Best Performance From Each Venue

[Richard]

Again, I certainly can't dispute that there's plenty in what you say. So I ask you this - go through a few ground records, find me a few bowling performances you'd consider to have been better than some of the innings' listed by me.

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, I'll go for a few

Narendra Hirwani's sixteen wickets at Chennai has to beat Sehwag's 300. While Sehwag did something that had never been done before, and the brilliance of that innings ought not to be overshadowed by the flatness of the pitch, i feel Hirwani's was a true, almost single-handed, match-winning performance.

I'd also take Curtly Ambrose's first innings 7-25 at the WACA. It's harder to detract from the '75-'76 innings, but Ambrose won his side a game, and hence a series, in one day. In one spell in fact. This is a case where I'd take the superlative bowling performance over the superlative batting performance.

 

[bagapath]

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

old timers reckon vishwanath's 97 in a low scoring 74-75 test against windies spearheaded by a rampaging young andy roberts is the finest attacking innings ever played in chennai. i still would go for the jones 210 because i saw it almost ball by ball (on tv) and it was epic stuff.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, I'll go for a few

Narendra Hirwani's sixteen wickets at Chennai has to beat Sehwag's 300. While Sehwag did something that had never been done before, and the brilliance of that innings ought not to be overshadowed by the flatness of the pitch, i feel Hirwani's was a true, almost single-handed, match-winning performance.

I'd also take Curtly Ambrose's first innings 7-25 at the WACA. It's harder to detract from the '75-'76 innings, but Ambrose won his side a game, and hence a series, in one day. In one spell in fact. This is a case where I'd take the superlative bowling performance over the superlative batting performance.

I'd actually forgotten about Hirwani in '87/88. I don't think I'd dispute for a second that his performance was better than Sehwag's. I'd also forgotten Dean Jones of '86/87, though, and that (which I presume you know about) is simply beyond the pale.

However, in the cases of Ambrose and Hirwani, it can't be stressed enough that the pitches were pretty much the epitome of being friendly to their bowling. The WACA in the early-1990s was by all accounts not as fast as it had been in the 1970s, but Ambrose just cleaned-up on it. There were times (and not just in the 1970s) where if the bowling was good enough, batsmen just didn't have a chance. Ian Chappell and Fredericks' knocks in the game in '75/76 must've been simply superlative.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd actually forgotten about Hirwani in '87/88. I don't think I'd dispute for a second that his performance was better than Sehwag's. I'd also forgotten Dean Jones of '86/87, though, and that (which I presume you know about) is simply beyond the pale.

See, i think there's an element of heroism about a defiant innings that makes people subconsciously lean towards good innings over good bowling. Dean Jones's innings was unbelievable, and i can take nothing away from it, but Hirwani single-handedly won a match against the undisputed greatest team in the world. What more can one man do in a performance? As much respect as i have for Jones's innings, any batting performance can't hand his team a match on a platter the way Hirwani did.

However, in the cases of Ambrose and Hirwani, it can't be stressed enough that the pitches were pretty much the epitome of being friendly to their bowling. The WACA in the early-1990s was by all accounts not as fast as it had been in the 1970s, but Ambrose just cleaned-up on it. There were times (and not just in the 1970s) where if the bowling was good enough, batsmen just didn't have a chance. Ian Chappell and Fredericks' knocks in the game in '75/76 must've been simply superlative.

Hmm, it's personal preference. In terms of who contributed most to the team's victory, I'd go with the bowler more often than not, but the Chappell-Fredericks knocks will go down in history too for their defiance of a legendary attack. Obviously having seen neither, i'm not best placed to make the preference, but if i was asked to, i'd take the bowler.

 

[Richard]

See, i think there's an element of heroism about a defiant innings that makes people subconsciously lean towards good innings over good bowling. Dean Jones's innings was unbelievable, and i can take nothing away from it, but Hirwani single-handedly won a match against the undisputed greatest team in the world. What more can one man do in a performance? As much respect as i have for Jones's innings, any batting performance can't hand his team a match on a platter the way Hirwani did.

