New Feature: The Greatest Test Innings

[Burgey]

Besides these 3, I would like to know how Tendulkar's following innings are rated in your system...

1. His century in the Perth test, 1991-92 season HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
2. His match-winning century in NZ HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
3. His 193 in the Headingley test HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
4. His match-winning 214 against Australia, 2010 HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
5. His no-cover drive 241* in Sydney HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
6. One among his Warne-demolition acts, a match-winning unbeaten century HowSTAT! Match Scorecard
7. His 2nd century in the 2010-11 South Africa tour, in the Kallisball test HowSTAT! Match Scorecard

Number five can't rate too highly I imagine. It was arguably the most boring innings of any significance so great a player could have played. It was a road, batting first against a pretty average attack tbh.

Enjoyed Laxman's knock in the same match far more tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Going by DOG's ratings, nearly one in ten of Bradman's test innings rates among the greatest of all time.

Jesus Christ.

 

[ankitj]

Besides these 3, I would like to know how Tendulkar's following innings are rated in your system...

1. His century in the Perth test, 1991-92 season HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 2.5
2. His match-winning century in NZ HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 3.7
3. His 193 in the Headingley test HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 4.4
4. His match-winning 214 against Australia, 2010 HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 3.3
5. His no-cover drive 241* in Sydney HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 0.7
6. One among his Warne-demolition acts, a match-winning unbeaten century HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 1.8
7. His 2nd century in the 2010-11 South Africa tour, in the Kallisball test HowSTAT! Match Scorecard - 4.0

 

[weldone]

 

[honestbharani]

Not sure what exactly you remember, but

His figures in the 2nd innings of that Chennai test read :

12 overs, 6 maidens, 26 runs 2 wickets

He got both openers and bowled well to Sachin and Dravid ...

He didn't bowl well in the other 3 innings in that series, yeah, but not the case in this innings ...

yes, and I watched the match... He was juz rank...

 

[honestbharani]

am sure u'd LOVE a lot of other things as well!

i think u are nitpicking here. call it a spinner (singular), if that pleases u. was speaking generically about pak attacks and their familiarity with' indian' conditions....spin, the need for reverse swing etc.

i repeat, most batting lineups would prefer to face srinath, prasad, joshi and kumble over wasim, waqar, saqlain, mushtaq ahmed/nadeem/whoever any day of the week and twice on sundays.

out of curiosity, do u rate afridi's knock as better than tendulkar's? this is where this all started, including your commendable defense of the indian attack!

Ok, first of all, I never said I thought Afridi's knock was better but boy, there is an overrating of that Pak attack here..


And yes, THAT attack in that form, even though the names were Mushtaq, Saqlain, WAsim and Waqar were indeed worse than the Indian attack of Kumble, Joshi, Srinath and Prasad. And yes, ALL batting line ups of that time would have LOVED to play against the Pak attack in that form in 1999 than India in Indian conditions any day of the week and thrice on weekends...


And trust me all this veiled aggro in the posting ain't gonna change facts that they were really not as good as this dream bowling line up you are making it out to be. FFS, juz go through the tapes. Waqar bowled 82 or 83 mph nothing deliveries and just had a good ball or two here and there in his whole spell in the game.


The only reason Pak won the game was because India batted worse than them and not because they had a better bowling line up, and in the next game, India won because Pak blinked first. The whole series was about which batting line up made lesser mistakes because both bowling attacks were not exactly world class but I just felt India's was still better in much the same manner India's was when they went to Pak in 2004. Neither bowling line up is great but one is slightly yet clearly better than the other on current form during that time.

 

[weldone]

I watched the whole series live, and I felt that India was slightly the better batting side, while Pakistan was the better bowling side. Quality of cricket went up a few notches when Indian batsmen were facing Pakistani bowlers. I have no way of 'quantifying' that, as it is a subjective thing. Just now I looked up the ICC test ratings for bowlers on that particular day when the Chennai test started. Here is how it looked:

Kumble (Rank 7, 753 points)
Waqar (Rank 9, 743 points)
Wasim (Rank 11, 725 points)
Mushtaq (Rank 14, 678 points)
Srinath (Rank 17, 653 points)
Saqlain (Rank 18, 649 points)
Prasad (Rank 24, 537 points)
Joshi (Rank 49, 286 points)

Prasad was never in his life (or, in his dreams) as good as Waqar. Joshi was no match for the rest. Kumble and Srinath are the 2 who were at par with the Pakistani bowlers (considering the Indian pitch and that both Ws were not at their best). Yes, Waqar didn't bowl well in that series, but saying that Ramesh pasted him all around will be stretching it a bit. Ramesh was rather lucky that series - one thing that statistics can't show, because of small sample sizes.

