did no other Indian play any innings
>of worth when Amarnath was playing like a God in WI?
>
>In the 83-84 series Gavaskar was not the only Indian to perform well.
>Vensarkar did equally well if not better. Scoring against WI on dead
>Indian pitches are one thing and doing so against them in WI is something
>only the truely classy can do. Only a handful of batsman have done so in
>modern cricket (Boycott, Gooch, Border and Miandad) apart from Amarnath
Gavaskar scored runs vs WI in WI in 1975-76 when Andy Roberts
(probably at his peak) and Holding (at his fastest) spearheaded
the WI attack. I believe Daniel too played in that series and
was even faster than Holding. Gavaskar's major scores : 155, 102,
66 (he had a series average ~55-60). Perhaps you do not remember
this series.
`
I find this notion that Border and Gooch performed better than
Gavaskar in WI interesting. Is it because you only consider
tests played after the 1980's as your sample space?
In any case, Gooch, to the best of my knowledge has
scored _one_ test century in three tours to the WI
(goochie, spaceman, please acknowledge).
Border, in about 35 tests vs WI, has scored 3 hundreds
(although his performance in WI in 1983-84 was probably
among the best efforts ever).
While Border, Gooch, Lamb, Amarnath and others have had their
moments of glory against bowlers all over the world, they
haven't outshone Gavaskar _consistently_.
>who did it better than any of the ones listed. Infact in that series except for
>Amarnath no of the other spineless, paper tiger Indians stood up to the
>hostile WI attack. A fact which earned Amarnath the accolade of the best
>player of pace in the world from Lloyd, Marshall and Imran. Read Marshall's
>book (Marshall Arts) and find out how he derides Gavaskar and admires
>Amarnath.
I prefer to read spt's accolades of Gavaskar's "bowler's
back drive" :-)
>
>Amarnath's performances in the zip-code like series of innings are touted
>against him often but I think Gavaskar's performances in the abovementioned
>series in WI were no better. He was lucky to have many lives in his charmed
>existence in the middle (5 lives in a shoddy 32 at Georgetown). His 147 n.o
>was so typical of a major portion of his career. Scored in a rain marred
>match when even the first innings was not completed. Something he always
>does to salvage his averages.
>
>In short, Amarnath's performance against WI pace bowlers (the best at that
>time in history) was simply the greatest ever by an Indian batsman scored
>against the toughest of conditions ever existing in test cricket. None of
>the other spineless teammates stood up to them like he did.
Agreed that Amarnath's performance was probably among the
two best batting displays vs the WI in the eighties.
But how does that diminish Gavaskar's greatness ?
To me it
seems akin ot saying that Marshall was an old fogey
who couldn't bowl because he he never bowled England out
for 46, but Ambrose is great because he did.
>
>If you want to see how truly classy Gavaskar is see the WC '83 Final again
>and find out how Garner was harassing Gavaskar. In a 10 ball innings
>yielding 2 runs off uneasy edgy shot off Roberts Gavaskar was unable
>to connect with anyone of Garner's missiles taking repeated raps on the pads
>thigh pads etc. It was the most pathetic of displays I have ever seen. Also
>in the same innings Amarnath and Srikkanth the attack with ease espacially
>the latter till he got out to an absolutely stunning Holding delivery.
>A lesson in technique against the best in the world which Gavaskar was
>never able to equal.
Sure Gavaskar played a few bad innings in his career.
But aren't you applying two standards here? I could
point to Amarnath's binary performance and compare it
with Gavaskar's 94 ball century at Delhi.
The key to Gavaskar's greatness was consistency. He
did not play as brilliantly as Viswanath did in 1974-75,
or as Amarnath did in 1982-83, or Vengsarkar in 1986-87,
but he played well enough _all through_ his test career.
And when the bowling
wasn't strong, he murdered it.
>
>In short it is easy to be brave in the face of calmness but only those
>who stand up and get counted in the face of extreme adversity are the
>true heroes
>.
Again, I agree that Amarnath's 91 & 80 at Bridgetown in
82-83 was the most heroic performance by an Indian in
test cricket. But that does not diminish Sunny's
90 at Ahmedabad 6 months later or any other great innings
played by any other player.
[lots of stuff about Amarnath vs Gavaskar deleted]
>>the other hand Gavaskar is the only player I've seen who NEVER took his eyes
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>off the ball, whether it was short or of good length. That is the single most
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Any good test player does that. There have been players who have been great
>against genuine fast bowling like Richards, Boycott, Gooch Miandad etc. Do you
>think they all did that without keeping their eyes on the ball. Boycott, Miandad
>are famed for their concentration levels just as much as Gavaskar was.