As I say - Hirwani's really very anodyne performances after his next series following that game (he did well for a full rubber against New Zealand immediately after his sensational debut) suggest to me that he merely benefited from both the element of surprise (in being a debutant) and the pitch prepared (nothing wrong with this BTW, I commend India for playing to their strengths) to suit him to the best possible degree.

For me, it was the pitch rather than any truly remarkable spin-bowling performance that allowed India to win that game. I don't begrudge them the pitch, especially given some of the stuff they had to face-up to in the Caribbean, but I do think that it means you have to think carefully about whether Hirwani's performance was truly sensational or merely good.

Jones', on the other hand, was unquestionably quite beyond belief. I don't know if anyone will ever truly comprehend how ill he was pretty much throughout the innings (we know that the fact he was in hospital on a saline drip shortly afterwards made Allan Border realise how foolish he'd been to jibe Jones into playing it). To score a (to my knowledge) chanceless 210 in that condition has to go down as one of the most unparrallelled performances in Test history, and I reckon someone'd have to take a 20-for (if the deck was very helpful) to equal it.

 

[Uppercut]

As I say - Hirwani's really very anodyne performances after his next series following that game (he did well for a full rubber against New Zealand immediately after his sensational debut) suggest to me that he merely benefited from both the element of surprise (in being a debutant) and the pitch prepared (nothing wrong with this BTW, I commend India for playing to their strengths) to suit him to the best possible degree.

For me, it was the pitch rather than any truly remarkable spin-bowling performance that allowed India to win that game. I don't begrudge them the pitch, especially given some of the stuff they had to face-up to in the Caribbean, but I do think that it means you have to think carefully about whether Hirwani's performance was truly sensational or merely good.

Jones', on the other hand, was unquestionably quite beyond belief. I don't know if anyone will ever truly comprehend how ill he was pretty much throughout the innings (we know that the fact he was in hospital on a saline drip shortly afterwards made Allan Border realise how foolish he'd been to jibe Jones into playing it). To score a (to my knowledge) chanceless 210 in that condition has to go down as one of the most unparrallelled performances in Test history, and I reckon someone'd have to take a 20-for (if the deck was very helpful) to equal it.

That's the thing though- it has an element of romanticism and defiance (even of his own health) about it that gives a lot of people a preference for it, and it's the same with a lot of innings (but not to the same extent). In terms of who did the most to win their side the match- the most effective performance, in a cricketing sense- Hirwani is ahead, and that's why i'd choose him. Had someone on either side bowled that effectively in the tied test, it sure as hell wouldn't have been tied.

The case for Jones is more based on the relative difficulty of the performances. It probably was more difficult, but comparing batting to bowling in those terms is so subjective i don't take it into account quite so much when making up my mind.

 

[Richard]

I see what you mean. Undoubtedly, in terms of helping to win the game, Hirwani's was the better performance.

However, the way I've been looking at it has been not about how much of a contribution to a positive result for your team (whether it be earning victory or turning very likely defeat into a draw) it was, but how difficult it was to achieve what was achieved.

I think Jones fought more obstacles out of the way in his innings than Hirwani did in his match a year later.

I've been judging "most impressive performance" to be not purely about how effective it was in terms of the game, but how much the performer had to put into it.

Malcolm Marshall taking that seven-for in 1988 with a broken-arm (I forget which Test it was - think it was Old Trafford, which immediately pretty well takes it out of the equation given it's competing with Laker) was a performance equally awesome in terms of defying the difficulties placed in your path.

 

[G.I.Joe]

As I say - Hirwani's really very anodyne performances after his next series following that game (he did well for a full rubber against New Zealand immediately after his sensational debut) suggest to me that he merely benefited from both the element of surprise (in being a debutant) and the pitch prepared (nothing wrong with this BTW, I commend India for playing to their strengths) to suit him to the best possible degree.

For me, it was the pitch rather than any truly remarkable spin-bowling performance that allowed India to win that game. I don't begrudge them the pitch, especially given some of the stuff they had to face-up to in the Caribbean, but I do think that it means you have to think carefully about whether Hirwani's performance was truly sensational or merely good.

