The best at their best

[bagapath]

For sheer theatre, as opposed to pure quality or match-turningness, Waugh's last ball four to bring up his hundred v England in Sydney, after batting like a 'tard most of the summer, takes some beating.

yup. i remember screaming in joy and hearing similar screams from neighbors on a warm chennai evening after everything had come to a standstill for the past hour or so. steve waugh has been hugely popular india, quite possibly because he, wasim akram and de silva started their careers when television broadcasting started covering most of the country and the tv sets were becoming more affordable to all. their careers had unfolded in front of our eyes and consequently they were as popular as indian cricketers. this particular knock must have pleased every cricket fan around the globe as no one wanted the selectors to decide steve's fate. you are right. it was great theater.

 

[subshakerz]

I am quite surprised by that statement. By 2005 Mcgrath had been the best paceman in the world for close to a decade. I would say his first intimidating performance in my opinion was in an ODI game against India in the '99 WC. It was brain numbing seam bowling!

Yes, I may have spoken a bit too soon, I do recall McGrath being quite nasty in that series against the WI in 99.

 

[Richard]

Also Lara making use of a dropped catch to make 153 n.o. doesnt make it any lesser innings.

So you're saying that if Lara had been out with 7 runs needed, you'd still consider that knock as good as you do after WI ended-up winning?

I wouldn't.

That wouldn't change the fact that he played astoundingly well to get them close, but like Tendulkar in 1998/99, he didn't quite finish the job. And it's a little unfair that Lara gets the credit for finishing that one - which in reality he didn't - while Tendulkar often gets pilloried, despite batting superlatively for 136, for failing to quite finish the job. And the only difference was the catching or dropping of a chance.

 

[bagapath]

So you're saying that if Lara had been out with 7 runs needed, you'd still consider that knock as good as you do after WI ended-up winning?

I wouldn't.

That wouldn't change the fact that he played astoundingly well to get them close, but like Tendulkar in 1998/99, he didn't quite finish the job. And it's a little unfair that Lara gets the credit for finishing that one - which in reality he didn't - while Tendulkar often gets pilloried, despite batting superlatively for 136, for failing to quite finish the job. And the only difference was the catching or dropping of a chance.

But Lara did not get out and Sachin did. That is a big big difference. Anyways, to answer your question had Lara brought the team close and fallen it would still have been a great knock; just like Sachin's 136. But Sachin's 155 n.o. is superior to that 136 because it also resulted in a win. Here we are comparing Steve Waugh's 200 with his 199. One match winning, series deciding knock and the other one overshadowed in the same game by another masterpiece. The 200 is miles ahead. Similarly Lara's 153 n.o. is better than his 277 but by a smaller margin.

 

[bagapath]

it's a little unfair that Lara gets the credit for finishing that one - which in reality he didn't

I dont get this line. He did finish the job. And deserves all the credit.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Matthew Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe is one for the ages imo.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I said at the time that I doubt I'd see a spell much better than that one on the opening afternoon, but I might be a bit biased towards that one given that it occurred when I was fully awake and watching with about as much attention as I ever have rather than half-asleep with the door wide open.

Was it the back door?

 

[ripper868]

Gilchrist in India

 

[Richard]

I dont get this line. He did finish the job. And deserves all the credit.

He didn't. He gave a chance, and Healy missed it. Lara had assistance in finishing the job, so it was finished; Tendulkar didn't, so it wasn't.

 

[Richard]

But Lara did not get out and Sachin did. That is a big big difference.

It isn't. There is no difference whatsoever in what Lara did and what Tendulkar did. Both gave a chance with victory just around the corner; Lara's was missed, Tendulkar's was taken. It's completely unfair to basically say that the batsman did something different when in reality it was the fielder who did. If Wasim had dropped Tendulkar as Healy dropped Lara, then Tendulkar's knock would be remembered as Lara's is - as one of the greatest innings in a run-chase by one of the greatest batsmen in history.

Anyways, to answer your question had Lara brought the team close and fallen it would still have been a great knock; just like Sachin's 136. But Sachin's 155 n.o. is superior to that 136 because it also resulted in a win. Here we are comparing Steve Waugh's 200 with his 199. One match winning, series deciding knock and the other one overshadowed in the same game by another masterpiece. The 200 is miles ahead. Similarly Lara's 153 n.o. is better than his 277 but by a smaller margin.

I don't tend to automatically consider the result as a part in how good an innings was - just whether it gave the side the best chance it realistically could. I said that the 155* was better than the 136 for Tendulkar and yes, I still think so - but they were both sensational knocks. And if Australia had won that game (not that it was ever remotely likely after Tendulkar's innings) nothing would change.

