Greatest individual performance ever

[zaremba]

No, the WAY you posted was the same way as someone who would've watched the game would post (not that people would/could assume you know something as such since there was no proof you did so), which you couldn't have given your age, so the only logical conclusion would be that you were guessing/estimating based on statistics and the 0 column in the wickets column.

So it was "the only logical conclusion" and yet it turned out to be wrong. Check your logic, son. Or to put it another way, don't make the assumption that others are making assumptions (or if you do, don't be abusive towards them).

A simple "...albeit only 1 over" would've avoided problems.

... for pedants. Sorry, next time I'll do my best to oblige in case you get baffled again.

 

[rivera213]

Can't remember if anyone's mentioned it yet but Bradman's 103* off 147 balls at Melbourne in 1932/33?

Not only was Melbourne a seam bowler friendly wicket til around the 1980's (and we had Larwood and Voce) but he wasn't exactly given many scoring opportunities to say the least.

His 103 was out of 191 total runs and yes I've seen footage from that series and game in particular.

 

[rivera213]

So it was "the only logical conclusion" and yet it turned out to be wrong. Check your logic, son. Or to put it another way, don't make the assumption that others are making assumptions (or if you do, don't be abusive towards them).

The logical conclusion isn't always the correct conclusion- but that doesn't take away from it being the logical conclusion based on the evidence given.

... for pedants. Sorry, next time I'll do my best to oblige in case you get baffled again.

Better to be too precise than not precise enough IMO.

 

[zaremba]

The logical conclusion isn't always the correct conclusion- but that doesn't take away from it being the logical conclusion based on the evidence given.

Hardly holds water if your "logic" is based on guesswork.

You're really struggling now.

 

[rivera213]

Hardly holds water if your "logic" is based on guesswork.

You're really struggling now.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it, understand it and then come back to me.

* For wikipedia, it's pretty accurate.

 

[zaremba]

you're really struggling now.

wikipedia

qed

 

[rivera213]

I don't get it?

I'm not the biggest Wiki fan either but the article I posted is correct since I read through it myself.

It's fine to quote something out of context to make yourself look better since you're in the wrong though. It's happened before and I accept it as a sign of defeat so cheers.

 

[zaremba]

Well let's just take stock of where we are.

From my post...

Jim Laker, of course - 9 in the first innings, 10 in the second. That really takes some thinking about. And in an Ashes Test. The pitch was obviously tailor-made for him too but his team-mates weren't trying to avoid taking a wicket at the other end, as happened in Kumble's case.

....you took the view that...

the only logical conclusion would be that you were guessing/estimating based on statistics and the 0 column in the wickets column.

Now if you think about it (and you'll know this if you read your wikipedia article) that's not a "logical conclusion", let alone the only possible logical conclusion. There were a number of possible explanations for what I wrote. One of which was that I had read, or heard, accounts by others who were there. As indeed was the case.

Your trolling is becoming tedious.

 

[rivera213]

No, that above just sounds like a lot of posts on here I've seen where people talk as though they were at the game. The fact you happened to have read an eye-witness account doesn't mean much long term since you're equally likely to post in that manner about a game you know or have read nothing about.

That sounds like COMPLETE guessing on your part to the outsider (who happens to know about the match- stats, conditions etc but hasn't read the Oakman quotes), sorry but that's true so it was indeed a logical conclusion. You obviously haven't done your reading. Tut-tut-tut.

It's your lack of clarity. You really have no leg to stand on since I'm not the only 1 in this thread to come to a logical conclusion based on your lack of clarity. That's pretty much it as far as your argument is concerned.

Also-

"...but his team-mates weren't trying to avoid taking a wicket at the other end, as happened in Kumble's case".

How is anyone going to get any other conclusion from that quote apart from that you mean for a substancial period of time?

It's only those who realize it was for 1 over who would kind of know what you mean.

Again, lack of clarity.

Sorry, but you can't argue. (You will however because like a politician- you can't accept when you're wrong)

 

[zaremba]

The reason I'm not admitting I'm wrong is because I'm confident that I'm not (your current line of attack - that because someone doesn't quote their evidence, they must be guessing - is as ridiculous as the others). And as long as you continue to attack me, I will continue to say why you're wrong.

It's very tedious for everyone else, and I'd like you to stop. It's trolling by you, and you've already admitted that you're only doing it out of a weird personal grudge:

TBH, I'm only continuing this because you tried to trip me up in the All-Time XI's thread in regards to Bradman shot selection vs Ponting.

 

[World Cricket]

Brian Charles Lara - Need I say More

1st and 3rd highest ever test scores. 375 and 400* is a truly incredible feat.

If we stray into the county game (just for a minute -sorry) then you have the 501 not out.

