Best match winning innings you have seen?

[Richard]

Of course they aren't. It's just that a cricket match (at least, a match based on the two-innings game; obviously a limited-overs one-innings game is different), by nature, can only be won by bowling. The closest a batsman can come to playing a match-winning innings can be in the fourth-innings or, possibly, third-innings.

That doesn't mean runs in any one innings are automatically of more or less value than anywhere else.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Of course they aren't. It's just that a cricket match (at least, a match based on the two-innings game; obviously a limited-overs one-innings game is different), by nature, can only be won by bowling. The closest a batsman can come to playing a match-winning innings can be in the fourth-innings or, possibly, third-innings.

That doesn't mean runs in any one innings are automatically of more or less value than anywhere else.

What? Are you being serious? What about Amla and Kallis in India as a recent example? All the bowlers have to do is go through the motions when a massive score is put on.

Runs win matches, unless I've been watching a different sport for the past 17 years.

 

[L Trumper]

What? Are you being serious? What about Amla and Kallis in India as a recent example? All the bowlers have to do is go through the motions when a massive score is put on.

Runs win matches, unless I've been watching a different sport for the past 17 years.

They do win the matches. General consensus is that batsman setup the match (kallis, amla) while bowlers win it (steyn).
In kolkata test aussie bowlers almost won the match then laxman and dravid turned it which allowed bhajji and SRT to spun IND to victory. Most of the time this is the situation and regarded as such.
But when it is a 4th innings chase of substantial score then it means other way. Sometimes these 4th innings total might be the highest score of whole test match (ala perth08, chennai 08) etc. These are the situations where batsmen win the games. But it is difficult to find innings where only one batsman did the bulk of the scoring while rest failed. Smith's 154* against ENG is an example where smith score more than half of the runs and it is considered as a winning knock.
Bridgetown 99 is a special case where bowlers knocked AUS out under 150 in 2nd innings and gave batsman a chance to achieve victory. That is the match where bowlers setup the victory and brian lara won. This is a rare occurrence. Thus the notion batsman setup the match and bowlers win it.
Besides that to win a match you have to take 20 wickets , but even if you score more runs it is not guaranteed that you will win.

 

[Uppercut]

I didnt watch the game so I have always wondered what made it better than Dravids?

101 extra runs . It's a little bit like asking why two centuries are better than one.

Laxman batting is also much prettier than Dravid batting, that impacts on people's minds a lot too.

 

[aussie]

They do win the matches. General consensus is that batsman setup the match (kallis, amla) while bowlers win it (steyn).
In kolkata test aussie bowlers almost won the match then laxman and dravid turned it which allowed bhajji and SRT to spun IND to victory. Most of the time this is the situation and regarded as such.
But when it is a 4th innings chase of substantial score then it means other way. Sometimes these 4th innings total might be the highest score of whole test match (ala perth08, chennai 08) etc. These are the situations where batsmen win the games. But it is difficult to find innings where only one batsman did the bulk of the scoring while rest failed. Smith's 154* against ENG is an example where smith score more than half of the runs and it is considered as a winning knock.
Bridgetown 99 is a special case where bowlers knocked AUS out under 150 in 2nd innings and gave batsman a chance to achieve victory. That is the match where bowlers setup the victory and brian lara won. This is a rare occurrence. Thus the notion batsman setup the match and bowlers win it.
Besides that to win a match you have to take 20 wickets , but even if you score more runs it is not guaranteed that you will win.

Indeed

You dont win matches by scoring more than the opposition in test cricket, you win by taking 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition made. Viv Richards was once asked after WI made just over 200 against England - he simply replied with "doesnt matter what we make they will make less".

This is the same reason why Pakistan has been more successful through the 90s than India as a test team, they had the bowling to win matches, India didnt. Along with Lara's 153* in 99, which would not have meant anything, if Walsh hadn't weighed in with a five-fer in AUS last innings and restricted them to a low total.

As the old adage goes, batsmen save & set-up matches, bowlers win them.

 

[Top_Cat]

101 extra runs . It's a little bit like asking why two centuries are better than one.

Laxman batting is also much prettier than Dravid batting, that impacts on people's minds a lot too.