 

[honestbharani]

I watched the whole series live, and I felt that India was slightly the better batting side, while Pakistan was the better bowling side. Quality of cricket went up a few notches when Indian batsmen were facing Pakistani bowlers. I have no way of 'quantifying' that, as it is a subjective thing. Just now I looked up the ICC test ratings for bowlers on that particular day when the Chennai test started. Here is how it looked:

Kumble (Rank 7, 753 points)
Waqar (Rank 9, 743 points)
Wasim (Rank 11, 725 points)
Mushtaq (Rank 14, 678 points)
Srinath (Rank 17, 653 points)
Saqlain (Rank 18, 649 points)
Prasad (Rank 24, 537 points)
Joshi (Rank 49, 286 points)

Prasad was never in his life (or, in his dreams) as good as Waqar. Joshi was no match for the rest. Kumble and Srinath are the 2 who were at par with the Pakistani bowlers (considering the Indian pitch and that both Ws were not at their best). Yes, Waqar didn't bowl well in that series, but saying that Ramesh pasted him all around will be stretching it a bit. Ramesh was rather lucky that series - one thing that statistics can't show, because of small sample sizes.

nah.. this game I am talking about, I watched it live at the ground. Yes, Ramesh was pasting. I am not sure how he was lucky at Chennai at all. Prasad was a MUCH better bowler and option than Waqar in THAT series. Saqlain was as good as Kumble, but maybe slightly lesser coz Kumble was such a giant in home conditions. Joshi and Nadeem basically cancel each other out. And Wasim and Srinath by this point in these conditions were equals, IMO. Wasim had a bit of a rebirth during the Asian Test Championship but even then, it juz looked as though while he could get the 2 fer and 3 fers he just could not maintain things enough for a 5fer or higher.


This ICC test rating you are talking about, was it for the 12 months before the series was played?


And Mushy, around the time of that test, was worse than Joshi or Nadeem and was even dropped for Nadeem at Kolkata. As I said, a classic case of seeing the books and the names and judging the attack than actually watching how they went.

 

[hang on]

Ok, first of all, I never said I thought Afridi's knock was better but boy, there is an overrating of that Pak attack here..


And yes, THAT attack in that form, even though the names were Mushtaq, Saqlain, WAsim and Waqar were indeed worse than the Indian attack of Kumble, Joshi, Srinath and Prasad. And yes, ALL batting line ups of that time would have LOVED to play against the Pak attack in that form in 1999 than India in Indian conditions any day of the week and thrice on weekends...


And trust me all this veiled aggro in the posting ain't gonna change facts that they were really not as good as this dream bowling line up you are making it out to be. FFS, juz go through the tapes. Waqar bowled 82 or 83 mph nothing deliveries and just had a good ball or two here and there in his whole spell in the game.


The only reason Pak won the game was because India batted worse than them and not because they had a better bowling line up, and in the next game, India won because Pak blinked first. The whole series was about which batting line up made lesser mistakes because both bowling attacks were not exactly world class but I just felt India's was still better in much the same manner India's was when they went to Pak in 2004. Neither bowling line up is great but one is slightly yet clearly better than the other on current form during that time.

no. that pak attack was not worse than the indian one in any conditions. feel free to repeat that ad infinitum if u want. and indian conditions is not alien to pakistanis, even though u might have convinced yourself that they are. not sure too many, if any, people agree with u on either fact.

ah, it's the one team just batted worse than the other, nothing to do with the bowling scenario?! who woulda thunk it. ta muchly for setting me to rights on that.

veiled aggro? strange coming from someone who uses capitalized words to indicate curiosity (LOVE, in case u do not remember)! time to jog your memory and watch the tapes again, champ. perhaps u should have watched the match on tv or on some recorded tapes, to begin with, since u surely didn't catch much at the ground!

