Best Performance From Each Venue

[Lillian Thomson]

There must have been better innings at Sabina Park than Garry Sobers 365*. It was of course one the biggest innings ever and held the record for many years, but it was scored against a very weak attack which was reduced by injury to two specialist bowlers. Dennis Amiss made a match saving unbeaten double century there in the 70's which due to the circumstances was much more worthy.

 

[bagapath]

i would go for miandad's 116* vs India in 1986 at Sharjah over sachin's knock against australia. besides the stunning last ball six that won the tournament for pakistan, it altered indo-pak cricket equation forever. there is no way for me to verify this now. but i remember that india and pakistan had played 17 ODIs before this match and had won 8 each with one abandoned. this innings screwed up the self belief of every indian cricket team that came up against pakistan for the next decade that they simply folded everytime they faced pakistan in crucial games. the 1996 world cup QF in b'lore kind of acted as a revenge match though. but till then, it was pak all the way against india.

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1985-86/OD_TOURNEYS/AA/IND_PAK_AA_ODI-FINAL_18APR1986.html


if you are looking for test innings alone then mathew hayden's century against pakistan was a phenomenal effort. i think he out scored the combined totals of pak team in both innings.

http://ind.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...N_PAK/SCORECARDS/AUS_PAK_T2_11-15OCT2002.html

 

[_Ed_]

If we are doing ODIs as well, then I doubt you could go past Matthew Hayden's 181* against NZ for Hamilton. Amazing knock.

 

[Athlai]

Didn't someone go and break his toes or something?

 

[_Ed_]

Yeah, when he was 70-odd IIRC. So he decided "it hurts to run, sod it, I'm going to score my runs in 4s and 6s".

 

[zaremba]

If we are doing ODIs as well, then I doubt you could go past Matthew Hayden's 181* against NZ for Hamilton. Amazing knock.

Edgbaston: Robin Smith 167* v Ye Crims in 1993 (in a losing cause as it turned out)

 

[bagapath]

The greatest innings in Chennai would be Dean Jones' 210 in the tied test.

 

[Richard]

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.

There's something in what you say, fo' sho'.

 

[Richard]

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.

Yeah, fair call.

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.

I of course mentioned that 1975/76 game for The WACA - the best has to be from it. Until recently I'd always taken Fredericks' astonishing innings for granted as being the one. However having read a piece - I forget who it was by - comparing that with Ian Chappell's knock in Australia's first dig I've begun to wonder whether Chappell's wasn't considerably better. Apparently, the WIndians bowled short and straight constantly, while the Australians bowled a ****tail of short and straight and short and wide. If true, that'd make Chappelli's knock the better one.

The article was definately by an Australian though, so you might want to take it with a pinch of hugely-disappointed salt. Often one can underestimate one's team's own bowling after seeing it caned to all parts.

 

[Richard]

The greatest innings in Chennai would be Dean Jones' 210 in the tied test.

Yeah, can't be a great deal of question about that one.

 

[honestbharani]

Laxman's 281 at Eden Gardens in 2001 v Aus is surely one of the best there, although usually even though I remember a lot of performances in general, I forget where they happened most of the time.

Maybe Sehwag's 319 at Chennai vs. SA - the fastest triple hundred in test cricket? Although in the grand scheme of things, that innings meant fairly little and the match was a dull draw. Tendulkar's 155 vs. Australia and 136 vs. Pakistan were probably more awesome.

Sharjah - I'd say probably Tendulkar's 134 against Australia in the final
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/65774.html
Probably the innings that first got me hooked on cricket.
Jayasuriya also cracked his 189 against India at Sharjah, but I think Tendulkar's vs. Australia was better.

And Hyderabad - my home city - unfortunately doesn't see a lot of international cricket, but Tendulkar's 186 there vs. New Zealand must rank as one of the most destructive innings of all time.

I've included ODI knocks for Sharjah and Hyderabad since neither has seen much test cricket. But Sharjah, for example, is probably one of the most played on ODI grounds...

Dean Jones knock at Chennai was an epic.

 

[Uppercut]

The list's a bit batsman-orientated for me tbh. If i was devising it myself it'd be 60% bowling performances. Why not fill up every SL ground with a Murali one-man-show?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, fair call.

