ESPNCricinfo Awards 2010

[G.I.Joe]

I don't appreciate the knee-jerk calls of fanboyism that's thrown around far too loosely these days, thats all.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't appreciate the knee-jerk calls of fanboyism that's thrown around far too loosely these days, thats all.

Fair enough. I haven't been here that long after all, didn't mean it that seriously.

 

[MW1304]

I would not give any innings by or against Pakistan any awards this year.


My votes would go to VVS and Steyn. The only bowler in the world currently who can (and did on that occasion) take the pitch out of the equation.

However, Johnson is very close, and actually might be ahead - I wouldn't mind seeing him win it either.

You what?

Okay I'm now discounting Tendulkar's 200* from the ODI one because I have absolutely no evidence of match-fixing by South Africa.

 

[Cevno]

Actually thinking about it again, 200 not out was achieved for the first time in the history of ODI cricket in nearly 40 years.

While i can recall many last minute saving efforts from other players too in those years, Lance Klusner in the 1999 World cup comes to mind.Even this year Mathews played a almost similar match winnings innings.

So GI Joe has a point.

Ultimately Both won the match for their teams and the fact that Tendulkar's innings which was completely flawless did it more easily can't really be held against it.

And with that i am now confused about the 2 innings. Both great on their own rights.

 

[akilana]

Steyn not being his best on that day is a silly point IMO. However Steyn is not the best ODI bowler in the world at all. In fact his ODI record is quite pedestrian. A bowling average of almost 31. The SR is still decent but nothing sensational. Add to that an ER of 5.37 and you have a not so great ODI record.

Agree.. he's not even one of the top 10 ODI bowlers in the world.

 

[silentstriker]

You what?

Okay I'm now discounting Tendulkar's 200* from the ODI one because I have absolutely no evidence of match-fixing by South Africa.

Sure. Pakistan cricket team have, as far as I am concerned, lost the presumption of innocence. You can treat SA the same way if you prefer - that's up to you. Just saying what I would do.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Tests Batting : Laxman 96 at Durban
Tests Bowling : Steyn 7/51 at Nagpur

ODIs Batting : Tendulkar 200* at Gwalior
ODIs Bowling : Gul 6/32 at Oval

Only one tough to separate for me was Malinga's 5/90 at Galle on the deadest of pitches. But Steyn really did out do him at Nagpur.

 

[Furball]

As good as Razzaq's innings was, Tendulkar's was 200 frikkin runs in an ODI innings against an attack featuring only the best bowler playing the game, FFS.

To be fair, that description doesn't apply to Steyn in ODIs.

 

[Cevno]

True, but 200 has not been scored in nearly 40 years of ODI's against the Kenyan or the Namibian bowlers too.

I don't think it has been scored in associate cricket either.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Think the nominations are too loaded in back to wall efforts, and don't feature enough performances where 'Why would I have my back to the wall if I can put up a great show upfront'.

I really don't understand giving so much of weight to efforts in dire straits against ordinary sides. Why get into dire straits against ordinary sides at all? People sing praises of Inzamam and Ponting's last innings centuries against Bangladesh to win tests. Why bring a team like Bangladesh into the game into the first place before constructing a 'masterpiece'?

 

[Spark]

Think the nominations are too loaded in back to wall efforts, and don't feature enough performances where 'Why would I have my back to the wall if I can put up a great show upfront'.

I really don't understand giving so much of weight to efforts in dire straits against ordinary sides. Why get into dire straits against ordinary sides at all? People sing praises of Inzamam and Ponting's last innings centuries against Bangladesh to win tests. Why bring a team like Bangladesh into the game into the first place before constructing a 'masterpiece'?

Good point, this is exactly why 1st innings runs >>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd innings runs.

 

[vcs]

If an individual comes in with the team in dire straits and manages to rescue them, he deserves some extra credit for it IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Should that person not be given the same credit by making sure his team doesn't end up in dire straits in the first place?