 

[honestbharani]

no. that pak attack was not worse than the indian one in any conditions. feel free to repeat that ad infinitum if u want. and indian conditions is not alien to pakistanis, even though u might have convinced yourself that they are. not sure too many, if any, people agree with u on either fact.

ah, it's the one team just batted badly scenario? thanks for setting me to rights on that.

veiled aggro? strange coming from someone who uses capitalized words to indicate curiosity! time to jog your memory and watch the tapes again, champ. perhaps u should have watched the match on tv or on some recorded tapes, to begin with, since u surely didn't catch much at the ground!

yeah right.. that is why the reports and the tapes show how bad that Pak attack was!!! Maybe you just need to watch games than post.. Maybe then you would know that the Pak attack in that series was just as woeful as any India have put out around that time.. At times, worse.. Srinath got 8 in Kolkata, Prasad 6 in chennai. Remind me which Pak pacer got a 5fer in those 3 tests again?


And Kumble got just as many wickets as Saqlain.. The whole series was about who was gonna mess up first with the bat. It was two ordinarry bowling sides but I give the edge to India as we were at home. Of course, at Kolkata in the ATC, it was diff. coz it was not the woeful Waqar but a relatively new Shoaib who made it to the side.

 

[hang on]

yeah right.. that is why the reports and the tapes show how bad that Pak attack was!!! Maybe you just need to watch games than post.. Maybe then you would know that the Pak attack in that series was just as woeful as any India have put out around that time.. At times, worse.. Srinath got 8 in Kolkata, Prasad 6 in chennai. Remind me which Pak pacer got a 5fer in those 3 tests again?


And Kumble got just as many wickets as Saqlain.. The whole series was about who was gonna mess up first with the bat. It was two ordinarry bowling sides but I give the edge to India as we were at home. Of course, at Kolkata in the ATC, it was diff. coz it was not the woeful Waqar but a relatively new Shoaib who made it to the side.

perhaps u need to watch a bit with your eyes open and your brain engaged. not that difficult, if u really try, champ. then u can move onto the harder stuff like the posting.

 

[honestbharani]

perhaps u need to watch a bit with your eyes open and your brain engaged. not that difficult, if u really try, champ. then u can move onto the harder stuff like the posting.

sure.. whenever you start, champ. And unlike you, I did watch every ball of that series and that chennai test, I watched from the pavilion. Heck, we even talked to a couple of Indian players after day 2 and they felt they should have scored more coz the Pak bowling was not so good that we only made 250.. But then again, statsguru has the stories. Why should you bother watching huh?

 

[hang on]

sure.. whenever you start, champ. And unlike you, I did watch every ball of that series and that chennai test, I watched from the pavilion. Heck, we even talked to a couple of Indian players after day 2 and they felt they should have scored more coz the Pak bowling was not so good that we only made 250.. But then again, statsguru has the stories. Why should you bother watching huh?

more babbling and smug certitude about other people watching cricket. nice.

the anecdote about the comment from the players (apochryphal, i suspect!) about not having scored more of the pak attack is a testament to the quality of the indian batting and its confidence rather than an indication that the indian bowling was better! surely it's not that difficult, even for u, to figure that out?

 

[honestbharani]

more babbling and smug certitude about other people watching cricket. nice.

the anecdote about the comment from the players (apochryphal, i suspect!) about not having scored more of the pak attack is a testament to the quality of the indian batting and its confidence rather than an indication that the indian bowling was better! surely it's not that difficult, even for u, to figure that out?

nah.. expectancy to make runs is equally dependent on both your batting prowess and the opponent's bowling prowess. But then again, you may need to watch the game to figure stuff like that out..

And of course, when someone says "their bowling is not that good that we should have only made 250" I naturally assumed they felt it was an indictment of the bowling of the opponent as much as our batting.. but what do they know? Arm chair commentary, FTW..

 

[honestbharani]

I am not gonna waste more time with this stuff. It has gone far enough and I feel like the thread has been hijacked enough as well.


To me, it is pretty obvious that while Sachin's knock was great, that bowling attack of Pak is overrated because of the names by people who did not watch that game. They were properly poo for the most part, with the exception of Saqlain and the odd spell from Wasim, just as much as India were. But India, I felt, in that series, in those 2 tests, had a better bowling line up as both Prasad and Srinath were in form and Kumble was at his peak, compared to an off color Waqar and an inconsistent Wasim and a peak Saqlain..


Sachin's knock was great as the pitch was a little sticky, stroke making was difficult though survival was not and he reigned in his game and batted for the win with the sort of determination we have come to expect from him, esp. after that shocker of a shot in the first innings. Additonally, he batted on after injuring himself which meant even more to us watching in the crowds.. It is one of his better knocks and given the context of the game, perhaps his most important one. But for pure batsmanship, give me the 100 of his at Perth and the 150 odd in Bloemfontein any day of the week. Those were testing conditions and batsmanship at its best.