But for Lara's knock (and Healy's drop), Stephen Waugh's 199 would've been the difference between victory and defeat. Under no circumstances does anything that happened afterwards devalue Stephen Waugh's effort.

 

[Richard]

Was it the back door?

It is (not was) a door to the conservatory. It's at the back of the house, but not exactly "the" back door (there are three of them).

 

[bagapath]

It isn't. There is no difference whatsoever in what Lara did and what Tendulkar did. Both gave a chance with victory just around the corner; Lara's was missed, Tendulkar's was taken. It's completely unfair to basically say that the batsman did something different when in reality it was the fielder who did. If Wasim had dropped Tendulkar as Healy dropped Lara, then Tendulkar's knock would be remembered as Lara's is - as one of the greatest innings in a run-chase by one of the greatest batsmen in history.

But for Lara's knock (and Healy's drop), Stephen Waugh's 199 would've been the difference between victory and defeat. Under no circumstances does anything that happened afterwards devalue Stephen Waugh's effort.

I dont think we will ever agree on this. For me, making use of such opportunities makes all the difference. For all you know, after healy missed the catch, Lara could have given another chance and gotten out. He did not. He finished the job successfully. That is what matters to me. Even if Waugh's 199 was a chanceless knock, it is already forgotten because that did not decide the fate of the match. Lara's did. And so did Waugh's 200 few years before that.

 

[Richard]

It certainly isn't forgotten - it was a magnificent innings, same way Lara's was until he gave the chance on 148 or whatever it was, same way Tendulkar's 136 was, same way any number of other knocks that ended-up in vain was.

You can construct some sort of case for the 1995 Sabina Park knock from Stephen Waugh being his defining innings (certainly not his best) but saying that because an innings results in victory for your side this makes some massive difference has precious little going for it IMO.

And BTW I don't think making use of a dropped catch to score another 5 runs or whatever is really that much of an achievement. Lara played superlatively to get close, but he needed a let-off to get over the line. That's end-of-story for me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In 1993 a book entitled The Innings of my Life was put together by Jack Bannister where a number of great batsman chose the innings they consider their best. Sunil Gavaskar chose 57 made on green top at Old Trafford in 1971. Viv Richards chose 61 he made against India at Kingston, Jamaica in 1983.
Steve Waugh chose the 177 at Headingley in 1989 but at the time of publication he'd not yet played many of his great innings.

 

[bagapath]

1995 Sabina Park knock from Stephen Waugh being his defining innings (certainly not his best)

I am perfectly okay with that distinction only I dont know if his 199 or any other knock that I may not have seen was better than the 200. Since you have seen the 199 and can vouch for it it could very well be his best. But the 200 was his defining innings in my opinion and you dont seem to have too much problems with it either. Everyone is happy. This is a beautiful world.

 

[The Sean]

In 1993 a book entitled The Innings of my Life was put together by Jack Bannister where a number of great batsman chose the innings they consider their best. Sunil Gavaskar chose 57 made on green top at Old Trafford in 1971. Viv Richards chose 61 he made against India at Kingston, Jamaica in 1983.
Steve Waugh chose the 177 at Headingley in 1989 but at the time of publication he'd not yet played many of his great innings.

I remember reading about Viv calling that his best innings - IIRC the 61 came off just 36 balls and was made quickly enough to push WI to a victory that had seemed very unlikely.

 

[subshakerz]

It certainly isn't forgotten - it was a magnificent innings, same way Lara's was until he gave the chance on 148 or whatever it was, same way Tendulkar's 136 was, same way any number of other knocks that ended-up in vain was.

You can construct some sort of case for the 1995 Sabina Park knock from Stephen Waugh being his defining innings (certainly not his best) but saying that because an innings results in victory for your side this makes some massive difference has precious little going for it IMO.

And BTW I don't think making use of a dropped catch to score another 5 runs or whatever is really that much of an achievement. Lara played superlatively to get close, but he needed a let-off to get over the line. That's end-of-story for me.

This is silliness in my opinion. You can't deny luck as a factor in any game. Sometimes bowlers get hit-wickets that have nothing to do with their skill but simply a stroke of luck. And batsmen sometimes survive due to a fielding error. Cricket is not a game of just batsmen vs bowlers but batsmen vs. the entire fielding side and the bowler. And the fielding side dropping a catch is a weakness similar to a bowler consistently bowling half volleys or a batsman shouldering a ball that hits his stumps. In the end what matters is who scores runs or takes wickets, not if his innings is chanceless.

