Best innings in a bad pitch.

[Cevno]

I never said the Barbados track was more difficult to bat on than the Chennai track.. They were both difficult to bat on but they were not BAD tracks.. The debate was about which knock was better and I said Lara's because he was definitely facing the better bowlers on form than Sachin was...

Completely disagree with this.
But it is a debate we have had before i would not really agree to to Gillespie being better than Akram or on the type of conditions there were in each match with you ,so no point.
Anyway this is not the thread for it.

 

[Blaze 18]

Not in reference to Robelinda's post per se, but I've never been a fan of the dead rubber argument when it comes to tests. If you're part of a crap team, you will inevitably end up playing more dead rubbers than players fortunate enough to be part of all conquering sides. Using similar logic, players who've been part of strong sides have virtually never played under pressure, because of the knowledge there's always someone to cover up if you screw up. Two years or so ago, I remember being part of a Hayden (!) versus Lara debate on a facebook forum, and this same dead rubber line was trotted out (This article from cricinfo was used as "proof" of Hayden's superiority). Pissed me off no end.

 

[honestbharani]

You have been arguing against Chennai track being tough from the start of this thread ,since i mentioned it and called it just sluggish too.

And at the same time been arguing over the barbados pitch being tough to bat on


Here are the quotes -











And i am the one pitting one against the other and putting one down and bigging one up?

Again, in which of these posts am I saying that the Barbados track was more difficult to bat on than the chennai track?



The post about Barbados was responding to someone saying it was not a difficult pitch to bat on, and I said while it was not a very difficult track to bat on, it was still a difficult one.


And the post about Chennai was responding to someone making it out as if it were some minefield.


Cevno in quoting posts out of context in a debate about Sachin shocker..



And talking about bigging things up, weren't you arguing Sachin > Bradman?

 

[honestbharani]

I'd disagree, Warne was bowling sh*t in that series. Forget Lara, even other WI batsmen played him pretty easily ........and they were not renowned players of spin bowling ..Chennai, saqlain was in absolute top notch form, wasim was bowling very well, waqar bowled a pretty good spell late in the 3rd day ( still wonder why he didn't bowl more !)

Aus had Glenn in top form and Gillespie was bowling very well , mcgill was just ok ....

The only reason Lara's knock rates ahead IMO is that WI won ..

Completely disagree with this.
But it is a debate we have had before i would not really agree to to Gillespie being better than Akram or on the type of conditions there were in each match with you ,so no point.
Anyway this is not the thread for it.

Disagree completely but as Cevno said, this is a debate that has been had. And this is not the thread for it. So we will just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[abmk]

Not in reference to Robelinda's post per se, but I've never been a fan of the dead rubber argument when it comes to tests. If you're part of a crap team, you will inevitably end up playing more dead rubbers than players fortunate enough to be part of all conquering sides. Using similar logic, players who've been part of strong sides have virtually never played under pressure, because of the knowledge there's always someone to cover up. Two years or so ago, I remember being part of a Hayden (!) versus Lara debate on a facebook forum, and this same dead rubber line was trotted out (This article from cricinfo was used as "proof" of Hayden's superiority. Pissed me off no end.

LOL, there is no doubt who's better b/w Lara and Haydos.

But the dead rubber factor is a fair one. You say WI played more dead rubbers . Fair enough, but why is Lara's performance in dead rubbers ( avg of ~79 ) so much better than his performance in live ones ( avg of around 50 ) ?

 

[honestbharani]

lol @ dead rubber stats usage... It could very well be that Windies played a lot more of the 4 or 5 test series and hence had more dead rubbers where the batsman was so much more used to the bowling and hence played better. But hey, why let facts get in the way?

 

[abmk]

Coming back to the main point of the thread, Rob, do you have Gavaskar's 96 vs Pak ? If so, can you please upload it when you are free ?

 

[Blaze 18]

LOL, there is no doubt who's better b/w Lara and Haydos.

But the dead rubber factor is a fair one. You say WI played more dead rubbers . Fair enough, but why is Lara's performance in dead rubbers ( avg of ~79 ) so much better than his performance in live ones ( avg of around 50 ) ?

375 and 400*

 

[Cevno]

Again, in which of these posts am I saying that the Barbados track was more difficult to bat on than the chennai track?



The post about Barbados was responding to someone saying it was not a difficult pitch to bat on, and I said while it was not a very difficult track to bat on, it was still a difficult one.


And the post about Chennai was responding to someone making it out as if it were some minefield.


Cevno is quoting posts out of context in a debate about Sachin shocker..



And talking about bigging things up, weren't you arguing Sachin > Bradman?

Cmon ,you are clearly bigging one set of conditions up and putting down one.
And surprise surprise it is Lara's innings you are bigging up ,as usual and putting down other in comparison.
No point going over it though.

And btw, i never argued Sachin > Bradman , just that the gap between them was closer for me than what hype would have you believe.
I have said before many times too that i rate Bradman > Sachin.
Don't know why if you say anything about Bradman not being greatest by twice than everybody else on here ,people get their knickers in a twist.
In any case do not want to derail this thread with that again ,so best let it go ,now that i have clarified facts.

 

[robelinda]

Coming back to the main point of the thread, Rob, do you have Gavaskar's 96 vs Pak ? If so, can you please upload it when you are free ?

Nope dont have it.

And yes, massive LOL at Hayden vs Lara!!! Im an aussie through and through, but jesus Lara was just a batting god. When I watch his innings back now I just have to laugh at his amazing skill and wonderous flair, he was just so incredible when he attacked, on a different level to any other batsman in the last 40 years when on fire.

