which type of batsmen helps the team more?

[Richard]

Good point. esp when u consider that one of Laras best innings (his 277) came in a draw but a draw where WI were behind the ball from the get go.

Lara's 277, superlative knock though it was, came in a game that was a foregone-conclusion draw on one of the flattest decks imagineable.

Let's just emphasise that it's impossible to score anything quite that big, however well you bat, on something other than a very flat deck.

All right, WI had been outplayed in the opening couple of games of the series in question (were very lucky not to be 2-0 down) but that's about the only respect in which they were up-against.

 

[Uppercut]

Let's just emphasise that it's impossible to score anything quite that big, however well you bat, on something other than a very flat deck.

Hmm. Fancy Sehwag would have got something thereabouts had he not been stranded on 201* against Sri Lanka last summer.

 

[Richard]

Being stranded is one of the reasons it's impossible. To make a massive score not only do you have to bat that well, but the 10 others have to stay with you for long enough.

And let's emphasise that Sehwag's knock there was about as well as you could realistically expect anyone to bat.

 

[GIMH]

It's not impossible though

 

[andyc]

Let's just emphasise that it's impossible to score anything quite that big, however well you bat, on something other than a very flat deck.

2nd Test: India v Australia at Kolkata, Mar 11-15, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

 

[Richard]

It's not impossible though

Nothing's impossible. But generally when I say "impossible" I mean realistically impossible.

 

[Richard]

2nd Test: India v Australia at Kolkata, Mar 11-15, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Are you saying that wasn't very flat? Sure, there was a little turn for Harbhajan (and a fair bit for Warne who'll turn it on anything), but there's no way that was anything other than a pitch which offered precious little to bowlers.

Make no mistake, as I say, like Lara's, Laxman's knock was superlative, one of the best ever, turning near-certain defeat into impregnability (and thanks to Australia's fourth-innings-when-facing-a-pretty-simple-task vulnerability, victory), But that deck was not a bowler-friendly one by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Uppercut]

Being stranded is one of the reasons it's impossible. To make a massive score not only do you have to bat that well, but the 10 others have to stay with you for long enough.

And let's emphasise that Sehwag's knock there was about as well as you could realistically expect anyone to bat.

But India collapsed horrendously in that match. He only needed one of them to stick around for another 30 or 40 balls and he probably would have got to 250, given his strike rate when the wickets started tumbling.

 

[Richard]

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, can't say it's all that surprising that they collapsed as no-one seemed to look much at home that series except for him in that knock.

 

[MrIncredible]

Lara's 277, superlative knock though it was, came in a game that was a foregone-conclusion draw on one of the flattest decks imagineable.

Let's just emphasise that it's impossible to score anything quite that big, however well you bat, on something other than a very flat deck.

All right, WI had been outplayed in the opening couple of games of the series in question (were very lucky not to be 2-0 down) but that's about the only respect in which they were up-against.

No it wasnt. Oz had 500 on the board and WI were 31 for 2 on a Sydney wicket where theyd lost like 3 tests in a row. Plus the men following Lara (Hooper, Arthurton, Adams) werent household names either. Without this knock WI would more than likely lost (as they'd done in tests at SCG prior to this and Oz also had Warne)

 

[Richard]

No it wasnt. Oz had 500 on the board and WI were 31 for 2 on a Sydney wicket where theyd lost like 3 tests in a row. Plus the men following Lara (Hooper, Arthurton, Adams) werent household names either. Without this knock WI would more than likely lost (as they'd done in tests at SCG prior to this and Oz also had Warne)

The 1992/93 SCG pitch bore roughly zero resemblence to the ones of 1988/89 and 1984/85 - and what's more, the Test was a live one, unlike those two. Those dead Tests saw two nothing bowlers (Bob Holland and Allan Border) take massive hauls against batsmen who were clearly disinterested (those same batsmen played without tremendous difficulty against infinitely better spinners in more important games before and after).

Lara too wasn't a household name at all in 1992/93, any more than Arthurton and Adams were. Hooper actually was a household name by then, but was established as pretty awful at that point.

Without Lara's knock they could indeed conceivably have lost. But it's just as conceivable, in fact probably more so, that someone else would instead have scored plenty of runs (without batting anywhere near as well as Lara did) and the game would have been the foregone-conclusion draw that it always was.

 

[SaeedAnwar]

I dont care what you guys, this is one of fav Lara's knocks: YouTube - Brian Lara 226 at Adelaide Oval 2005

Just look at the shots he plays through out that innings espeically how he hits Brett Lee to reach 200

 

[andyc]

Without Lara's knock they could indeed conceivably have lost. But it's just as conceivable, in fact probably more so, that someone else would instead have scored plenty of runs (without batting anywhere near as well as Lara did) and the game would have been the foregone-conclusion draw that it always was.

