Best innings in a bad pitch.

[Blaze 18]

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 ) ..

See, if you feel Lara somehow took advantage of a drop in intensity levels of the bowlers in dead rubbers, that is your prerogative. Lara's scored some of his best hundreds against Australia in these dead rubbers, and I rate them among the best I've seen. A match being a dead rubber doesn't detract from the quality of a knock, as far as I am concerned, be it Lara's 213 at Adelaide, Tendulkar's Perth hundred, or that Tendulkar-Azharuddin partnership against South Africa. Agree to disagree.

 

[honestbharani]

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 ) ..

Sachin's average also drops by 3 or 4 points if we remove Zim and Bang.. Doesn't mean they should be... And such examples are there for everyone..

 

[Cevno]

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..

Eh?

Nothing was proven either way.

There were a few people who put their point of view on one side and few who did the other.
And it wasn't a debate about Sachin only either.

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...

You said "Lol that pitch was only sluggish"

Do not know what there was too lol about ? or why did you call it just sluggish then?

Also you continously brought up Akram being not in form ,when we were just debating the pitch and on the other side brought up how Mcgrath and Gillespie were cutting it and how Macgill was turning it.

 

[honestbharani]

Eh?

Nothing was proven either way.

There were a few people who put their point of view on one side and few who did the other.
And it wasn't a debate about Sachin only either.





You said "Lol that pitch was only sluggish"

Do not know what there was too lol about ? or why did you call it just sluggish then?

Also you continously brought up Akram being not in form ,when we were just debating the pitch and on the other side brought up how Mcgrath and Gillespie were cutting it and how Macgill was turning it.

I mentioned the thing about McGrath and Gillespie to show that they were guys who could utilize a track that is offering turn and sluggish bounce to their advantage.. So everytimeI praise McGrath or Gillespie on here now, it is somehow coz of Lara's 153*?????



And yes, Wasim was not the same bowler he was in the early and mid 90s during the late 90s.. Again, how many 5-fers did he take around that time? The ball to Dravid was amazing but it just brought to my mind the fact that while he was still capable of producing balls like that from nowhere, he was nowhere near the sustained threat he was earlier in his career around that time and I posted that.. That was a mini-debate I had about Wasim and now that is about Lara too????


FTR, BOTH Barbados and Chennai were sluggish and difficult to bat on, but they BOTH were NOT bad pitches... Mumbai 2004 was. End of.

 

[robelinda]

Yeah the Lara 400* was a curious innings. It was flat no doubt, but the first day 150 runs were not made easily, Flintoff was running in hard and bowling quite fast and hostile, Harmison too who was having a dream series. Lara was not in great touch until some time after 200, before that he had to work really hard and scored freely off the 'spinner', Batty, belted the crap out of him really.

 

[Blaze 18]

Loving the HB-Cevno exchanges.

 

[abmk]

See, if you feel Lara somehow took advantage of a drop in intensity levels of the bowlers in dead rubbers, that is your prerogative. Lara's scored some of his best hundreds against Australia in these dead rubbers, and I rate them among the best I've seen. A match being a dead rubber doesn't detract from the quality of a knock, as far as I am concerned, be it Lara's 213 at Adelaide, Tendulkar's Perth hundred, or that Tendulkar-Azharuddin partnership against South Africa. Agree to disagree.

226 at adelaide .....

That Sachin-Azhar partnership was in a live match, 2nd test of the series.

