Battle of the Test Innings

[steds]

SS Das in the second innings.

 

[oz_fan]

Gilchrist

 

[Slifer]

Dravid

 

[Jono]

Dravid's inning was part of a remarkable partnership, but it wasn't one of his greatest efforts in my opinion.

I can't think of too many knocks of his better, maybe only a couple.

Scoring 180 runs against an attack of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Kasprowicz following on, and with Warne pretty much having owned him for the best part of his career till then, I think its a fair effort.

Laxman's knock being better shouldn't really take away from it.

 

[honestbharani]

Dravid. He not only overcome the bowlers, but also his own poor form leading up to this innings. I don't think Gilchrist had to conquer that.

 

[Xuhaib]

Gilchrist.

Its close to call but i think Dravid batted on an easier track and during his knock i dont remember any aussie bowler bowling really well, on the other hand Wasim and Saqlain bowled beautifully in that innings but without any luck

 

[andyc]

I'm going for Dravid, hell of an innings. Sorry Gilly.

 

[benchmark00]

G'Christ.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Voting closed. Gilchrist pulls through 11-6.

Next battle:

Sachin Tendulkar 114 v Australia, WACA, 1991
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991-92/IND_IN_AUS/IND_AUS_T5_01-05FEB1992.html

vs.

Stan McCabe 232 v England, Trent Bridge, 1938
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1930S/1938/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T1_10-14JUN1938.html

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

McCabe easily. Weight of runs, coupled with being the only decent batsman in that innings. By all reports he simply dominated the bowling while everyone else struggled. Rescuing the team from 6/194 to make 400+ is unbelievable.

Tendulkar didn't have much of an attack to contend with anyway, though his age does make the innings a special one, I don't think it compares.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Bear in mind that Tendulkar managed his runs on a deck on which Mike Whitney managed 7-27, though.

 

[Burpey]

McCabe.

 

[Dasa]

Bear in mind that Tendulkar managed his runs on a deck on which Mike Whitney managed 7-27, though.

...and McCabe was up against an attack of basically one good bowler in Verity. It may have been quality strokeplay, but it wasn't against great bowling and from the scorecard, on a very flat pitch.

I'll say Tendulkar.

 

[shankar]

Tendulkar

 

[marc71178]

McCabe - any innings given the accolades it was by Bradman must be good.

 

[aussie]

McCabe, don't know too much about these knocks but looking at the scorecard his performance looks at bit better.

 

[andyc]

Mike Whitney got Tendulkar out.

For that reason alone, I'm voting McCabe.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

...and McCabe was up against an attack of basically one good bowler in Verity. It may have been quality strokeplay, but it wasn't against great bowling and from the scorecard, on a very flat pitch.

I'll say Tendulkar.

Both the pitches were quite flat, in all probability. The 30s was notorious for dead wickets, and obviously that was a high scoring game, but a run a minute double century batting almost exclusively with the tail is nevertheless remarkable. The mighty Tom Moody scored a century in the WACA test, as did Dean Jones (who is not known as someone who made many runs in tough conditions, a major reason he was eventually dropped from the test team), so I doubt that one was particularly dangerous either. It's more likely given the history of the WACA that it cracked and became uneven later in the match, hence the Whitney bowling.

Tendulkar's innings would have to be something pretty special to be better than what Bradman called the best innings he'd ever seen, I'd say.

 

[Jono]

7 tons and 2 double tons? Quite the run fest, and there is a difference between how flat a wicket is. There isn't just a standard "flat pitch" which all flat tracks come under, their are various levels, and to suggest this WACA wicket was as flat as a track with that amount of runs scored is a bit rich.

I'll vote Sachin.

 

[silentstriker]

Sachin