Possibly the worst argument against the quality of an innings that I've seen. 'Someone else could have scored those runs, for all we know.' Well yeah, but they bloody well didn't, did they?

 

[honestbharani]

Yes & no, for me.

Obviously runs still need to be scored, but I don't think I'm going out on too far of a limb when I say some centuries scored on roads aren't as important as those scored on more sporting tracks. Even those scored in the same innings, sometimes. No disrespect to Haddin's ton at Cardiff, but he came to the crease with Australia already ahead of our total and set fair. Credit to him for applying the boot to the windpipe, but Katich's & Ponting's hundreds had been scored when the game was still more in the balance.

Haddin's performance isn't worthy of "contempt" or anything like it, but I'd suggest it was a ton made with the pressure largely off. In the context of the game I doubt too many would argue that Collingwood's 70-odd wasn't a more important innings, despite not giving his stats the hike Haddin's did.



I know Dicko's a huge Hayden man too tho, so it's not just limited to Aussies.

AWTA wholeheartedly.. Kinda making my point but in a much nicer and positive way. Thanks BB..

 

[Richard]

Possibly the worst argument against the quality of an innings that I've seen. 'Someone else could have scored those runs, for all we know.' Well yeah, but they bloody well didn't, did they?

I'm not arguing against the quality of the innings - as you see from this thread, I consider it Lara's finest innings.

I'm simply arguing that pretty much come what may, the SCG Test of 1992/93 was going to be a draw.

 

[AaronK]

for me it all comes down to entertainment..sports are supposed to be about winning and losing..so i don't care much about wining and losing as long as the game that i am watching is enterining and full of ups and downs and excitment... so it all depends on how the batsman is going to play.. if he will score 100 in 300 balls and draw the game..then i much rather watch a batsman who makes a quick 50 and hits a few boundries.. than him..

But the scenario of making 100 in 300 balls never fited lara..even if he took his time to setle down.. he would play some gorgous shots.. that make you want to watch and wonder what he is going to do next..

 

[MrIncredible]

I'm not arguing against the quality of the innings - as you see from this thread, I consider it Lara's finest innings.

I'm simply arguing that pretty much come what may, the SCG Test of 1992/93 was going to be a draw.

Richard u do realise that only a few days prior WI had succumbed to the spin of Warne. now imagine if Lara had fallen early, I have no doubt that WI would have been bowled out for around 250-300 and Oz would have had more than enough time (even though the match was affected by rain) to atleast try and bowl the WI out again. That match was not a fore gone draw.

 

[MrIncredible]

The 1992/93 SCG pitch bore roughly zero resemblence to the ones of 1988/89 and 1984/85 - and what's more, the Test was a live one, unlike those two. Those dead Tests saw two nothing bowlers (Bob Holland and Allan Border) take massive hauls against batsmen who were clearly disinterested (those same batsmen played without tremendous difficulty against infinitely better spinners in more important games before and after).

Lara too wasn't a household name at all in 1992/93, any more than Arthurton and Adams were. Hooper actually was a household name by then, but was established as pretty awful at that point.

Without Lara's knock they could indeed conceivably have lost. But it's just as conceivable, in fact probably more so, that someone else would instead have scored plenty of runs (without batting anywhere near as well as Lara did) and the game would have been the foregone-conclusion draw that it always was.

I would like to know who that batsman is. Richie made 109 but Lara took much of the pressure off of him. So who else could have made runs: Arthurton, Hooper (lol), Adams, Murray???? BTW Haynes and Simmonds were back in the pavilion by the time Lara came out. W/o Laras 277 i doubt wi would have made much more than 300. Richie's century in the same match owes much to the calming effect of a dominating lara at the other end.

 

[DingDong]

I think this is a great thread. Personally, I think ultra-agressive batsmen with inpenetrable defenses is the way to go.

 

[Richard]

Richard u do realise that only a few days prior WI had succumbed to the spin of Warne. now imagine if Lara had fallen early, I have no doubt that WI would have been bowled out for around 250-300 and Oz would have had more than enough time (even though the match was affected by rain) to atleast try and bowl the WI out again. That match was not a fore gone draw.

Well do u realise that for the rest of the series outside that MCG second-innings they had no trouble whatsoever with Warne? Nor had anyone else (though they would start to - immediately after that WI series).

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that WI would likely have fallen to Warne had Lara been dismissed early. Just because of a couple of freak Tests at the SCG on the previous couple of tours, which as I say, bear no resemblence whatsoever to the 1992/93 one.