I am not gonna waste my time arguing this point anymore as it is blatant someone is simply trying to paint the innings into something it wasn't.

 

[hang on]

nah.. expectancy to make runs is equally dependent on both your batting prowess and the opponent's bowling prowess. But then again, you may need to watch the game to figure stuff like that out..

And of course, when someone says "their bowling is not that good that we should have only made 250" I naturally assumed they felt it was an indictment of the bowling of the opponent as much as our batting.. but what do they know? Arm chair commentary, FTW..

missing the point all over again. hardly surprising. slowly now: this does not mean that their bowling, poor though it might have been in that match, according to the putative indian players who were speaking to the only person who actually watches or understands cricket, was worse than the indian bowling.

as weldone pointed out, to at least another who watched the series, the pak bowling was better than the indian bowling. so, i don't think that i am the only one labouring under the misapprehension that the pak bowling was better! as u point out, the quality of the batting and the bowling need to be taken into account....hence, decent indian bowling vs mediocre pak batting might easily lead to 5 wicket hauls for the indian bowlers and none for better pak bowlers facing a better lineup.

anyway, this is a pointless argument that is going to go around in circles. and get even more puerile from both sides. i say we agree to disagree on this one.

out of curiosity, what was dravid's take on being made a complete muppet by akram in the second innings? that was some genius bowling. that is why, no matter how far off their peaks might be, bowlers of that stature will always be difficult to face (read, rather not be faced when given the choice of facing prasad and his friendly cohorts!)

 

[hang on]

I am not gonna waste my time arguing this point anymore as it is blatant someone is simply trying to paint the innings into something it wasn't.

quite. by saying that afridi's knock wasn't better than tendulkar's. ta for that one.

 

[honestbharani]

missing the point all over again. hardly surprising. slowly now: this does not mean that their bowling, poor though it might have been in that match, according to the putative indian players who were speaking to the only person who actually watches or understands cricket, was worse than the indian bowling.

as weldone pointed out, to at least another who watched the series, the pak bowling was better than the indian bowling. so, i don't think that i am the only one labouring under the misapprehension that the pak bowling was better! as u point out, the quality of the batting and the bowling need to be taken into account....hence, decent indian bowling vs mediocre pak batting might easily lead to 5 wicket hauls for the indian bowlers and none for better pak bowlers facing a better lineup.

anyway, this is a pointless argument that is going to go around in circles. and get even more puerile from both sides. i say we agree to disagree on this one.

out of curiosity, what was dravid's take on being made a complete muppet by akram in the second innings? that was some genius bowling. that is why, no matter how far off their peaks might be, bowlers of that stature will always be difficult to face (read, rather not be faced when given the choice of facing prasad and his friendly cohorts!)

well, seeing you know so much about the game, I dunno why I should bother but let me try, slower than you did:


weldone put ratings of ICC to show why they were better. He himself conceded they were poor. They were, in fact, worse than India which is why their loss was MUCH bigger than India's loss. It was obvious to most people watching that this Pak attack was nowhere near to being as good as the names indicate. All you have to do is read match reports and newspaper archives to see what I mean.


If you include Kolkata and Shoaib, then yes, Pak bowling was better but talking about the series in isolation, India's was better and if you want stats to be dished out, I can do that too. India had 3 bowlers averaging <= 15 and Pak had none.. Of course, I knew this would be the case before I opened cricinfo but it serves to show the attacks in a better light than weldone's listing of their ICC career ratings at that point does.


Dravid got out to a peach but the problem with Wasim around then was that these balls were becoming few and far between. He had a great spell on the 4th morning and it was a lovely display by Sachin to overcome that spell but there was little else in terms of testing bowling from anyone not named Saqlain. And as an aside, while those bowlers who can bowl such balls will always be difficult to face, they also increase your chances of scoring of them coz those balls happen with much lesser frequency than they used to when they are towards the end of their careers.

 

[The Sean]

I'm so glad the list was extended far enough to finally include a couple of Tendulkar innings. It's really enhanced the discussion.

 

[ankitj]

Give it a break guys. Enjoy this - Sachin Tendulkar 136 vs Pak at Chenni 1999.mpg.mp4 - YouTube