Jones', on the other hand, was unquestionably quite beyond belief. I don't know if anyone will ever truly comprehend how ill he was pretty much throughout the innings (we know that the fact he was in hospital on a saline drip shortly afterwards made Allan Border realise how foolish he'd been to jibe Jones into playing it). To score a (to my knowledge) chanceless 210 in that condition has to go down as one of the most unparrallelled performances in Test history, and I reckon someone'd have to take a 20-for (if the deck was very helpful) to equal it.

There were 3 other centuries, plus a 90 in the tied test, besides Jones' 210.

 

[Richard]

Yuh, I know that. The point I was making, though, is that there have been precious few games played, never mind serious innings' compiled, absolutely never mind double-centuries, by players as ill as Jones was in that game mind.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yuh, I know that. The point I was making, though, is that there have been precious few games played, never mind serious innings' compiled, absolutely never mind double-centuries, by players as ill as Jones was in that game mind.

Surely he wasn't ill before the game started?

There were two Indian bowlers who bowled close to 50 overs each in that innings, and to the best of my knowledge, didn't require to be placed on a drip.

It was an excellent innings, no doubt, but in the context of the batting conditions that were good enough to accomodate 4 more 90+ scores in the same test, and the fact that two bowlers bowled closed to 300 deliveries each in the same innings, I wouldn't rate the innings better than a 16-fer against the number 1 side in the world.[/heartless bitch mode]

 

[Uppercut]

I see what you mean. Undoubtedly, in terms of helping to win the game, Hirwani's was the better performance.

However, the way I've been looking at it has been not about how much of a contribution to a positive result for your team (whether it be earning victory or turning very likely defeat into a draw) it was, but how difficult it was to achieve what was achieved.

I think Jones fought more obstacles out of the way in his innings than Hirwani did in his match a year later.

I've been judging "most impressive performance" to be not purely about how effective it was in terms of the game, but how much the performer had to put into it.

Malcolm Marshall taking that seven-for in 1988 with a broken-arm (I forget which Test it was - think it was Old Trafford, which immediately pretty well takes it out of the equation given it's competing with Laker) was a performance equally awesome in terms of defying the difficulties placed in your path.

I'd certainly take the difficulty into account, no two ways about it. But i do so to a lesser extent than you because of all the factors to consider, it's so hard to judge. Did he really feel that bad during the innings or did it only hit him afterwards how ill he actually was? Is batting generally harder than bowling? Are the two things even comparable? Is a quality innings played when ill really better than an identical one played when well? What about batting innings that were played when out of form? Surely those are more "difficult"?

There's so much to consider when judging the difficulty of a performance, so i'd subconsciously give it a lesser weighting than its actual effectiveness. As a result, Hirwani comes out on top for me- but not by a massive margin.

 

[Richard]

Surely he wasn't ill before the game started?

There were two Indian bowlers who bowled close to 50 overs each in that innings, and to the best of my knowledge, didn't require to be placed on a drip.

I'm not sure when he fell ill, whether it was before the game or during the opening day. However, there's no doubt most to all of the innings was played under its effects. The heat would have made that far worse while merely making a bowler in full health feel uncomfortable to the degree that's normal in such severe heat.

 

[Richard]

I'd certainly take the difficulty into account, no two ways about it. But i do so to a lesser extent than you because of all the factors to consider, it's so hard to judge. Did he really feel that bad during the innings or did it only hit him afterwards how ill he actually was? Is batting generally harder than bowling? Are the two things even comparable? Is a quality innings played when ill really better than an identical one played when well? What about batting innings that were played when out of form? Surely those are more "difficult"?

There's so much to consider when judging the difficulty of a performance, so i'd subconsciously give it a lesser weighting than its actual effectiveness. As a result, Hirwani comes out on top for me- but not by a massive margin.

As I say, I see what you're saying. Batsmen generally feel that innings' played which get them back into form having had a long spell out of it are among their best (or at least most satisfying), much better than innings where, in reality, they played far better.

