Best match winning innings you have seen?

[wfdu_ben91]

Most incredible shot was Matthew Hayden's reverse sweep off Shaun Pollock.

 

[Gazza_11]

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

It's just that he copied the exact thread title, as well as the first post.

 

[Gazza_11]

Planet Cricket

Laxman's 281, vs Australia
It could probably be seen as a match saving innings but from this magnificent inning, Laxman (with the help of Dravid) did put us in a position where we had a chance to win the match and the rest was just history. Laxman's innings was characterized by his audacious wrist work and timing. Of course I was only about 7 at the time when the match was played and probably didn't appreciate how significant his innings really was, but it really was one of the greatest moments if not the greatest moment in world cricket in the eyes of an Indian.

So share some of the greatest match winning innings that you have been able to witness!

Cricket Web

Laxman's 281, vs Australia
It could probably be seen as a match saving innings but from this magnificent inning, Laxman (with the help of Dravid) did put us in a position where we had a chance to win the match and the rest was just history. Laxman's innings was characterized by his audacious wrist work and timing. Of course I was only about 7 at the time when the match was played and probably didn't appreciate how significant his innings really was, but it really was one of the greatest moments if not the greatest moment in world cricket in the eyes of an Indian.

So share some of the greatest match winning innings that you have been able to witness!

And it was not the same user on both sites!

 

[Uppercut]

Haha hmmmm.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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.

Owed to his lack of height. But I would agree that he was top notch. An average of 42 does him no justice.

 

[L Trumper]

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.

I saw almost every ball of that test match too. Yeah it is the KP's best innings in a winning cause. Although i'd rate oval 158 and lord's debut at the same level albeit they came in drawn , lost matches. It should be noted that KP remembered for his 158 more than his 142 (which is in fact underrated).

 

[Richard]

Owed to his lack of height.

Oh, absolutely it did, but it also owed to his near-unrivalled capability with that shot. I don't believe it would be possible to play the pull better than Aravinda played it.

 

[Richard]

I saw almost every ball of that test match too. Yeah it is the KP's best innings in a winning cause. Although i'd rate oval 158 and lord's debut at the same level albeit they came in drawn , lost matches. It should be noted that KP remembered for his 158 more than his 142 (which is in fact underrated).

He certainly played damn well at Lord's on debut, and that deck really was a minefield, making his twin half-centuries worth more than twin centuries on an easy deck. But I reckon his 142 at Edgbaston in 2006 was still better. The former was a hopeless flail against inevitable defeat. The latter was a glorious strike that almost certainly proved the difference between victory and defeat.

But I've always rated his Oval 158 lower than both of those, notably so. Its purpose was to save the match, and a match-saving knock of the highest class must always be chanceless. Pietersen was dropped on 15 and should also have been caught on about 80 (Katich at mid-on never got his hands on it before it hit the turf but reacted deplorably late). Make no mistake, he did a lot that was good in that innings, and as far as tumultuous innings' go it was up there with the most thrilling, but it wasn't quite as good in my book as it's often made-out. The fact is, though, that The Oval 2005 was more high-profile by several million miles than Edgbaston 2006. It's right that the former knock will be best-remembered, but it'd be wrong for anyone to claim it was the better IMO.

 

[L Trumper]

But I've always rated his Oval 158 lower than both of those, notably so. Its purpose was to save the match, and a match-saving knock of the highest class must always be chanceless. Pietersen was dropped on 15 and should also have been caught on about 80 (Katich at mid-on never got his hands on it before it hit the turf but reacted deplorably late).

If I remember correctly he was dropped twice early in his innings. Warne and hayden both dropped him. But instead of going into his shell and playing defensively he played in his natural aggressive manner and if you can look his innings from 14 to 158 there are still 144 runs with barely a chance given[I thought katich was a half chance,which he reacted lately] which made it a great innings, may be not as good as lord's debut or edgbaston06 but still the situation is much more important so I'd rate it as an equally good innings.