>
>>successful way of tackling genuine pace. For a guy who played various pace
>>attacks for about 17 years, Gavaskar hardly ever got hit on the body because he
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>He did. Witness the short WC 83 final innings. He got rapped his thighs and
>waist 5 times in 10 balls. Also he took a hit on the jaw against Willis in
>Madras in 1981. I saw that.
If you saw it then I guess you are right. The way I remember it
was that Vengsarkar got hit in that innings -- he retired at 71*.
Gavaskar scored 25, and I remebemr reading David Lemmon's
article in B&H
Cricket Annual that Gavaskar's 25 that morning was worth
as much as any 100 he ever made.
>
>Amarnath was unfairly treated throughout his carrer. If he had played like
>Gavaskar did in the 82 series in WI he would have been dropped. If he had
Do you know that Amarnath played in the very next series
after his dreadful performance vs WI in 1983-84 ?
But, I agree with you that Amarnath invariably, was
given a raw deal. Others, notably, Vangsarkar, were
treated much better, and consequently performed
quite well.
>played like Gavaskar did in 81 against Lillee and Hadlee he would have been
>dropped. Gavaskar become too powerful with the establishment and too often
>visualised himself to be savior of Indian cricket and shamelessly exploited this fact
>to his own advantage quite often (Witness the dropping of Kapil and the
>the disgusting walkout at Melbourne). He is definitely among the best of
>Indian batsman but definitely not the best (which is pretty easy considering
>how many such good ones there have been in the past before him and since).
There's two different things here --- you may hate Gavaskar
because he was controversial. That does not make xyz a better
player than him.
--Ravi
(why did i get into this ?)
>
>>-Balky
>>(The Debo-Nair)
>
>Sankara.
Balakrishnan G Nair
|> This is shooting off the hip. Gavaskar's technique was immaculate against the
|> Norbert Phillip, Clarke (before he became big in county cricket), a much
|> injured and shadow of his former self Thommo, Wayne Clarke who never played
|> a test again, club class bowlers like Sam Gannon, Ian Callen (does anyone
|> even remember them?), etc.
You forgot to mention John Snow, Malcolm Marshall, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding
Imran Khan, Sarfraz Nawaz, Abdul Qadir and Derek Underwood.
|> True he has had some great series like '79 England tour, '82 Pakistan tour.
|> But too often his runs were made against lousy bowlers on dead wickets in
|> dull drawn matches when nothing is left at stake. Just pick out the number
|> of useful hundreds from among his 34 and see how many of them were made against
|> Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall,Holding and Co (on WI pitches).
Hmm Considering the fact that he played only one series against that particular
attack and by no means disgraced himself in it, your argument doesn't hold one
drop of water. Yes he failed in Aus-NZ 1981(By his standards), but NOT against
genuine pace as by that time both Lillee and Hadlee were essentailly swing
bowlers. But then he did sort out Lillee at Melbourne and scored an almost
match winning knock(70) before getting out to a very questionable LBW decision.
|> The last mentioned is not for discounting Gavaskar's performances in the
|> post WC '83-84 home series. But in that series he came a cropper when the
|> match was poised against India. Witness his innings at Kanpur and Calcutta.
Even great batsmen cant score in EVERY innings of a series. That is where they
need some help from other guys who in the mean-time were busy cracking the
binary code.
|> People say his 236 n.o at Madras saved the match for Indiajust because he
|> scored it when India was tottering at 0 for 2. I say MY FOOT. Even Kirmani
Well I say your understanding of the game seems to be very wierd. India was 0-2
and later 61-4 by close on the third day at Madras and looking by their
performance in the first 5 tests looked very much on the way to 0-4. Shastri
and Kirmani made some runs, but Gavaskar was the back-bone. India would
defenitely have been struggling to save that game if Gavaskar had failed there.
|> In the 83-84 series Gavaskar was not the only Indian to perform well.
|> Vensarkar did equally well if not better. Scoring against WI on dead
No he didn't. He scored some runs but nowhere near Gavaskar.
|> Indian pitches are one thing and doing so against them in WI is something
But failing miserably EVEN in Indian pitches is not a great thing to do.
|> only the truely classy can do. Only a handful of batsman have done so in
|> modern cricket (Boycott, Gooch, Border and Miandad) apart from Amarnath
Hmm Boycott played one series in teh WI when WI were at their fearsome best and
scored one-hundred in atest which ended in a dull draw and failed everywhere
else.
Gooch scored ONE good hundred in the West Indies and ONE good hundred in a
one-dayer.(BTW Gavaskar made 90 in a one-dayer IN the WI which India won)
Miandad? Last I saw him in the WI, he was struggling to score runs against the
*present* WI attack. I dont know hwat he did in the past.