 

[abmk]

375 and 400*

those are still part of his record , right ? Even excluding those two he averages ~58.5 in dead rubbers ( when compared to ~49 in live ones )

 

[Blaze 18]

Nope dont have it.

And yes, massive LOL at Hayden vs Lara!!! Im an aussie through and through, but jesus Lara was just a batting god. When I watch his innings back now I just have to laugh at his amazing skill and wonderous flair, he was just so incredible when he attacked, on a different level to any other batsman in the last 40 years when on fire.

Agree.

 

[abmk]

lol @ dead rubber stats usage... It could very well be that Windies played a lot more of the 4 or 5 test series and hence had more dead rubbers where the batsman was so much more used to the bowling and hence played better. But hey, why let facts get in the way?

how about the possibility of the intensity of the opposition bowlers dropping and Lara taking advantage of it !?

I rate him the 2nd best in this generation, only slightly behind Sachin , but this factor cannot be denied

P.S. If what you say is true, then the average score in dead rubbers should be more than that in live ones, right ? Are they ?

 

[Blaze 18]

those are still part of his record , right ? Even excluding those two he averages ~58.5 in dead rubbers ( when compared to ~49 in live ones )

Not that it matters, but as per my calculations (my math sucks so I might have done it wrong), he averages 54.9 in dead rubbers when you remove those two innings. And yes, they are part of his record, but as is so often the case with statistics, a couple of innings can present a grossly misleading figure (more so in this case because the dead rubber sample isn't particularly large).

 

[honestbharani]

how about the possibility of the intensity of the opposition bowlers dropping and Lara taking advantage of it !?

I rate him the 2nd best in this generation, only slightly behind Sachin , but this factor cannot be denied

P.S. If what you say is true, then the average score in dead rubbers should be more than that in live ones, right ? Are they ?

drop in intensity can only be seen by watching.. And I since just about watched every one of his innings, I can see that it was not so...


And as for the stats, I am on a mobile connection. So you will have to dig them up yourself if you are saying it is a fair point. I think it is nonsense that is used by posters in "Vs" debates...

 

[abmk]

Not that it matters, but as per my calculations (my math sucks so I might have done it wrong), he averages 54.9 in dead rubbers when you remove those two innings. And yes, they are part of his record, but as is so often the case with statistics, a couple of innings can present a grossly misleading figure (more so in this case because the dead rubber sample isn't particularly large).

yeah, its ~55 ... Anyways removing those dead rubbers, his average comes down to ~49 from 52.8 .......That is not an insignificant drop tbh

He scored about 1/5th of his runs in those dead rubbers ( in just 18 tests out of 131 ) ..

 

[honestbharani]

Cmon ,you are clearly bigging one set of conditions up and putting down one.
And surprise surprise it is Lara's innings you are bigging up ,as usual and putting down other in comparison.
No point going over it though.

And btw, i never argued Sachin > Bradman , just that the gap between them was closer for me than what hype would have you believe.
I have said before many times too that i rate Bradman > Sachin.
Don't know why if you say anything about Bradman not being greatest by twice than everybody else on here ,people get their knickers in a twist.
In any case do not want to derail this thread with that again ,so best let it go ,now that i have clarified facts.

And it was shown there why he was twice as good.. Only thing is, some people just can't let Sachin be put down in any debate..


And of course, I am not. As I said, does context mean ANYTHING to you? I consider pitches A and B to be equally difficult to bat on but not bad.. Someone says A was not difficult to bat on at all.. And I counter that and say that A was difficult but not that difficult. Someone else (note who ) says B was a bit of a minefield and I say no, B was difficult but not a minefield.. But then again, surprise surprise, you have a problem noticing facts when arguments are about Sachin, so there is no use going over this now. I think we better stop before mods get in here and turn a decent thread into another slinging match about Sachin and Lara...

 

[abmk]

drop in intensity can only be seen by watching.. And I since just about watched every one of his innings, I can see that it was not so...

Well, I don't quite think so. As an example, he failed in the first 3 live rubbers vs England in 2004 vs harmison,jones,flintoff etc . From what I saw they were not at full intensity during that 400* that he scored ( marvelous innings by any standards, but still .....)

And as for the stats, I am on a mobile connection. So you will have to dig them up yourself if you are saying it is a fair point. I think it is nonsense that is used by posters in "Vs" debates...

don't think that sort of stat is there anywhere at present

 

[abmk]

It was at Ferozeshah Kotla, Delhi. It has always had a dustbowl-ish wicket (see Kumble's 10fer). Slow and low in general.

Indeed ... When was the last time we lost there in a test ?

 

[honestbharani]

Well, I don't quite think so. As an example, he failed in the first 3 live rubbers vs England in 2004 vs harmison,jones,flintoff etc . From what I saw they were not at full intensity during that 400* that he scored ( marvelous innings by any standards, but still .....)



don't think that sort of stat is there anywhere at present

lol. I gotta question which match you were watching coz Windies lost their first wicket pretty early in the piece.. Flintoff was charged up throughout the match and others were bowling brilliantly too... But it was juz a flat track and there is only so much a bowler can try. IIRC, there was a period when Flintoff was bowling amazing bouncers and was trying to get all over Lara after he got his 200 or just before.. Lara just saw through some of the better spells like that and wore them down. And obviously, they were pretty tired and drained out from around when he crossed 300 but that is the case with any big knock...