Possibly but I don't that applies here. Laxman was India's only batter in the first dig and was smashing them so it wasn't much of a surprise to see him out there at first drop in the 2nd. The Indian batters were better the second time 'round but none were pushing back as hard as Laxman, who was already past 100 when Dravid came out and was the only one looking likely to really stand up when the Aussies were surging. The others looked like they were more concerned with staving off the inevitable and putting up some form for the next series. Even Dravid, quite out-of-form, was basically holding up an end until he got passed 100 when he opened up with Laxman as India took the momentum from the Aussies.

That's the difference; Laxman led the resistance while all others were falling and dictated the direction of the match by sheer force of will. That he did it in style was a nice bonus. All others were his support, you could feel that just by watching the progress of the match. Dravid's knock was a really professional one, no doubt, but Laxman's was inspirational. Probably the best I've seen if I think about it.

Led to believe Dravid took a lot of confidence from that knock. Up until then he'd been pegged as a bloke who sure could put together a nice 75 but struggled to really hurt opposing teams. We all know what he did after it, that's for sure.

 

[Pothas]

Good spot in the 2nd post of the thread.

The closest a batsman can come to winning a match is by playing a pivotal innings in a fourth-innings run-chase, or maybe in a third-innings chase-setter which gives his bowlers a task they have negligable chance of failing in.

Gooch's 154* would be the best example I can think of the latter; sure many can think of some of the former without resorting to Lara's 153*.

Think Mr Greenidge played a part in winning this match.

2nd Test: England v West Indies at Lord's, Jun 28-Jul 3, 1984 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Ridiculous innings, surprised it has not been mentioned.

 

[irfan]

Tendulkar vs. South Africa

1st Test Nagpur 2010

 

[wfdu_ben91]

History of test cricket? it's not for sure.

On top of my head
Trumper's century before lunch on unplayable wicket;
hobbs and sutcliffe double act (in 1926 I guess);
Bradman's 270
Lara's 153 * and gooch's 154 are also better.

If we consider world series cricket
Sobers 254,
pollock and sobers double act
chappell against four horse man


Besides laxman's was a double act along with rahul not just a single innings.

I doubt any of those innings were better then Laxman's. I don't see how an innings of 150 odd can be considered better then an innings of 280, coming in following on against McGrath & Gillespie at their peak and Warne on a turning wicket.

 

[L Trumper]

I doubt any of those innings were better then Laxman's. I don't see how an innings of 150 odd can be considered better then an innings of 280, coming in following on against McGrath & Gillespie at their peak and Warne on a turning wicket.

May be not the trumper's century. Remaining are probably a bit better than laxman. As far as aussie attack goes warne was more or less rubbish during that series , gillespie was just finding his feet on test level after injuries. Only Mcgrath is the real deal.
Gooch's headingly knock may be just a 154* but innings scores are 198 , 172 , 252 , 162. And its against the four pronged marshall, ambrose, walsh, patterson. First two averaged 20 in the series and the next two 30. It is clearly better since next best score is 27 and he is there stranded on 154 after playing seven and half hours.
Laxman innings was one of the best. But saying it as the best innings is disputable. It is better to say all these innings are one of the bests.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

May be not the trumper's century. Remaining are probably a bit better than laxman. As far as aussie attack goes warne was more or less rubbish during that series , gillespie was just finding his feet on test level after injuries. Only Mcgrath is the real deal.
Gooch's headingly knock may be just a 154* but innings scores are 198 , 172 , 252 , 162. And its against the four pronged marshall, ambrose, walsh, patterson. First two averaged 20 in the series and the next two 30. It is clearly better since next best score is 27 and he is there stranded on 154 after playing seven and half hours.
Laxman innings was one of the best. But saying it as the best innings is disputable. It is better to say all these innings are one of the bests.

Warne didn't bowl rubbish, he just got mullered by Laxman and if you rewatch the innings highlights Gillespie was bowling beautifully during that innings. Laxman's innings had all of the ingredients to be considered the greatest of alltime. I'm sure if Bradman didn't pass away just fewer weeks before the innings was played would've said it was one of/if not the greatest innings he had ever seen.