Border agreed. But then was Border a better batsman than Hughes?
|> who did it better than any of the ones listed. Infact in that series except for
|> Amarnath no of the other spineless, paper tiger Indians stood up to the
|> hostile WI attack. A fact which earned Amarnath the accolade of the best
|> player of pace in the world from Lloyd, Marshall and Imran. Read Marshall's
As far as i know, Marshall rates gavaskar as "the hardest player to dismiss"
About Imran's feelings on Gavaskar read the article I posted earlier.
Lloyd i dont know.
|> Amarnath's performances in the zip-code like series of innings are touted
|> against him often but I think Gavaskar's performances in the abovementioned
|> series in WI were no better. He was lucky to have many lives in his charmed
They defenitely were. One cant do worse than 0.16 in a test series.
|> existence in the middle (5 lives in a shoddy 32 at Georgetown). His 147 n.o
Shhesh where do you crop up these numbers? Some of us used to listen to
commentary in those days too, you know. 5 lives, it seems.
|> was so typical of a major portion of his career. Scored in a rain marred
|> match when even the first innings was not completed. Something he always
|> does to salvage his averages.
Yeah, like He did in the WI in 76 and England in 79 when we were chasing 400
odd. In fact in *all three* of India's great chases in the late 70s Gavaskar
had centuries.(We lost one, won one and drew one) What about his 96 against
Pakistan?(The next highest score in athat match was 51) His certury against
Snow and Old? His 127* at Faisalabad?(Carried his bat when imran was at his
fiercest) His 90 at Ahemadabad?(India lost the test but that was one of teh
fastest of pitches) His 90 against Australia in the tied test?(A great
run-chase, he hit Mcdermott to pulp) 70 at Melbourne?(We one this one after
scraping to a 140 odd lead, thanks mainly to the opening stand in the second
innings and some great bowling) Typical of a major portion of his career? I
think not.
|> In short, Amarnath's performance against WI pace bowlers (the best at that
|> time in history) was simply the greatest ever by an Indian batsman scored
|> against the toughest of conditions ever existing in test cricket.
I might agree with you there. But that doesnt mean Amarnath was a better
batsman than Gavaskar.
|> A lesson in technique against the best in the world which Gavaskar was
|> never able to equal.
Yeah Right. If you want to drag ugly one-dayers into this Gavaskar had a superb
match winning 90 in the West Indies earlier that year. Next you will be saying
Srikkant was a better batsman than Gavaskar.
|> was needed in the second. The innings he played at Madras brought out all
|> his selfishness in its true glory. When nothing is there to fight for make
|> the last impression and corner all the glory. That is what he has done most
|> of his cricketing life. Kapil was right in asking why he did not play such
|> an innings at Kanpur, Calcutta etc.
Aaargh. Now i realize you are raving. That sounds so much like a sulking remark
of a 'confirmed Gavaskar hater', the Kind of remark I would make if someone
points out Shastri's hundreds in the west indies.
|> (Lot of very doubtful comments on how short people should tackle fast
|> bowling deleted)
The difference is That Gavaskar *could* play the hook shot to perfection. He
simply avoided it by choice. He used to hook a lot as a youngster and then
again at Delhi he hooked Marshall into the stands a couple of times.
|> think they all did that without keeping their eyes on the ball. Boycott, Miandad
|> are famed for their concentration levels just as much as Gavaskar was.
Concentration is entirely a different issue. Watching the ball means you DONT
EVER DUCK. You always sway out of the line of a bouncer. That is one of the
things Gavaskar had mastered. Bouncing to Gavaskar was a waste of time.
|> He did. Witness the short WC 83 final innings. He got rapped his thighs and
|> waist 5 times in 10 balls. Also he took a hit on the jaw against Willis in
|> Madras in 1981. I saw that.
First of all, I said hardly ever. So the fact that you can count the number of
times he got hit in 17 years on the fingers of one hand proves it. Secondly
facing up to Garner is a different proposition as even if the batsman is
perfectly in line if a ball jumps up off a good length like a lot of Garner's
deliveries did, it's very tough to keep them off.
|> The above mentioned reasons are why I rate Gavaskar as the most overrated
|> cricketer in history. I feel that Kapil, Amarnath, and Vishwanath are the
|> true warriors who came good at difficult times for India.
Well, you could be right and all the thousands of other cricket experts could be
wrong. I think not. All I know is some of these wartime heroes turned out to be
duds in relatively peaceful times. Class prevails. Mere guts means patchy
careers.
-Balky
(The Debo-Nair)
Spaceman Spiff
>
>>Gavaskar's technique was immaculate even against the most hostile attacks in
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>But too often his runs were made against lousy bowlers on dead wickets in
>dull drawn matches when nothing is left at stake. Just pick out the number
yes, but you should remember that a lot of those draws would have been losses
if gavaskar had not scored his 100s. just consider the strength of the indian
bowling in the last 15 years- other than kapil it has been toothless. without
good bowling you're not going to win matches.
