India's 29/9 or Pakistan's 100 off the last 5 : what was more shocking ?

[tooextracool]

I guess I find the two different because wickets are finite whereas runs aren't - technically. I can see a team conceding a ridiculous amount of runs in the last few overs but that in itself is not likely to lose you a game. Whilst 29/9 is not going to lose you a game in itself either, it is probably far more likely to. The former has 45 overs left to balance against whereas the latter has 1 wicket to salvage a match. The former also rests on the performance of a handful of players (2-3) whereas the latter takes place because of the underperformance of almost an entire team.

Cant really agree with the logic here. Teams almost always lose a load of wickets in the last 10 overs because they are going for quick runs. In India's case they threw everything including the kitchen sink in the hopes of getting 400 and then realized that they were down to the bare bones and tailenders.

To suggest that they lost 9/29 seems to take no account of the match situation because the fact of the matter is that
a) The batsmen weren't bowled out, they threw their wickets away
b) The batsmen would not have batted with such a carefree mindset given a different match situation.

The other problem with your logic is that, as I mentioned earlier, Tendulkar and Gambhir got a bucket load of runs so they were not so much part of the collapse as they had already scored plenty of runs and were more than likely to get out eventually given the (perhaps faulty) objective of 400. Hence, the 7 players who got out after were the ones that deserve full criticism and given that 4 of them were tailenders it makes the situation far less inept than the cream of the crop of Pakistani bowlers conceding 100 runs in 5 overs whilst bowling full tosses. One situation was a complete misjudgment of the match situation, another was just plain ineptitude.

 

[Ikki]

Well, we'll just disagree. For me, you can take the highest scored runs in a fielding side's worst 5 overs and they'll probably be in the vicinity of 50-80 runs. It's gonna happen and it won't need a catastrophe to occur, with almost a whole team underperforming. All it takes is two batsmen trying their arm and two bowlers unable to cope.

The converse to that is no matter how you want to paint it, in my eyes, losing 9 wickets, especially with the line up India have (even disregarding the batsmen that actually made runs) is incredible. Dare I say it, the worst ODI team at the WC going for broke is going to do better than 29/9 at any stage (whether that is after they've put on runs or in the beginning of an innings).

Aside from all that, it's really not an argument worth this much attention. Both are atrocious performances...both teams suck .

 

[smash84]

.both teams suck .

I hope this will come to haunt you

 

[Spark]

No, The last 9 wickets fell for 154 runs.

Pretty sure that if you count them properly that nine batsmen lost their wickets in the space of twenty nine runs scored.

 

[Adamc]

No, The last 9 wickets fell for 154 runs.

Err. I think people get your point that 9/29 is a bit misleading, but from the fall of the second wicket to the fall of the tenth wicket India did lose nine wickets for 29 runs. This is just conventional notation.

 

[Jono]

Aside from all that, it's really not an argument worth this much attention. Both are atrocious performances...both teams suck .

Haha unfortunately awta

It's like arguing who has the worse bowling lineup, England or India. Both are ****house.

Unfortunately both these arguments have involved India lol

 

[Sanz]

Err. I think people get your point that 9/29 is a bit misleading, but from the fall of the second wicket to the fall of the tenth wicket India did lose nine wickets for 29 runs. This is just conventional notation.

Well, If we are going to change 100+ years of standard and conventional way of reading/writing cricket scores then we can make up anything we like. I have no problem if People correctly state that India lost last 8 wickets for 28 runs or 8/28. But 9/29 is simple not the correct representation.


For example, let's assume that after the first wicket fell @ 142 (Sehwag) all other batsmen got out at the same score of 142. Are we going to claim that India lost 10 wickets for 0 runs or 10/0 ?

 

[Adamc]

Well yes, because they would have lost ten wickets without adding a run. Hence ten for none. Really don't know why you're arguing this point, people use this notation all the time. Honestly, never seen anyone else bothered by it in seven years on CW.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, it's a very pedantic argument. Anyway, whether you call it 9/29, 7/28, or 8/28, it's still a shocking collapse.

 

[Sanz]

Well yes, because they would have lost ten wickets without adding a run. Hence ten for none. Really don't know why you're arguing this point, people use this notation all the time. Honestly, never seen anyone else bothered by it in seven years on CW.

Read the quoted posts stating that SRT, GG, Dhoni and Yuvraj were among those in that Batting collapse. True they got out in that 9/29 but the fact is that SRT and GG were not part of that Collapse, they had batted to add 125 runs together and Dhoni remained not out.

29/9 - no question about it!

It gets worst when we see the likes of SRT, GG, Yuvraj, Dhoni in those 9 names!

This.

I think you have actually hit the nail on the head. It is when such big names crop up in that 9/29 that really makes it spectacular.

I reckon 29/9 considering the batting line-up is incredible. Just to get an idea, double the score and take away 1 more wicket and that is essentially bowling out a great ODI batting side for 58.

 

[Burgey]

Whatever the maths, it was funny

 

[Jono]

Haha, not funny for us Indian fans

 

[weldone]

Pakistan coceding 100 runs off 5 overs was more shocking than India losing 9 wickets for 29 runs, in the sense that the first one was more unlikely.

The NZ batting performance in the last one year or so, especially in ODIs, has been nothing short of pathetic. That lineup scoring 100 off 5 overs against Shoaib Akhtar (yes ageing, but still) and co. was utmost shocking (even after considering how talented an ODI player Ross Taylor is).

In the second case, the problem was more mental than of ability. 9 off 29 must be judged in relation to what happened just before. India made over 260 runs @ almost 7 rpo and a sense of light-hearted attitude creeped in. That coupled with the fact that players were not as serious as they could have been if it were a do-or-die match probably made them think that 'I can hit like Sachin-Sehwag and crowd will cheer for me too'. When they should have set themselves a practical target of 350 or so, they probably aimed for the sky and were sent packing in the reverse direction. Dale Steyn's fiery spell didn't help either, but that wasn't the primary reason. Of course 9 for 29 in such a situation is not comparable to a 9 for 29 in the first 10 overs or so, definitely not. These things happen in a league match, and there's nothing technical to worry about...

 

[Burgey]

Haha, not funny for us Indian fans

I know.

 

[smash84]

Haha unfortunately awta

It's like arguing who has the worse bowling lineup, England or India. Both are ****house.

Unfortunately both these arguments have involved India lol

Well yes, because they would have lost ten wickets without adding a run. Hence ten for none. Really don't know why you're arguing this point, people use this notation all the time. Honestly, never seen anyone else bothered by it in seven years on CW.

awta

 

[Daemon]

Pakistan coceding 100 runs off 5 overs was more shocking than India losing 9 wickets for 29 runs, in the sense that the first one was more unlikely.

Everyones been talking up India's famed batting line up, how is the 9/29 any less shocking? Although I agree its slightly misleading since only 3 actual batsmen failed. Kohli, Yuvraj and Yusuf, Dhoni was not out. (although he didn't farm the strike well at all).

I can't really make up my mind about which is worse tbh, while I was watching I couldn't believe what I was seeing

 

[Jono]

Reckon Canada's 62 runs of 6 overs vs. Australia should be added to this debate tbh.

Basically, if you multiply that to total 50 overs Canada basically scored 517 runs against Australia

 

[Spark]

You're just trying to deflect criticism

 

[Daemon]

Reckon Canada's 62 runs of 6 overs vs. Australia should be added to this debate tbh.

Basically, if you multiply that to total 50 overs Canada basically scored 517 runs against Australia

and NZ scored a thousand in their 50..

 

[Burgey]

If Pakistan lost 9-29, the ICC would investigate it.