Raghav
International Vice-Captain
he has been impressive all through the seriesFirst time I've really seen Tremlett in action last night, was fairly impressed.
Last edited:
he has been impressive all through the seriesFirst time I've really seen Tremlett in action last night, was fairly impressed.
I can name keepers that can at least do one.I understand your idea. I too agree completely with you. But, Which other English WK is good with both bat and gloves ATM?
Agreed. Need 500, and need to follow it up with a non-collapse in the third. I don't see England ending their first innings with more than 50-60 run deficit, based on the pitch. And the pitch on the second and third day is going to be fantastic batting.@ some of the comments over the last few pages.
Anyway, I think India need 500+ in the first innings...looking at matches at The Oval recently, it's not so hard to overcome a fairly big first innings score.
Obviously, being 308/4 now, with your batsman being 44* and 16* at the end of the first day, is a pretty bad performance for the day if you want to win.
On a serious note, have you ever watched a proper game of Test cricket in your life?
Based on what?And that's good ? Does it change the fact that he is a better WK than Dhoni and that Yuvraj is a better test batsman than Dhoni.
Yes, there is. "Boringness" and "attractiveness" are totally subjective - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I, for one, completely disagree and found Tendulkar's gritty yet technically near perfect innings much better to watch. I'm sure I'm in a very small minority there, but you can't say there is "no doubt."Whilst I agree with you and Prince here and don't think Tendulkar should be critised here at all, there is no doubt that the cricket played by Karthik, Jaffer and Dravid was bright and attractive cricket whereas this is, well, boring.
by all accounts, he has been anything but solid and has been pretty lucky to be hanging in there, but the fact that he is still there along with laxman is very important for india....let's hope he can hang in there long enough to take india to a good score, otherwise his crawl today would have been mostly a waste of time...But thats not how Test cricket works. You usually have a couple guys scoring slower and a couple guys scoring faster. The run rate for this partnership is 2.85, which is good solid Test cricket. Nothing less.
WTF? It's not like he's been playing and missing at every ball and edging everything through slips. He hasn't shown great intent, but everything he has done, he has done well.. so who cares?by all accounts, he has been anything but solid and has been pretty lucky to be hanging in there, but the fact that he is still there along with laxman is very important for india....let's hope he can hang in there long enough to take india to a good score, otherwise his crawl today would have been mostly a waste of time...
Which is what I said in the paragraph you conveniently omitted ffs.Yes, there is. "Boringness" and "attractiveness" are totally subjective - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I, for one, completely disagree and found Tendulkar's gritty yet technically near perfect innings much better to watch. I'm sure I'm in a very small minority there, but you can't say there is "no doubt."
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter. He isn't picked to entertain the crowd - he's picked to do his best for the team. He's still out there while his supposedly more entertaining brethren are back in the pavilion shaking their heads at the horrible shots that got them out.
I omitted it because I didn't disagree with it. I quote what I rebut. My second paragraph wasn't directed at you - only my first was.Which is what I said in the paragraph you conveniently omitted ffs.
to be fair, i didn't watch the match, that's why i said "by all accounts"...from the cricinfo review and from a lot of comments(from some good posters) on here, his innings was anything but fluent and he had a huge slice of luck when a fairly simple catch was dropped off him, i love watching gritty, absorbing test cricket when the situation calls for it, when the batsman grits it out because of lack of fluency, form, it's not that great to watch...when it's your all-time favourite player, it becomes really tough....as i said, if he can use this situation to take india to a position of strength, great...otherwise, 50 or 60 off 150 odd balls in this situation wouldn't have helped india much, would it?WTF? It's not like he's been playing and missing at every ball and edging everything through slips. He hasn't shown great intent, but everything he has done, he has done well.. so who cares?
It's not up to you to decide what I enjoy, though. I don't ask people to share my views on what makes entertaining cricket as I know I'm in a small minority, but I do ask people to realise that nothing is intrinsically boring or attractive. You can find Tendulkar's innings boring if you like and I'm 99% of people will agree with you, but to say that there was no doubt of it being boring isn't correct, as "boring" isn't a universal truth which has right and wrong values. Did you find it boring? Yes. Would most people have found it boring? Yes. But was it universally boring for all to see? No, it was not.And furthermore I really don't get your so called purist view on cricket, beauty might be in the eye of the beholder but quite frankly it was a rubbish innings to watch. Fast, attacking cricket, actually fast attacking, positive sport is as good as it gets, you must be only one of a handful of people who want to see batsmen block every ball, but I'm sorry on a flat pitch with rubbish bowlers, there is no way anyone but the morbidly perverse (no offense) could get excited about that.
I thought he showed great intent - intent to stick it out there rather than play stupidly. England was bowling short at him and he didn't have to play shots at those balls. Great batsmen force bowlers to bowl to the lines batsmen want to be bowled at rather than be dictated by the lines the bowlers want the batsmen to play at.Yes, there is. "Boringness" and "attractiveness" are totally subjective - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I, for one, completely disagree and found Tendulkar's gritty yet technically near perfect innings much better to watch. I'm sure I'm in a very small minority there, but you can't say there is "no doubt."
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter. He isn't picked to entertain the crowd - he's picked to do his best for the team. He's still out there while his supposedly more entertaining brethren are back in the pavilion shaking their heads at the horrible shots that got them out.
Well I'm not going to qualify statements for the 3 random people in the world that enjoy something like that. If I had to do that every post would be full of useless disclaimers and quite frankly I'm not interested in that and quite comfortable making definitive statements when only one random like yourself feels otherwise. You're right I could have said "There is no doubt that to the vast majority of cricket fans" but I don't feel I need to in the slightest and quite frankly, it's implied.It's not up to you to decide what I enjoy, though. I don't ask people to share my views on what makes entertaining cricket as I know I'm in a small minority, but I do ask people to realise that nothing is intrinsically boring or attractive. You can find Tendulkar's innings boring if you like and I'm 99% of people will agree with you, but to say that there was no doubt of it being boring isn't correct, as "boring" isn't a universal truth which has right and wrong values. Did you find it boring? Yes. Would most people have found it boring? Yes. But was it universally boring for all to see? No, it was not.
All those accounts are just wrong.by all accounts, he has been anything but solid and has been pretty lucky to be hanging in there, but the fact that he is still there along with laxman is very important for india....let's hope he can hang in there long enough to take india to a good score, otherwise his crawl today would have been mostly a waste of time...