>of useful hundreds from among his 34 and see how many of them were made
>against Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall,Holding and Co (on WI pitches).
>
for starters:
116 vs NZ in 75-76 (yes hadlee was bowling)- india won the match. note- hadlee
was good enough to take 6-26 in the 3rd test (i think) to win the test for NZ.
vs lillee gavaskar has played only one series so there's not enough data to
judge him. but his 70 in the 3rd test was as vital as any other innings in the
match. australia had a 182 run lead after the 1st innings and the 165 run 1st
wicket partnership between gavaskar and chauhan went a long way towards
boosting the indian team's morale. plus, he was given out on a very dubious
lbw decision.
vs holding/roberts: 156 & 102 in WI in 75-76. india won one test and almost
won the other.
>scored it when India was tottering at 0 for 2. I say MY FOOT. Even Kirmani
>and Shastri scored in that innings. If people say that that was because
>Gavaskar inspired them I say MY FOOT. Why did no other Indian play any innings
>of worth when Amarnath was playing like a God in WI?
>
says who- kapil had a very inportant 100* to help save the 2nd test.
at barbados, gaekwad had a good 50 as well. in fact, there were centuries
by indians (other than jimmy) in every test except at barbados and jamiaca
when india lost. in the 1st test at antigua, jimmy didn't even get a 50.
>In the 83-84 series Gavaskar was not the only Indian to perform well.
>Vensarkar did equally well if not better.
however, vengsarkar did not play at ahmedabad on the worst pitch of the
series, where gavaskar was the only indian to cross 40 in either innings.
>player of pace in the world from Lloyd, Marshall and Imran. Read Marshall's
>book (Marshall Arts) and find out how he derides Gavaskar and admires
>Amarnath.
>
marshall never liked gavaskar and vengsarakr anyway after they took him apart
on the 78-79 WI tour of india. i don't expect him to praise either of them.
>Amarnath's performances in the zip-code like series of innings are touted
>against him often but I think Gavaskar's performances in the abovementioned
>series in WI were no better. He was lucky to have many lives in his charmed
>existence in the middle (5 lives in a shoddy 32 at Georgetown). His 147 n.o
>was so typical of a major portion of his career. Scored in a rain marred
>match when even the first innings was not completed. Something he always
>does to salvage his averages.
>
is it his fault that it rained? and what was he expected to do- sacrifice
his wicket. by the same token, all three of jimmy's 100s in pakistan were
scored in tests which were doomed to be draws almost from the very beginning.
>In short, Amarnath's performance against WI pace bowlers (the best at that
>time in history) was simply the greatest ever by an Indian batsman scored
>against the toughest of conditions ever existing in test cricket. None of
>the other spineless teammates stood up to them like he did.
>
excuse me, but i think kapil batted pretty well too. he had a 100 and a 98 in
the tests and that incredible 72 in the ODIs.
>If you want to see how truly classy Gavaskar is see the WC '83 Final again
>and find out how Garner was harassing Gavaskar. In a 10 ball innings
>yielding 2 runs off uneasy edgy shot off Roberts Gavaskar was unable
>to connect with anyone of Garner's missiles taking repeated raps on the pads
>thigh pads etc.
that's the problem with you. you don't want to consider jimmy's bad batting
spell but want to concentrate on gavaskar's bad form. personally, jimmy's
bad spell (000100) has got to be the worst batting series i have ever seen.
he never looked comfortable against the bowling- even on friendly pitches.
at least gavaskar stuck around and scored some runs even when he was out
of form. jimmy got out to the first likely delivery. compare gavaskar and
amarnath in pakistan in 78-79 when imran and sarfraz were playing havoc with
indian batting. only gavaskar and vishy (to some extent) stood up to them.
jimmy did nothing of note (he may have got 1 50, that's all).
every batsman has periods of poor form. gavaskar just had his coinciding with
the WI tour if 82-83 and WC 83.
>A lesson in technique against the best in the world which Gavaskar was
>never able to equal.
>
right, like when he scored 188 vs malcolm marshall at lords and all the
commentators were swooning over him.
>In short it is easy to be brave in the face of calmness but only those
>who stand up and get counted in the face of extreme adversity are the
>true heroes
you mean to say that the 83-84 series in india wasn't a time of adversity?
i guess it wasn't because jimmy certainly wasn't around to be counted.
remember that for the major part of his career- until 82-83 jimmy was
a very poor player of quick bowling. he was a chronic hooker and the bowlers
would exploit that fully. the saddest sight i have seen is jimmy coming out to
bat vs australia in 79-80 in bombay wearing a sola topi and going back in a
short time having trod upon his wicket while trying to hook the ball.