I of course mentioned that 1975/76 game for The WACA - the best has to be from it. Until recently I'd always taken Fredericks' astonishing innings for granted as being the one. However having read a piece - I forget who it was by - comparing that with Ian Chappell's knock in Australia's first dig I've begun to wonder whether Chappell's wasn't considerably better. Apparently, the WIndians bowled short and straight constantly, while the Australians bowled a ****tail of short and straight and short and wide. If true, that'd make Chappelli's knock the better one.

The article was definately by an Australian though, so you might want to take it with a pinch of hugely-disappointed salt. Often one can underestimate one's team's own bowling after seeing it caned to all parts.

For Melbourne, one should also closely consider Sarfraz's amazing spell there in the late 70s v Australia.

 

[Richard]

The list's a bit batsman-orientated for me tbh. If i was devising it myself it'd be 60% bowling performances. Why not fill up every SL ground with a Murali one-man-show?

It's a sad truth that a bowling game has to be that much better to attract the attention TBH.

I'd say a good (rather than error-strewn) 250 (which will have been scored on pretty well any Test ground with a decent number of games) would need a 14- or 15-for to beat it.

 

[Richard]

For Melbourne, one should also closely consider Sarfraz's amazing spell there in the late 70s v Australia.

That was, though, basically just one (or maybe two?) spells though wasn't it? Snatched a game from the fire when Australia looked like they were coasting to victory.

A bit different to a performance of sustained excellence for at least half of a game.

 

[Uppercut]

It's a sad truth that a bowling game has to be that much better to attract the attention TBH.

I'd say a good (rather than error-strewn) 250 (which will have been scored on pretty well any Test ground with a decent number of games) would need a 14- or 15-for to beat it.

Yeah, but my point is that it shouldn't be so. Look- at the onset of any test match, what would you rather have? One of your bowlers taking 14-15 wickets, or one of your batsmen scoring a good 250? It's a no-brainer for me. 14-15 wickets every time. I don't mean this as a technicality, but bowlers win test matches far, far more often than batsmen do.

 

[Richard]

A 14-for > a 250.

The point, though, is that a 10\11-for < a 250. IMO.

The way I look at it - and it's a bit of an oversimplification in some ways, but I still think it - is that bowlers are expected to take wicket hauls. Batsmen can only score runs if the bowlers allow them to. The bowler controls the game, so therefore any feat of batting is, to me, a little bit more "standing-out".

 

[nightprowler10]

Haven't read through the thread but has anyone mentioned Imran's 12 for at Sydney in 1976/77 ? It's gotta be up there. Pretty much announced Imran to the world to the point that people were comparing the youngster to Lillee. He bowled four hours straight in the second inning and ripped his shirt sleeve right off from constantly bowling fast and hard.

 

[Richard]

Possibly, actually. There's no doubt Lara was awesome in his 277, few who've seen much of his career dispute that it was his finest innings. But Imran was superlative throughout that SCG match and is certainly at least worthy of a challenge to Lara's knock.

Wouldn't it be good to have Imran at The SCG and Sarfaraz at The MCG.

Still, I think Cowper's knock must be at least probable for the latter. Like Lawrence Rowe's, I've read of it being a truly remarkably unflustered innings for one of such size.

 

[Uppercut]

A 14-for > a 250.

The point, though, is that a 10\11-for < a 250. IMO.

The way I look at it - and it's a bit of an oversimplification in some ways, but I still think it - is that bowlers are expected to take wicket hauls. Batsmen can only score runs if the bowlers allow them to. The bowler controls the game, so therefore any feat of batting is, to me, a little bit more "standing-out".

In the context of who contributes more to a win though, is an 11-for worth less than a 250? I don't think it is- I'm talking about good 11-fors btw, not a Jason Krejza-esque 11-300. Exceptional bowling can make things very simple for the batsmen. Exceptional batting can't return the favour to the bowlers on all but the most bowler-friendly of pitches. That's why if i were to devise the list I'd try to have it about 60-40 in favour of bowlers- although i have to admit, it's the great innings i find easier to recall.