There have been many batsman that have scored around abouts 150 in low scoring matches. No other batsman has matched what Laxman did. For example Pietersen's knock when he reverse swept Muralitharan.

 

[L Trumper]

Warne didn't bowl rubbish, he just got mullered by Laxman and if you rewatch the innings highlights Gillespie was bowling beautifully during that innings. Laxman's innings had all of the ingredients to be considered the greatest of alltime. I'm sure if Bradman didn't pass away just fewer weeks before the innings was played would've said it was one of/if not the greatest innings he had ever seen.

There have been many batsman that have scored around abouts 150 in low scoring matches. No other batsman has matched what Laxman did. For example Pietersen's knock when he reverse swept Muralitharan.

It is one of the best sure, not "the" best. KP's 150 with gooch's 150 really? Apart from murali no SL bowler averaged below 30 in that series. Vaas and malinga bowled rubbish through out the series and averaged in the 50's.

Warne was poor he never got hold on any of the batsman not just laxman. That means laxman played against an attack consisting of one great, one good, two average bowlers(on that particular day). While gooch played against two great, two good bowlers on green deck.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It is one of the best sure, not "the" best. KP's 150 with gooch's 150 really? Apart from murali no SL bowler averaged below 30 in that series. Vaas and malinga bowled rubbish through out the series and averaged in the 50's.

Warne was poor he never got hold on any of the batsman not just laxman. That means laxman played against an attack consisting of one great, one good, two average bowlers(on that particular day). While gooch played against two great, two good bowlers on green deck.

Warne never got hold of any batsman during that series? Warne had done reasonably well in the 3 innings he had bowled before Laxman's mammoth knock. He had taken 5 wickets in the previous match and had taken 2 in the first innings. It was Laxman who single-handedly took Warne out the equation. The rest of the Indians had success off of the back of Laxman throughout the remainder of the series.

Three innings before Laxman's knock, Warne had taken 4/47, 1/60 and 2/65 (Laxman smacking him around was the difference between 2/40 and 2/65); McGrath had taken 3/19, 2/25 and 4/18 and Gillespie had taken 2/50, 3/45 and 2/47. I'd say they were in reasonably form.

 

[aussie]

Warne never got hold of any batsman during that series? Warne had done reasonably well in the 3 innings he had bowled before Laxman's mammoth knock. He had taken 5 wickets in the previous match and had taken 2 in the first innings. It was Laxman who single-handedly took Warne out the equation. The rest of the Indians had success off of the back of Laxman throughout the remainder of the series.

Three innings before Laxman's knock, Warne had taken 4/47, 1/60 and 2/65 (Laxman smacking him around was the difference between 2/40 and 2/65); McGrath had taken 3/19, 2/25 and 4/18 and Gillespie had taken 2/50, 3/45 and 2/47. I'd say they were in reasonably form.

Have to agree with L_Trumper slightly that Warne was poor in 2001 series. After all that was in the ENG 98 - IND 2001 period where he is the worst phase of this career form wise & injury wise.

Yes before that 2nd innings @ Kolkatta Warne figures weren't exaclty bad. But i argue that IND batsmen where poor'/lacked confidence & it was the quicks who where owning the IND batting. When the IND batting got confidence from the 2nd innings in Kolkatta onwards, Warne was exposed for being in the worse phase of his career. Warne fully fit & @ his best in IND was the 2004 series.

But wfdu_ben91 sir, i do agree with your position that Laxman's 281 was probably the best innings of all-time. Its easily the best of my 15 years of watching cricket..

 

[African Monkey]

Dravid's performance in both innings against Australia at Adelaide in 2003.

 

[Jono]

Sachin's 432 vs. South Africa

Tuesday 9 February 2010.


[/GIMH]

Only 332 short




Oh and short the win as well

 

[Gazza_11]

Would just like to point out that this thread was copied from Planet Cricket. The user who created it here wasn't even the one who made it on Planet Cricket.

 

[Shri]

Haha.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha because the idea of a thread about match-winning innings is clearly a recent invention.

 

[GIMH]

The batsmen don't win matches theory is my least favourite CW theory, FTR