>>the world and Amarnath was defenitely not in the same class. In the pakistan
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Against weaker attacks Gavaskar was the best in the world. Against the best
>Amarnath, Vishwanath are much better.
>
amarnath had TWO good series and you've branded him the best? and vishy had
only ONE 100 vs WI in WI, 0 100s vs hadlee in NZ, 1 100 in Australia
1 100 vs imran/sarfraz in pakistan.
>>tour, Gavaskar was no failure by absolute standards(1 hundred where he
>carried
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Agreed. But Amarnath was as good if not better.
>
note my comment above. 2 of his 3 hundreds came on the last days of tests
doomed to draws- the same thing you've been vilifying gavaskar for.
in the three tests that india lost- times of adversity i would think-
gavaskar had 266 runs at 53.20, jimmy had 233 at 38.33
>This is absolute baloney. Where was gavaskar when India neede him at Kanpur.
>The way he got in the second was morale shattering.
it seems to me that you're giving no credit to the truly unplayable ball that
marshall bowled. it came up sharply just short of a length and followed
gavaskar back across the stumps. gavaskar made the best play possible for
it- he relaxed his grip in an attempt to deaden the ball's impact but the
pace was so great that it knocked the bat out of his hands since his grip
was loose. but, jimmy, who was supposed to be the SAVIOUR of the indian
batting left a yawning gap between pad and bat and was clean bowled.
>was needed in the second. The innings he played at Madras brought out all
>his selfishness in its true glory. When nothing is there to fight for make
>the last impression and corner all the glory.
isn't national pride worth fighting for? india was 0-2 and 70-5 facing another
follow on and perhaps another innnings defeat when gavaskar rescued them.
if he had failed you would again be screaming for his head saying that he
didn't show up when india needed him.
>If WI bowlers tried to dismantle Gavaskar's technique and tried to aim at
>his head or body then he should have hooked and if had done it well they
>would have stopped bowling short at him.
the west indies bowlers and others rarely tried to get gavaskar out to a
bouncer because a bouncer was a wasted ball to gavaskar. he would just
move out of the way.
>>the other hand Gavaskar is the only player I've seen who NEVER took his eyes
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>off the ball, whether it was short or of good length. That is the single most
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Any good test player does that.
>
you'll be surprised at how many "good" test players can't. jimmy amarnath, for
one, has taken many bonks on the head because of his imperfect technique vs
the short ball. even in WI in 82-83 he got hit a couple of times.
>The above mentioned reasons are why I rate Gavaskar as the most overrated
>cricketer in history. I feel that Kapil, Amarnath, and Vishwanath are the
>true warriors who came good at difficult times for India.
i agree that they are all warriors. but jimmy had TWO good series and you've
already made him an alltime great. give me a break. and as i have mentioned
before, vishy was great player but his performance outside india has been
somewhat less than spectacular.
>Amarnath was unfairly treated throughout his carrer. If he had played like
>Gavaskar did in the 82 series in WI he would have been dropped. If he had
well, consider that jimmy wasn't dropped after the binary series. he was
dropped mainly for calling the selectors jokers than for cricketing reasons.
if he had kept his trap shut he might have played a few more matches.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comes a time
when the blindman takes your hand,
says don't you see?
Gotta make it somehow
on the dreams you still believe
Spaceman Spiff
G Nair) says:
>
>odd. In fact in *all three* of India's great chases in the late 70s Gavaskar
>had centuries.(We lost one, won one and drew one) What about his 96 against
not correct. in the melbourne(?) test, where india was chasing 490-odd he
got 49.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anything a man don't stand to lose
when the devil wants to take it all away ?
Cherish well your thoughts, and keep a tight grip on your booze
'Cause thinkin' and drinkin' are all I have today.
Vaibhav A. Diwadkar
(null pointer)@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (logout) writes...
>
>>Gavaskar's technique was immaculate even against the most hostile attacks in
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is shooting off the hip. Gavaskar's technique was immaculate against the
>Norbert Phillip, Clarke (before he became big in county cricket), a much
>injured and shadow of his former self Thommo, Wayne Clarke who never played
>a test again, club class bowlers like Sam Gannon, Ian Callen (does anyone
>even remember them?), etc.
>
>True he has had some great series like '79 England tour, '82 Pakistan tour.
>But too often his runs were made against lousy bowlers on dead wickets in
>dull drawn matches when nothing is left at stake. Just pick out the number
>of useful hundreds from among his 34 and see how many of them were made against
>Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall,Holding and Co (on WI pitches).
- The question of how useful Sunny's tons were has come up
before. Spaceman(I think) had a long post on it and
proved (well ok, demonstrated) that this line of
criticism is quite futile. Sunny has made tons when it
counted.