 

[Richard]

Personally I don't believe in the notion of half-chances - something either should or should not be caught. I don't, actually, believe the Gilchrist-Hayden thing was a chance - it deflected off Gilchrist's gloves (who was never going to catch it fully) to a position where Hayden had no realistic chance of catching it, there was insufficient reaction-time to move his hands and it did not go straight in. But the Warne one was a sitter. And the Katich one, as I say, should have been taken really - he just reacted appallingly late.

As I said, Pietersen played well for much of that innings but he should've been out twice, at significant points both. I don't, thus, rate the knock as highly as some do.

 

[readie]

Gilchrist against pakistan at bellerive I beelieve

 

[mfin]

Michael Bevan's innings when Australia played rest of the world. I think Sachin hit a hundred and Australia was chasing. Bevan hit 180 odd and it was an ODI game. Just unbelievable knock.

 

[GIMH]

He certainly played damn well at Lord's on debut, and that deck really was a minefield, making his twin half-centuries worth more than twin centuries on an easy deck. But I reckon his 142 at Edgbaston in 2006 was still better. The former was a hopeless flail against inevitable defeat. The latter was a glorious strike that almost certainly proved the difference between victory and defeat.

But I've always rated his Oval 158 lower than both of those, notably so. Its purpose was to save the match, and a match-saving knock of the highest class must always be chanceless. Pietersen was dropped on 15 and should also have been caught on about 80 (Katich at mid-on never got his hands on it before it hit the turf but reacted deplorably late). Make no mistake, he did a lot that was good in that innings, and as far as tumultuous innings' go it was up there with the most thrilling, but it wasn't quite as good in my book as it's often made-out. The fact is, though, that The Oval 2005 was more high-profile by several million miles than Edgbaston 2006. It's right that the former knock will be best-remembered, but it'd be wrong for anyone to claim it was the better IMO.

I think it was Tait, not Katich?

 

[Richard]

Michael Bevan's innings when Australia played rest of the world. I think Sachin hit a hundred and Australia was chasing. Bevan hit 180 odd and it was an ODI game. Just unbelievable knock.

It actually wasn't even a ODI, just a regular List-A one-day match. But there's a reason every single previous post in this thread has referred to innings' played in Test matches.

 

[Richard]

I think it was Tait, not Katich?

Nah, Tait had one at fine-leg where Pietersen smashed a full-pelt pull and Tait (who's a poor athlete in the field) lumbered round and got about a couple of fingers on it. Can't remember what Pietersen was on at the time. That wasn't remotely a chance. But the one where Katich reacted late at mid-off or mid-on (can't off the top of my head remember which) certainly was.

EDIT: most of those chances and non-chances can be seen in this highlights package. Sadly the Katich miss is omitted - unlike the one that whizzed past Tait it didn't go for four you see. Because of course only boundaries are worthy.

 

[GIMH]

Well it's all very subjective, the fact that I don't remember the Katich one having seen the innings repeatedly, suggests that it would be what most would call the term you despise: half-chance.

Only the Warne one should 'detract' from that innings IMO

 

[Richard]

No such thing as a half-chance. As I say, the fact that you don't remember it signifies that it didn't go for four and that most simplistic highlights-package compilers don't fully understand the game and think that any boundary is more relevant than a missed chance.

 

[GIMH]

No such thing in your opinion Richard, it isn't a fact

And the 2005 Ashes set is full of dropped catches, it really is

 

[Richard]

No such thing in your opinion Richard, it isn't a fact

Well, yeah, but if you take a relativist POV then nothing is a fact - terminology only exists because it has been created by humans. If one thinks about the absurdity of calling something a "half-chance", cricket fans would not use the term.

And the 2005 Ashes set is full of dropped catches, it really is

Yes because there were hundreds of sitters dropped in that series. Many of which went for four. The Katich one he didn't even get his hands on until it had bounced.

 

[L Trumper]

No such thing as a half-chance. As I say, the fact that you don't remember it signifies that it didn't go for four and that most simplistic highlights-package compilers don't fully understand the game and think that any boundary is more relevant than a missed chance.

It depends on how you see it. If ball coming to your fielding position then it is expected to be taken. But if its dipping quickly one feet in front of you or hit in the air a couple of yards away from you then it is not as much a chance as the previous one. [I am referring to in ring fielding positions]