 

[zaremba]

Brian Charles Lara - Need I say More

1st and 3rd highest ever test scores. 375 and 400* is a truly incredible feat.

If we stray into the county game (just for a minute -sorry) then you have the 501 not out.

Yes - and the 153no v Australia - amazing innings. And the 277 which people in Australia who were lucky enough to see it rave about.

There can't be that many players in the history of the game who have played that many truly extraordinary innings.

 

[honestbharani]

That 213 at Jamaica was an awesome knock too... They were 4 down for virtually nothing against a 350+ score I think...

 

[rivera213]

The reason I'm not admitting I'm wrong is because I'm confident that I'm not (your current line of attack - that because someone doesn't quote their evidence, they must be guessing - is as ridiculous as the others). And as long as you continue to attack me, I will continue to say why you're wrong.

Ok, well you're never going to admit you're worng in your life in that case which must be great for your girlfriend/boyfriend.

It's very tedious for everyone else, and I'd like you to stop. It's trolling by you, and you've already admitted that you're only doing it out of a weird personal grudge:

You speak for everyone else now then?

Jesus.

Anyways "trolling" is when someone posts irrelevent and inflammatory posts- all of mine have been in regards to this thread so that's another concept you don't understand.

I don't have a personaly grudge, though your lack of consistency is amazing. You're still in the wrong, but I'd have let it drop had you not tried to be a smart-arse in a previous thread.

 

[rivera213]

Brian Charles Lara - Need I say More

1st and 3rd highest ever test scores. 375 and 400* is a truly incredible feat.

If we stray into the county game (just for a minute -sorry) then you have the 501 not out.

Well he's had some massive innings.

But the 375 and 400 were on complete batting paradises with very small boundaries.

Don't get me wrong, only 15-20 batsmen could capitalise on the conditions like Lara did but I actually rate his 221 & 130 in the same game against Sri Lanka @ Colombo in 2001 when every other West Indian batsman barring Sarwan (who got 2 x 60+) failed much higher.

The W.Indies came up against (and got owned by) a very in-form Chaminda Vaas (14/191 match figures!) who got Lara in the 1st innings- though after a double hundred.

It's not easy to bat in Sri Lanka but he made it look so.

 

[rivera213]

Yes - and the 153no v Australia

The player who doesn't get too much credit for that match, but should, is Courtney Walsh.

After a massive Aussie 1st innings total, he came back with 5/39.

Completely set up the game for Lara to do the biz (without any support from his fellow batsmen).

Lara always batted better when his team needed it. In America they call players like that- "clutch" performers and Lara was definitely clutch.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

"Tony Lock got so cross that he wasn't getting any wickets that he was bowling faster and faster.

"So in actual fact he bowled as a seam bowler who never turned the ball. If he had slowed down he had to get wickets but his reaction was to simply skid the ball through.

"The harder Locky tried the less he looked like getting a wicket - he didn't even have a catch dropped or a stumping missed.

"When Jim was coming up to 14/15 wickets we realised something special might be happening but at the same time we kept thinking Locky must surely get a wicket somewhere along the line.

"The more wickets Jim took the more annoyed Tony got because the pitch was the same at both ends.

"We went off the field afterwards and Jim went out onto the balcony to hold up a glass of Lucozade - he was sponsored by them - to the crowd and photographers.

"By the time he came back into the dressing room Locky had gone, he was so upset and deflated."

Well, tbf, from that description it does sound like Lock wasn't really going to get wickets, either - not for lack of trying but for trying too hard!

 

[zaremba]

Well, tbf, from that description it does sound like Lock wasn't really going to get wickets, either - not for lack of trying but for trying too hard!

Yep - and English bowlers nowadays are, of course, even more multi-skilled when it comes to finding methods of not taking wickets.

 

[oitoitoi]

Yep - and English bowlers nowadays are, of course, even more multi-skilled when it comes to finding methods of not taking wickets.

It's quite a talent to convince your supporters you're threatening while maintaining a 35+ average.

 

[rivera213]

It's quite a talent to convince your supporters you're threatening while maintaining a 35+ average.

I don't think any England fan, or even the coaches claim that we have an attack "for all seasons", but if you saw the series against South Africa, then you must concede Jimmy Anderson at least is a handful at home.

Averages are misleading nowadays.

I think the new "40" for a batsman is actually 45 and the "30" for a bowler is 35 due to the fact the wickets nowadays are so in favour of batsmen. You have to alter the figures accordingly to be consistent.

We don't have a Steyn or Johnson but I'd take Anderson over every other seamer in the world atm (in tests) barring the 2 afforementioned and Zaheer Khan.

He's not Waqar Younis, but he's a handful in English conditions.