[deletions galore]
- You are saying one of two things (actually one sort of
subsumes the other)
a) that Sunny sucks as a batsman
b) that Sunny is overrated as a batsman.
a) is of course impossible to sustain as a hypothesis. Sunny did
play 3 series against "B" teams. Oz, '77, WI, '78 and Oz, '80.
If you simply remove the runs he scored against those teams from
his record he still looks pretty good statistically. Try it and
you'll see. Your post is vociferous enough to suggest that you
espouse a).
b) is unfalsifiable. One can maintain if one wants that Bradman
was overrated. Or Sobers, or Richards ... or so on. What you
are saying is that you did not like Sunny in comparison to
Jimmy Amarnath. Fair enough.
Its always problematic to compare batsman A to B in situations
in which only B has performed but A has not. Small subsets of
careers are not always good indicators of an entire career.
As you said, it is hardly fair to evaluate Jimmy Amarnath's career
based on his explorations into the beauty and simplicity of the binary
system of representing numbers.
Regards,
- Vaibhav [who knows this is going to be one of a number of followups
to the orginal post]
Spaceman Spiff
Kumar) says:
>
>: right, like when he scored 188 vs malcolm marshall at lords and all the
>: commentators were swooning over him.
>
>above mentioned match.
>
that's strange, because my wisden and thousands of other listeners/viewers
of that match could swear that he scored 188. perhaps you mean the 2nd innings
in which he got a duck, albeit in fading light at the end of the day. which
still does not diminish the value of that 100. even vishy & vengy have got
a 0 and a 100 in the same match. i don't know about sir don- i think he's got
a duck and an 82 in the same match.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a fear down here we can't forget.
It hasn't got a name just yet.
Always awake, always around,
Singing, "Ashes, ashes, all fall down."
Ashes, ashes, all fall down.
Raj Venkataraman
After deleting countless lines of pure unadulterated baloney, this
is what I seem to infer:
1. Whenever Gavaskar scored the wicket was easy, the bowlers were
worthless (possibly tired), he was just playing for his averages etc.
2. When one of your heroes (Jimmy Amarnath for ex.) scores he does it under
the most hostile conditions, brilliant bowlers while being unselfish..
How is it that none of your heroes scored when the wicket was easy?! Or
is it that the wicket seemed tough whenever Amarnath, et al. batted?
I personally think Amarnath was a good batsman, but Gavaskar was in a different
class. Now here is your *punishment* for the baloney you posted. Write
1000 times,
Gavaskar is god. :-)
Raj
Spaceman Spiff
<SXK...@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>still does not diminish the value of that 100. even vishy & vengy have got
>a 0 and a 100 in the same match. i don't know about sir don- i think he's got
>a duck and an 82 in the same match.
>
request.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blow the horn, tap the tambourine
Close the gap of the dark years in between
You and me, Cassidy.
Spaceman Spiff
<SXK...@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>>odd. In fact in *all three* of India's great chases in the late 70s Gavaskar
>>had centuries.(We lost one, won one and drew one) What about his 96 against
>not correct. in the melbourne(?) test, where india was chasing 490-odd he
>got 49.
>
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord made a lady out of Adam's rib,
Next thing you know, you got women's lib.
Lovely to look upon, Heaven to touch;
It's a real shame that they got to cost so much.
Shivesh Kumar
Spaceman Spiff (SXK...@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <CnpHt...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sku...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Shivesh
: Kumar) says:
: >
: >: right, like when he scored 188 vs malcolm marshall at lords and all the
: >: commentators were swooning over him.
: >
: >As a matter of fact, Gavaskar was lbw for duck in the very first over of the
: >above mentioned match.
: >
: that's strange, because my wisden and thousands of other listeners/viewers
: of that match could swear that he scored 188. perhaps you mean the 2nd innings
No sir I'm talking about the first innings when he survived that lbw shout from
marshall. Any one who saw that on video tape knows how plumb he was !
: in which he got a duck, albeit in fading light at the end of the day. which
: still does not diminish the value of that 100. even vishy & vengy have got
: a 0 and a 100 in the same match. i don't know about sir don- i think he's got
talk of two ducks in the same match...
-skumar
: a duck and an 82 in the same match.
: Stay cool,
: Spaceman Spiff
Shivesh Kumar
: In article <Cnp7w...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, (null
: pointer)@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (logout) says:
: >
: >A lesson in technique against the best in the world which Gavaskar was
: >never able to equal.
: >
: right, like when he scored 188 vs malcolm marshall at lords and all the
: commentators were swooning over him.
As a matter of fact, Gavaskar was lbw for duck in the very first over of the
above mentioned match.
skumar
: Stay cool,
: Spaceman Spiff
sl...@cc.usu.edu
In article <Cnqn2...@scr.siemens.com>,
> bha...@scr.siemens.com (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
> Amarnath was simply the best batsman in the
> world.