A match being a dead rubber doesn't diminish the quality of the innings if the bowlers are bowling well ala perth 92 or lara's twin hundreds at galle vs murali and co

But it does lessen its utility to an extent

 

[smash84]

Wasim was never very good against Eng for some reason and his 1999 series in Australia in which Pakistan were whitewashed 3-0 was a very bad one because the Aussies were really dominant and none of the Pak bowlers could do much. which gives his record a very bad tinge during that time. Otherwise he bowled superbly well against India, SL, and WI in the years 1999-2001

see for yourself

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And toward the late 90s he was a diabetic so he could not bowl extremely long spells anymore

And yes, Wasim was not the same bowler he was in the early and mid 90s during the late 90s.. Again, how many 5-fers did he take around that time? The ball to Dravid was amazing but it just brought to my mind the fact that while he was still capable of producing balls like that from nowhere, he was nowhere near the sustained threat he was earlier in his career around that time and I posted that.. That was a mini-debate I had about Wasim and now that is about Lara too????

\.

yes and you never concluded this debate regarding wasim. You never replied to my above post. In fact Wasim's swing was as good as ever during the 1999-2001 period

 

[abmk]

Sachin's average also drops by 3 or 4 points if we remove Zim and Bang.. Doesn't mean they should be... And such examples are there for everyone..

Yes, that is a factor ...But ....

I'm not asking you to remove that or Lara's in dead matches. Just that these 2 cases need to be considered ....

scores vs minnows are in general not that useful or brilliant as vs other teams

scores in dead matches in general are not that useful as they are in the live matches

 

[Blaze 18]

You're right - I thought the Tendulkar-Azhar partnership was in the third match of that series. I misremembered; must be getting old.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, that is a factor ...But ....

I'm not asking you to remove that or Lara's in dead matches. Just that these 2 cases need to be considered ....

scores vs minnows are in general not that useful or brilliant as vs other teams

scores in dead matches in general are not that useful as they are in the live matches

That goes without saying but as individual batting performances, they all carry merit... And utility of an innings is not determined by the batsman in most of the cases.. It is up to his team mates..

 

[honestbharani]

yes and you never concluded this debate regarding wasim. You never replied to my above post. In fact Wasim's swing was as good as ever during the 1999-2001 period

lol.. There is nothing really to conclude.. You yourself mentioned he could not bowl longer spells due to his diabetes condition. I think it affected his normal spells as well, where he was bowling the magic balls but the general awesomeness of his bowling went down a couple of notches around that time.. It could be because he could not reap the rewards by bowling longer spells, it could be because his swing was slightly easier to handle with his pace decreased, it could be because the tracks were starting to flatten out even more, it could even be because there were a number of left armers around the world now and that batsmen were more used to the angle than earlier.. But for some reason or the other, he was not the bowler he was in the mid 90s...

 

[TumTum]

The Home of CricketArchive



/thread

 

[honestbharani]

226 at adelaide .....

That Sachin-Azhar partnership was in a live match, 2nd test of the series.

A match being a dead rubber doesn't diminish the quality of the innings if the bowlers are bowling well ala perth 92 or lara's twin hundreds at galle vs murali and co

But it does lessen its utility to an extent

There are a number of times when a batsman plays a great knock in the last innings even though his team is basically out of it for the match.. Those innings should be viewed as even lesser than dead rubber knocks then. Coz at least in dead rubbers, such knocks give you the chance of at least WINNING the match, even if the series is gone. The ones I am talking about do neither.

 

[honestbharani]

The Home of CricketArchive



/thread

Didn't know you loved Paine so much.. That is a great knock..

 

[smash84]

lol.. There is nothing really to conclude.. You yourself mentioned he could not bowl longer spells due to his diabetes condition. I think it affected his normal spells as well, where he was bowling the magic balls but the general awesomeness of his bowling went down a couple of notches around that time.. It could be because he could not reap the rewards by bowling longer spells, it could be because his swing was slightly easier to handle with his pace decreased, it could be because the tracks were starting to flatten out even more, it could even be because there were a number of left armers around the world now and that batsmen were more used to the angle than earlier.. But for some reason or the other, he was not the bowler he was in the mid 90s...

