Best match winning innings you have seen?

[Top_Cat]

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

Not to mention the most pointless. At least FCA has some basis for numerical analysis.

And no, I'm not going to do it.

 

[aussie]

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

Sometimes they can, but generally they dont in test matches.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not going to argue it as I have done before. Search my posts on it in the past and quote them if you must, it's a ridiculous theory.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not going to argue it as I have done before. Search my posts on it in the past and quote them if you must, it's a ridiculous theory.

talking logic to aussie... haven't we learned??????

 

[The Sean]

His sophomore match in fact.

Unfortunately for him, it's rather like Dravid's 180 at Eden Gardens a year later - that was overshadowed by Laxman's 281, Gilchrist's was overshadowed by Langer's 226(?)*.

Different match – Langer “only” got 127 IIRC in that chase, but won MoM because he got runs in the first dig as well. Gilly’s 149* was definitely the high score of that innings.

 

[slippy]

Alex Tudor 99 not out against New Zealand 1999.

 

[Richard]

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.

In a two-innings game, only wickets win matches. By-and-large in a match like that bowlers on both sides will go through the motions and 600 will play 600. It was only a special spell from Steyn that broke the mould here.

There's absolutely no way that match was won by Amla and Kallis; they set up the possibility, and Steyn then grabbed that possibility and won the match with his bowling.

 

[Richard]

Laxman batting is also much prettier than Dravid batting

You reckon?

Personally I'd have both of them near the top of the tree in terms of batsmen I'd want to watch make an equal score (say, 176) of those that I've seen.

Have certainly heard plenty of others intimate that Dravid's batting is a thing of beauty, same as Laxman's.

 

[Uppercut]

You reckon?

Personally I'd have both of them near the top of the tree in terms of batsmen I'd want to watch make an equal score (say, 176) of those that I've seen.

Have certainly heard plenty of others intimate that Dravid's batting is a thing of beauty, same as Laxman's.

I'm not a massive fan of Dravid's batting aesthetically. But my point was more that Laxman in full flight is absolutely awe-inspiring.

 

[Richard]

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.

Although there's no way I rate that Pietersen knock as high as I rate Gooch's 154*, I certainly rate it as comfortably Pietersen's best innings to date and conceivably the best I've seen in near-entirety (I doubt I missed more than the odd delivery of it). No-one should underestimate how well he played in that game. The reverse-sweep for six off Murali has gained notoreity but it was merely one example of how brilliant he played him. Not to mention the rest. That pitch was a pretty tricky one (not a minefield, but far from a tea-party) and he just looked completely in command from first ball to last. Never gave a hint of a chance before he was out. And virtually no other batsman looked comfortable all game - Vandort made a decent but thoroughly uneasy century in the third-innings (in fact most of Vandort's innings look less-than-convincing in my experience) and Cook edged England towards victory in the fourth.

Vaas may have been poor for much of 2006 but every other England batsman just blocked him out - Pietersen went for him and succeeded.

 

[Richard]

I'm not a massive fan of Dravid's batting aesthetically. But my point was more that Laxman in full flight is absolutely awe-inspiring.

I guess he gives the impression of being insurmountable whereas Dravid merely gives the impression of being impregnable.

Out of interest why aren't you a fan of Dravid's batting, aesthetics-wise?

 

[Richard]

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

Not sure why - I know you've said you don't want to debate it but no-one has ever attempted to devalue the importance of quality batting.

It's purely a matter of semantics. Only when 20 wickets are taken is a match won (except in exceptionally rare circumstances).

As I say I've no objection at all to discussing which innings' have made the biggest difference between victory and defeat, but it seems silly to describe any Test innings as "match-winning".

 

[Richard]

Different match – Langer “only” got 127 IIRC in that chase, but won MoM because he got runs in the first dig as well. Gilly’s 149* was definitely the high score of that innings.

WoW, so he did. How on Earth have I managed to mix them up?

Langer got 59 in the first-innings of that match before being mistakenly given out lbw, then 127 in the second-innings after being (deliberately?) wrongly given n\o, with Gilchrist scoring 149*.

Langer's 223 came 3 Tests later, and it was a 141* from Ponting that it overshadowed.

 

[Richard]

Alex Tudor 99 not out against New Zealand 1999.

Although it's obviously not the best match-turning innings in history, it might well be the one from the most unexpected source. Until that third day batting in that match had been unbelievably difficult, and Tudor (unlike, it should be noted, the England top-order) suddenly made it look the easiest thing imagineable. Conditions did ease somewhat on that third day, but even so, as I say, not so much as to make it unrecogniseable for what had come before.

I doubt there was anyone who was not astonished to see someone who, ordinarily, was merely a better-than-average tailender (a good number-eight and a poor number-seven) play such an outstanding and decisive innings.

 

[Uppercut]

I guess he gives the impression of being insurmountable whereas Dravid merely gives the impression of being impregnable.

Out of interest why aren't you a fan of Dravid's batting, aesthetics-wise?

It's not always easy to analyse, but off the top of my head, one reason is because he doesn't play much of the pull shot. As a result you get a lot of awkward-looking (although technically perfect) prods into the turf off the back foot, like so:

(okay he's never going to pull that, but it was the best illustrative picture I could find)

When he does play the pull shot it's usually behind square. Much less impressive to watch than the contemptuous dismissal of a good length ball that is Alastair Cook's trademark.

The simplest answer though is probably that Dravid's a player for lovers of fine technique, and I'm not one of those. Watching him repel a stunning spell of bowling makes for great cricket obviously, but I'd never pay just to watch him bat. Unlike the rest of the Indian batting lineup.

 

[Richard]

Heh, see I would've happily paid if I was guaranteed a day of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly - or indeed if I was guaranteed just two from said four.

However I'd be much less enthusiastic about Sehwag, for although he's modelled himself on Tendulkar I find him infinitely less attractive than Tendulkar. I'd gather the impression that you'd find the other way around, too.

 

[Uppercut]

Sehwag's the batsman I'd pay most to watch out of anyone in the world.

In the second over of his 300 against South Africa two years ago he uppercut Makhaya Ntini for six. Of all the shots I've ever seen, that was by far the most stunning.

 

[Richard]

Most stunning I've ever seen was a pull for six from Aravinda (who was about 37 years old by that time IIRR) off a Brett Lee delivery at about 96mph or something. Couldn't for the life of me tell you how many he had at the time (know he ended-up getting a decent few but nowhere near enough to get SL near Aus' total) or much apart from the fact that Lee had decimated SL's top-order.

Little I enjoy more than seeing a master player of the pull-stroke dismiss a short delivery in a "don't bowl there at me sonny" way. And Aravinda had the class and orthodoxy that I so covet as well as the dismissive nature of his pull and the fact that he could play it to what, to most batsmen, would be good-length deliveries.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dravid was an excellent hooker of the ball but usually only brought it out when really at the top of his game. I was at the ground when he smacked the Aussie attack for a double ton in Adelaide and he brought up his ton with a hook for 6 off Brad Williams, not the slowest bowler around.

That knock was full of class in general, though. Barely saw a ball beat the bat all day, his defence was made of steel. Plenty of great shots too, especially through cover. Laxman's knock was great too but, in a reverse of Kolkata, Dravid was easily the senior partner that day. Just a great day of cricket, really.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Was one of the great knocks and Ive seen the highlights many times but I didnt mention it as it was before my time and I was following the thread title. Certainly deserves a spot amongst the others mentioned