AGREED ! 100% .
Gavaskar had better averages but that
does not make him a better batsmen than Jimmy.
> One can howl till
> blue in the face about how he *would* have done IF ONLY the selectors
> had given him a chance, but the point you have to look squarely at
> exactly what he did, not his would have, could have, might haves.
You are trying to bait Amarnath fans here, Are you trying
to start a flame war? Despite heavy tempetation, I am going to resist.:)
>
> Bharat
>
> PS: If you don't agree with the last, think of what your opinion of
> Amarnath's career would have been had he NOT played versus WI at home
> in that disasterous series due to illness or more selectorial
> meddling.
Please get your facts straight. Mohinder WAS SICK when he played
those innings against WI in India. He was asked to play by the then
Captian Kapil. If the poor guy goes out in high fever and has to face
the WI pace (Remember, WI bowlers were at their hostile best, after
World Cup, what else can one expect). The reason for Amarnath's
dismal performance is his HEALTH and CAPTIAN. Kapil thought a SICK Amarnath
was better than a healthy other player, which was a MISTAKE.
I am not saying that
you should take out this series scores while calculating his test
average. I am only saying DO NOT JUDGE HIM ON THE BASIS OF THIS
SERIES ALONE. Give him a break, OK.
Remember, What he had to do to get back in the test team for Pakistan
tour ? He scored centuries in Ranji trophy at will (I do not remember
the exact number) and Delhi won the Ranji trophy that year.
Ofcourse his test series in Pakistan, WI and world cup are legendary.
Read excerpts from Imran's book in one of the posts by Balky.
Anyway, Enough rambling for now,
Saleem
(Mohinder was one the best batsmen that India produced).
Spaceman Spiff
>
> Please get your facts straight. Mohinder WAS SICK when he played
> those innings against WI in India.
>
can't you accept that he had a bad series? even the best batsmen have them
you know.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I sat down to my supper;
'twas a bottle of red whiskey,
I said my pray'rs and went to bed,
that's the last they saw of me.
R. Bharat Rao
In article <1994Apr4.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <Cnqn2...@scr.siemens.com>,
>> bha...@scr.siemens.com (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>> Amarnath was simply the best batsman in the
>> world.
>
> AGREED ! 100% .
First of all, I did not say "Amarnath was simply the best batsman in
the world." What I said was, DURING THOSE TWO SERIES, Amarnath was
the best. The above (partial) quote, followed by the two statements
you make, misrepresent my post completely.
> Gavaskar had better averages but that
> does not make him a better batsmen than Jimmy.
We don't agree at all. If you read my article, I CLEARLY STATE that I
think Gavaskar was *much* better over his career than Amarnath and any
other India batsmen.
>> One can howl till
>> blue in the face about how he *would* have done IF ONLY the selectors
>> had given him a chance, but the point you have to look squarely at
>> exactly what he did, not his would have, could have, might haves.
>
> You are trying to bait Amarnath fans here, Are you trying
> to start a flame war? Despite heavy tempetation, I am going to resist.:)
No baiting. Amarnath was better, OK, much better, than Sunil Gavaskar
during TWO series. If you look at the rest of their careers there was
no comparison..
>> Bharat
>>
>> PS: If you don't agree with the last, think of what your opinion of
>> Amarnath's career would have been had he NOT played versus WI at home
>> in that disasterous series due to illness or more selectorial
>> meddling.
>
> Please get your facts straight. Mohinder WAS SICK when he played
> those innings against WI in India. He was asked to play by the then
> Captian Kapil. If the poor guy goes out in high fever and has to face
> the WI pace (Remember, WI bowlers were at their hostile best, after
> World Cup, what else can one expect). The reason for Amarnath's
Ummmm... he was sick during all those tests? Quite a sickness there..
> dismal performance is his HEALTH and CAPTIAN. Kapil thought a SICK Amarnath
> was better than a healthy other player, which was a MISTAKE.
> I am not saying that
> you should take out this series scores while calculating his test
> average. I am only saying DO NOT JUDGE HIM ON THE BASIS OF THIS
> SERIES ALONE. Give him a break, OK.
I am NOT taking that series ALONE. What I object to, is people taking
only his TWO SUCCESSFUL SERIES ALONE, and ignoring the rest of his
pretty good career. I think Mohindar is darned good -- he makes my
top 8 Indian batsmen list, so obviously I think he's very very good.
However, IMHO, any CAREER comparison with Gavaskar is so far out to be
ludicrous; number 6 to 8 seems about right for Jimmy.
> Remember, What he had to do to get back in the test team for Pakistan
> tour ? He scored centuries in Ranji trophy at will (I do not remember
> the exact number) and Delhi won the Ranji trophy that year.