However, is an innings played when ill better than one played when fully well? Yes, unquestionably. Is the effect it has on the game any different? No, of course not. But the amount of effort required is massively increased and thus I can't help but rate such innings' considerably higher.

As for Jones in the innings' in question - well, he's said that he was basically on auto-pilot for the last part of it. Has no real recollection of anything much from a certain point onwards - was basically acting on instinct and pre-programming. That does to me make it all the more impressive.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'm not sure when he fell ill, whether it was before the game or during the opening day. However, there's no doubt most to all of the innings was played under its effects. The heat would have made that far worse while merely making a bowler in full health feel uncomfortable to the degree that's normal in such severe heat.

I'm struggling to locate an online source that points to an illness other than severe dehydration in Jones' case here. Surely a bowler, even a spinner, bowling 300 deliveries in 40 degrees heat and 85 precent humidity would suffer more than a batsman facing 300 deliveries under similar circumstances?

Besides, that level of endurance makes the innings heroic, but not necessarily outstanding enough to be rated higher than a 16-fer against the worlds number 1 side, considering the 3 other centuries in the same Tied test. Kumble was certainly heroic when he bowled all those overs in the West Indies with a strapped jaw, but that doesn't necessarily make his dismissal of Brian Lara in the course of that spell a better dismissal in the cricketing sense than say, Waqar's castling of the same batsman in that clip posted on the forums a few days back?

 

[Smudge]

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

And for Carisbrook, I'd have to go with an ODI performance as well - Viv Richards scoring a century then grabbing a five-wicket bag.

 

[Richard]

I'm struggling to locate an online source that points to an illness other than severe dehydration in Jones' case here. Surely a bowler, even a spinner, bowling 300 deliveries in 40 degrees heat and 85 precent humidity would suffer more than a batsman facing 300 deliveries under similar circumstances?

I'm pretty sure Jones had some form of Indian-contracted stomach ailment, not unusual for a tourist now and certainly not in the 1980s. The heat simply dehydrated him and made it worse. If it was just dehydration then all players would get the same thing whenever they played in comparable conditions.

Besides, that level of endurance makes the innings heroic, but not necessarily outstanding enough to be rated higher than a 16-fer against the worlds number 1 side, considering the 3 other centuries in the same Tied test. Kumble was certainly heroic when he bowled all those overs in the West Indies with a strapped jaw, but that doesn't necessarily make his dismissal of Brian Lara in the course of that spell a better dismissal in the cricketing sense than say, Waqar's castling of the same batsman in that clip posted on the forums a few days back?

All those overs? He bowled about 6 or 7, and the match was at The ARG, a ground where near enough every game was a dead-cert draw before it started. Quite different to batting for nearly 2 days.

 

[_Ed_]

And for Carisbrook, I'd have to go with an ODI performance as well - Viv Richards scoring a century then grabbing a five-wicket bag.

Handy contribution that.

 

[Burgey]

I'd certainly take the difficulty into account, no two ways about it. But i do so to a lesser extent than you because of all the factors to consider, it's so hard to judge. Did he really feel that bad during the innings or did it only hit him afterwards how ill he actually was? Is batting generally harder than bowling? Are the two things even comparable? Is a quality innings played when ill really better than an identical one played when well? What about batting innings that were played when out of form? Surely those are more "difficult"?

There's so much to consider when judging the difficulty of a performance, so i'd subconsciously give it a lesser weighting than its actual effectiveness. As a result, Hirwani comes out on top for me- but not by a massive margin.

He was that crook he knelt on the side of the pitch, lost control of his bodily functions and pissed himself.
Although he was an international sportsman, given this incident did not take place at 3 in the morning at a night club, I'd say he was feeling prety crook.

 

[Uppercut]

He was that crook he knelt on the side of the pitch, lost control of his bodily functions and pissed himself.
Although he was an international sportsman, given this incident did not take place at 3 in the morning at a night club, I'd say he was feeling prety crook.

Haha, wow. That's crazy, had no idea it was that bad.