 

[Hit Wicket]

If an individual comes in with the team in dire straits and manages to rescue them, he deserves some extra credit for it IMO.

What about the individual who prevented the team from being in dire straits in the fist place, specially against ordinary opposition? How would you distribute the weight between them?

 

[Hit Wicket]

Let's take an example - Tendulkar's highest score in tests 248* is considered a low down on his career because it came against Bangladesh. On the other hand, Ponting's unbeaten hundred in the last innings against Bangladesh is considered as one of his top 10-20 innings. If Ponting had scored those runs and more in the first innings, then?

 

[vcs]

Well, there are no easy answers to these questions, obviously. Still, while judging innings in isolation, if it were played under extreme duress and very little support, I would rate it just a little bit higher.

Obviously, in case of a Tendulkar/Ponting type player, they would not usually find themselves in the type of situation where a Bevan/Laxman specialise, because they bat up the order, and the team rarely gets into a crisis when they fire. Does that give a Laxman innings an unfair advantage compared to a Tendulkar/Ponting innings? Probably does, but it's no slight on Tendulkar/Ponting, because they have set up enough games for their teams anyway.

 

[smash84]

Think the nominations are too loaded in back to wall efforts, and don't feature enough performances where 'Why would I have my back to the wall if I can put up a great show upfront'.

I really don't understand giving so much of weight to efforts in dire straits against ordinary sides. Why get into dire straits against ordinary sides at all? People sing praises of Inzamam and Ponting's last innings centuries against Bangladesh to win tests. Why bring a team like Bangladesh into the game into the first place before constructing a 'masterpiece'?

Most people would agree that chasing a target is a more difficult job because the scoreboard pressure can be immense. Batting first does not have that pressure. You have to set your own standards not follow the standards set by others. Hence a lot of importance is given to innings which chase very stiff totals because the pressure is high.

And it is not that teams like Bangladesh are allowed to get into a good position. Sometimes in a flash of brilliance they push the other teams to the edge where it seems that the other team will topple. A Herculean effort is still required to get the team out of a situation where they are hanging by the skin of their teeth. The pressure becomes very high. The same kind of pressure is just not present in the first innings of a match.

I think it all boils down to pressure.

 

[smash84]

Well, there are no easy answers to these questions, obviously. Still, while judging innings in isolation, if it were played under extreme duress and very little support, I would rate it just a little bit higher.

Obviously, in case of a Tendulkar/Ponting type player, they would not usually find themselves in the type of situation where a Bevan/Laxman specialise, because they bat up the order, and the team rarely gets into a crisis when they fire. Does that give a Laxman innings an unfair advantage compared to a Tendulkar/Ponting innings? Probably does, but it's no slight on Tendulkar/Ponting, because they have set up enough games for their teams anyway.

well said.

 

[ankitj]

Tewnty20 shortlists:

ESPNcricinfo Awards 2010: Twenty20 batting nominees

ESPNcricinfo Awards 2010: Twenty20 bowling nominees

 

[honestbharani]

I see it but I don't believe it. Are people actually downplaying Tendulkar's innings in comparison to Razzaq's on the basis that the former was merely a 'historical landmark' ??

As good as Razzaq's innings was, Tendulkar's was 200 frikkin runs in an ODI innings against an attack featuring only the best bowler playing the game, FFS.

Read that aloud again,

200*

Piece of cake, obviously. The only innings that matter are those where you limp towards the end and then launch an optimistic blitz kreig, rather than do the sensible thing by pacing yourself better than anyone has ever managed.

lol.. I would say 200* is an awesome achievement even if it came against a minnow on a similar flat track.. The fact that it came against one of the better bowling sides makes it even better..


Razzaq played a great knock but it was the sheer improbability of the task was what made it look so great in the first place.. IF you wanna compare, try any of Klusener's efforts in the 99 WC.. They were just the same and I don't think it made sense for them to wait so late before launching the assault as 9 times out of 10 it is simply not gonna work out. It is like Afridi trying the glory shot to good balls... The odd success makes it seem much more awesome than what it really is..