> Ofcourse his test series in Pakistan, WI and world cup are legendary.
> Read excerpts from Imran's book in one of the posts by Balky.
Ummm. who gives a #$^&*#$&* about the World Cup. We are talking TEST
cricket here.
> Anyway, Enough rambling for now,
>
> Saleem
> (Mohinder was one the best batsmen that India produced).
Here, you have no disagreement. Any of the batsmen in the top 10 ALL
TIME Indian bats, automatically qualify for being "one of the best
batsmen that India produced." I simply have a quibble with those who
want to make him #1...
--
R. Bharat Rao E-mail:bha...@learning.scr.siemens.com
Learning Systems Department, Siemens Corporate Research
US Mail: 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)
N Venkateswaran
R. Bharat Rao <bha...@learning.scr.siemens.com> wrote:
>
>> (Mohinder was one the best batsmen that India produced).
>
>Here, you have no disagreement. Any of the batsmen in the top 10 ALL
>TIME Indian bats, automatically qualify for being "one of the best
>batsmen that India produced." I simply have a quibble with those who
>want to make him #1...
>
Now, what are YOUR arguments in deciding that Mohinder is not #1
but is ranked between #6 to #8?
I believe they are based on runs scored over all tests played
by the batsman. And THAT ensures a place for Vengsarkar and NEED
I SAY IT, Shastri. I am sure you will not argue with the fact that
Politics, more than anything, kept Jimmy out of the Indian Team
for a long long time. This was atime when the Kanitkars, Sharmas,
Malhotras, Vengsarkars, Parsanas and Parkars were tried and in
some cases PERSISTED with.
Because the influence of politics cannot be quantified, the idea that
someone
who played 150 tests and scored more runs is better than one who
did not, is ridiculous to say the least. And that I believe has been
criteria for selecting Vengsarkar.
How about Vishwanath? What amkes HIM a better player than Jimmy?
Nothing! He was just fortunate that he had a continuos string
of appearances for India, and once in a while produced an innings
like the gem at chepauk (97 n.0.) in 74-75 against WI. It was just
the law of averages catching up, IMO.
Has any Indian Batsman reached the peak of batting prowess that
Mohinder reached in 82-83? Mind you the opposition was not
a bunch of medoicrities. He played Imran at his best, in Pakistan.
And Marshal and Garner at their peak in the West Indies. It was
definitely not Holder and Roberts at Chepauk, or an Injured Imran
at Bombay. And lastly, and more importantly Jimmy was an important
player in India's triumph in the World Cup. Nothing to scoff at.
Jimmy definitely was not a fair weather cricketer. S.G and Vishy and
Veng played in more than their share of Tests on pitches prepared
to frustrate "Real Pace", where results did not count and improving
ones average was the only goal. And Jimmy, unlike some, has never
been accused of playing for improving ones average.
n.V.
CHAN Sze Keong
N Venkateswaran <venk...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> Has any Indian Batsman reached the peak of batting prowess that
> Mohinder reached in 82-83? Mind you the opposition was not
ok, mohinder did play a lot of tests before and after those
two series. how about you posting the stats and explanations if
there are any failures (like he was sick against windies later in 83),
then maybe we will accept your contention (looks like you need one anyway)
srini (if you have to flame, pls send mail to sr...@comm.toronto.edu)
Shivanand Bhajekar
> ones average was the only goal. And Jimmy, unlike some, has never
> been accused of playing for ones average.
I disagree with that completely. Who else would score one run in seven
innings? :-)
--
shivanand "Mohinder had only two modes of operation. 'Brilliant' or
'utterly mediocre' "
Vijay Fafat
>> ones average was the only goal. And Jimmy, unlike some, has never
>> been accused of playing for ones average.
>
> I disagree with that completely. Who else would score one run in seven
~~~~~~~
Isn't that what he said, that Mohinder didn't play for one's average?
I have a feeling he meant Chandrashekhar when he said, "unlike some".
samir chopra eies fac/staff
>In article <1994Apr4.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu says:
>> Please get your facts straight. Mohinder WAS SICK when he played
>> those innings against WI in India.
>>
>hullo! this is the first time i've seen this excuse being trotted out. why
>can't you accept that he had a bad series? even the best batsmen have them
>you know.
Damned if I can lay my hands on the relevant issue of Sportsweek or
Sportsworld right now, but I'm positive that Mohinder actually said
this in an interview. Something about having a running cold and
fever. Still doesn't quite explain 5 ducks in 6 innings though.
Samir
--
"In the beginning God chose 3-space and 1-time, a Hamiltonian H, and a state
vector |0>. Then She chose a fermion configuration n(0). This She chose at
random from an ensemble of probabilities with distribution D(0) related to
the state vector |0>. Then She left the world alone to evolve..." JSB