That is what I tell you that his swing as good as ever and no there was no real drop in his pace. Even in 2003 near his retirement Wasim was bowling up to 86 87 mph. Only that towards the end of his career the long spells had decreased but his effectiveness had not gone down that much by 1999. He got 3 5 fers against SL and WI. in India he didn't get a fiver but that was also because he was competing for wickets against Shoaib, Waqar, and Saqlain. Not very easy to get 5fers in such a bowling attack. So judging Wasim just by the number of 5fers in those days wouldn't really be doing justice to him

To say that he was not at his peak would be more appropriate however even Wasim not at his peak was > many other bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

That is what I tell you that his swing as good as ever and no there was no real drop in his pace. Even in 2003 near his retirement Wasim was bowling up to 86 87 mph. Only that towards the end of his career the long spells had decreased but his effectiveness had not gone down that much by 1999. He got 3 5 fers against SL and WI. in India he didn't get a fiver but that was also because he was competing for wickets against Shoaib, Waqar, and Saqlain. Not very easy to get 5fers in such a bowling attack. So judging Wasim just by the number of 5fers in those days wouldn't really be doing justice to him

To say that he was not at his peak would be more appropriate however even Wasim not at his peak was > many other bowlers.

Well.. They didn't have speed guns in the mid 90s but juz from watching, I felt he was a shade slower than at his peak in the late 90s.. And as for competing with Waqar, man, Waqar WAS a shade of himself around that time in the late 90s. He had a bit of a revival around 2001 or so and so did Wasim, they both seemed to be bowling slightly quicker again around that time... But the period that you showed me, dunno from the games I watched, I just thought Wasim was below his best... Certainly against India, I cannot remember him troubling Sachin or Azhar that much.. As I said, the odd unplayable one aside, he was handled rather easily, even by blokes like Laxman who were just breaking into the team.

 

[honestbharani]

That is what I tell you that his swing as good as ever and no there was no real drop in his pace. Even in 2003 near his retirement Wasim was bowling up to 86 87 mph. Only that towards the end of his career the long spells had decreased but his effectiveness had not gone down that much by 1999. He got 3 5 fers against SL and WI. in India he didn't get a fiver but that was also because he was competing for wickets against Shoaib, Waqar, and Saqlain. Not very easy to get 5fers in such a bowling attack. So judging Wasim just by the number of 5fers in those days wouldn't really be doing justice to him

To say that he was not at his peak would be more appropriate however even Wasim not at his peak was > many other bowlers.

My basic point is that even in Australia or England, where you would think he would have more success, he was not that good. Watching his spells live, you always had the fear of a great ball coming out of nowhere from him and getting the batsman out, but he was handled with a lot of ease otherwise.. I am not sure if the stats would support that and I can't be statsguruing from my mobile, butI might get on it and see what they say later on.


I am not saying he was not good, but he was not what he was at his best. That is my point.

 

[TumTum]

Clarke in the '09 Ashes deserves a mention. There wasn't technically a bad pitch (except last one), although when he came in the ball was usually moving around and he was under pressure. It didn't stay difficult for most of his innings though, flattened out after he got set, but surviving the tough periods was amazing. When he came to the crease you could see he was on a different league of his own compared to any of the batsman in that series.

 

[abmk]

Well.. They didn't have speed guns in the mid 90s but juz from watching, I felt he was a shade slower than at his peak in the late 90s.. And as for competing with Waqar, man, Waqar WAS a shade of himself around that time in the late 90s. He had a bit of a revival around 2001 or so and so did Wasim, they both seemed to be bowling slightly quicker again around that time... But the period that you showed me, dunno from the games I watched, I just thought Wasim was below his best... Certainly against India, I cannot remember him troubling Sachin or Azhar that much.. As I said, the odd unplayable one aside, he was handled rather easily, even by blokes like Laxman who were just breaking into the team.

not really. He got 14 wickets in 3 matches vs India at ~24, which is pretty much his career average. He was bowling pretty well even then .. Waqar had declined quite a bit, but wasim was a force to be reckoned with ....