-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best Performance From Each Venue
- Thread starter Rebecca
- Start date
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Pitch was unfit for play, as evidenced by the nice old crack posted above.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
To expand on this - Sabina Park had been famous for many years in the 1970s and 1980s for pretty well always producing a very quick, bouncy surface. Towards the end of the 1990s it had become much slower and lower. The WICB or the Jamaican board (can't remember which) wanted to restore it to its former nature, and they wanted to do it before the game against England given that pitches at Sabina (and also Kensington Oval) being bouncy had been an advantage against all teams, but England more than most. So they dug the square up and had it relaid.
However, they unwisely made the decision just 6 months before the series and did not think about the fact that squares can take far longer than this to bed down. There was no contingency plan either - so when it became obvious that the turf on the square was not binding together properly they had no choice but to plough ahead. The teams turned-up a few days before the game to find this horror.
Despite the decision to play on, the game was never going to last. So Jamaicans lost the 1 Test they get per year, and England supporters who'd saved for years to travel to see the game got a whole hour's play. Jamaican papers rightly accused those behind the decision to dig the square up so soon before the Test of "bungling inadequacy".
However, they unwisely made the decision just 6 months before the series and did not think about the fact that squares can take far longer than this to bed down. There was no contingency plan either - so when it became obvious that the turf on the square was not binding together properly they had no choice but to plough ahead. The teams turned-up a few days before the game to find this horror.
Despite the decision to play on, the game was never going to last. So Jamaicans lost the 1 Test they get per year, and England supporters who'd saved for years to travel to see the game got a whole hour's play. Jamaican papers rightly accused those behind the decision to dig the square up so soon before the Test of "bungling inadequacy".
Chubb
International Regular
Harare- Andy Flower 142 and 199* v. South Africa, 2001
Bulawayo- Paul Strang 8-102 v. New Zealand, 2000
Dave Houghton 266 v. Sri Lanka, 1994
Rebecca
School Boy/Girl Captain
Why do you think that is better than Gilchrist's 149?Richard said:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1484
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dicko to come out with a less than convincing case for Sangakkara's being significantly better rather than just admit that he forgot about Gilly.
You heard it here first.
Precambrian
Banned
Could be that Langer was not given a plumb lbw, and hence the match doesnt qualify under the General Theory of First Chance Averages (GTFCA)
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Tests only, methinks.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I didn't exactly forget about the Langer-Gilchrist partnership - I can't be expected to remember every game played at the ground.
However, on balance I would probably say Sangakkara's innings was the better one. It didn't and never was going to lead to victory, no, but nor would you have thought Gilchrist's was going to when it started either.
I watched full highlights of the Sangakkara knock and have only seen odds-and-sodds from the Langer-Gilchrist stand though, so that clearly gives Sangakkara an advantage to my consideration. Sangakkara just pretty much never looked like getting out.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What's Langer's non-lbw got to do with the Gilchrist innings? Unless it was Gilchrist who got the let-off, the fact that there was one is irrelevant.
Precambrian
Banned
Gilly might have run out of partners.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
AWTA. An awesome innings by Gooch.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The thing about Gilchrist's though, is that not only was it a match-winning knock, but it couldn't have been played by anyone else. Had it been a world-class batsman like Rahul Dravid or even Sachin Tendulkar they would've been very likely to run out of partners. 149 off 162 balls, in the fourth innings of a test match to almost single-handedly win the match and chase a near-impossible target, is incredible at the best of times. When you add in the fact that he had to score as quickly or his innings would've been in vain, it's difficult to conceive of a better innings.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
For Melbourne, I'd go for Lillee's effort in the Centenary Test over Cowper's 307.
Well batted Randall in that match, but how Lillee wasn't MOTM is beyond me.
Also, Roy Fredricks' 160-odd in 75-76 vs Lillee and Thomson at their fastest on the quicket wicket in the world would take some beating, although Ambrose's 7 for 1 at the same ground was as great a spell of bowling as I've seen, albeit vs a shattered batting line up.
Well batted Randall in that match, but how Lillee wasn't MOTM is beyond me.
Also, Roy Fredricks' 160-odd in 75-76 vs Lillee and Thomson at their fastest on the quicket wicket in the world would take some beating, although Ambrose's 7 for 1 at the same ground was as great a spell of bowling as I've seen, albeit vs a shattered batting line up.