If a batsman survives a deadset LBW appeal or snick due to an umpire when on 0, should we discredit his innings if he scores a double century? Tendulkar in Chennai had a missed stumping chance when on 90, should we not consider the extra 46 runs he made that took India close and consider him out at 90 when we look at his innings. No, because we deal with results in the real world, and nearly every batsman has luck, just some larger cases of luck than other. It's what you do with it that counts.

 

[Richard]

He actually didn't have a stumping chance missed - he got a massive inside-edge on one after coming down the track that meant Moin Khan was never going to take it cleanly unless he had Jedi reflexes. He did well to get a finger-end on it. You'd have to be pretty silly to call that a chance IMO.

In the end a double-century where a batsman doesn't give a chance at any stage is probably going to be quite a bit better than one where he escapes a plumb lbw then doesn't give another chance until 220 runs later. Nonetheless, he's still played well after the let-off to get 220.

And of course neither I nor anyone denies luck as a factor in cricket. It's just that luck and skill are two separate things. And if you refuse to acknowledge when luck plays a part and when it doesn't, you're not going to get the best impression of when most skill has been on display.

So thus to assimilate what a batsman's best innings is, finding one where he hasn't been lucky with a let-off is one of the first things I'd do.

BTW the fact that a bowler never deserves any credit for a hit-wicket is one reason why it'd be preferable in my mind for a hit-wicket dismissal not to be credited to the bowler.

 

[bagapath]

dont over complicate things here, richard. it is going to be impossible to define what constitutes an easy chance and what is a half chance and how either one would affect an innings' quality depending on whether the chance resulted in a dismissal or not.

irrespective of whether the chance sachin gave is more difficult than the one lara gave, one guy could finish the job and the guy could not. it is as simple as that. i dont think it is going to be sensible to get into "one guy gave a half chance that was taken. the other player gave an easy chance that was missed. so the first player played better" kind of argument.

on a different note, it possible to rate an innings in a losing cause above a match winning knock. i consider sachin's 136 n.o. to be a better knock compared to the 103 n.o. he scored against england. both were in chennai in the fourth innings; one resulted in a loss and the other in a win. still the pakistan attack was way better than the english attack (as it has been since 81-82) and the pitch in the recent match was easier to bat on. i was there on the last day of both games and the atmosphere was completely different on both occasions. the kind of pressure sachin had to deal with in the pak match was unbelievable. that innings would always be rated a superior innings irrespective of the result.

for facing a superior attack as a one man army, for herding the tail and for hanging on till the end lara's 153 will always be remebered more than steve waugh's 199. even if lara had gotten out with 2 runs to go, it would still be considered a superior knock irrespective of whether he gave a half chance, full chance or didn't give a chance at all.

 

[Richard]

dont over complicate things here, richard. it is going to be impossible to define what constitutes an easy chance and what is a half chance and how either one would affect an innings' quality depending on whether the chance resulted in a dismissal or not.

irrespective of whether the chance sachin gave is more difficult than the one lara gave, one guy could finish the job and the guy could not. it is as simple as that. i dont think it is going to be sensible to get into "one guy gave a half chance that was taken. the other player gave an easy chance that was missed. so the first player played better" kind of argument.

Those who seek to look at "half-chances" etc. are those doing the over-complicating. It's pretty straightforward to say what should be taken and what has no realistic chance of being. There will be a minute number of grey areas but plenty of people have over-ambitious expectations of fielders, calling anything that touches the fingertips a chance.

And it isn't as simple as Lara could finish the job - because, purely and simply, he could not. He needed help from Healy to get over the line. Are you saying that if West Indies had been bowled-out 7 short of their target, as they would if Healy had taken that catch, that Lara would still have finished the job?

on a different note, it possible to rate an innings in a losing cause above a match winning knock. i consider sachin's 136 n.o. to be a better knock compared to the 103 n.o. he scored against england. both were in chennai in the fourth innings; one resulted in a loss and the other in a win. still the pakistan attack was way better than the english attack (as it has been since 81-82) and the pitch in the recent match was easier to bat on. i was there on the last day of both games and the atmosphere was completely different on both occasions. the kind of pressure sachin had to deal with in the pak match was unbelievable. that innings would always be rated a superior innings irrespective of the result.

for facing a superior attack as a one man army, for herding the tail and for hanging on till the end lara's 153 will always be remebered more than steve waugh's 199. even if lara had gotten out with 2 runs to go, it would still be considered a superior knock irrespective of whether he gave a half chance, full chance or didn't give a chance at all.

I don't dispute that. Lara's knock at Kensington Oval in 1999 > Stephen Waugh's knock. The point is, though, that I think most people would consider it in reverse if Healy had taken that catch. To my mind, that's wrong.

BTW I hope you're not suggesting Pakistan's Test attack has been better than England's at every point since 1981/82?