Battle of the Test Innings

[SJS]

The preponderance of Indian will always mean that the results of polls such as these will always be skewed.

To some extent that will always happen but I think the voting here has been very good and by and large not indicative of such a 'nationalistic' bias. We did have and Australian, an Englishman, a West indian and an Indian in the last four. Its a statement in itself.

Laxman for me and I am proud of the fact that I am unbiased

There are great innings and there are great innings and this is how they may differ amongst other things.

1. The timing in a match.
A great innings may be played at the begining of the match (Bradman) in the middle(Laxman) or at the end(Lara) The pressures are different.

2. The team situation
It can be played when the team is dominating, when the match is evenly poised or when the match loooks lost. BTW, this rarely applies when the innings is played on the first day of the match as in Bradman's case.

3. How it affects the match.
It may have no effect on the game (Bradman). It maybe in a losing cause (Gavaskar at Bangalore), it may save the game or it may win it may win it (Lara). An innings that first saves the match and then sets up a win (Laxman ) is extra special.

4. Size of the innings
Volume of runs doesnt always matter and when it does, its a relative thing. In a low scoring match you dont need a triple hundred to make it a great innings. where as in a high scoring game a triple hundred may be another statistic. But a massive innings does indicate high levels of concentration, application and determinations allied to great skills. (Both Bradman and Laxman)

But to play a massive innings when throughout that long innings you are striving to stave off what appears certain defeat is special again.

Bradman played a great knock but it was great in the context of the volume of runs and that it had never been done before. But it really just announced that a great superstar had arrived on the cricket firmament. It did nothing for the match, was played under no pressure and the match petered out into a tame draw.

Laxman played another massive knock (the highest by an Indian till then) and played it under pressure of loomimg defeat, played it against what was easily the best side in the world and a side which had been on an unprecedented winning streak AND he did it for a side that looked no match for the visitors.

No sir. Its VVS by a long mile.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Gooch for the reasons already mentioned by Goughy & Autobahn. Carried his bat vs Ambrose, Marshall, Walsh & Patterson on a minefield.

 

[andyc]

Laxman for mine.

 

[wpdavid]

Gooch, for all the reasons already said.

As for VVS, the wicket was an absolute road, Warne never did a thing in India in those days, McGrath & Gillespie were probably knackered after Waugh enforced the follow on ...

 

[SJS]

Gooch, for all the reasons already said.

As for VVS, the wicket was an absolute road, Warne never did a thing in India in those days, McGrath & Gillespie were probably knackered after Waugh enforced the follow on ...

Choosing Gooch is fine because it WAS a great innings without doubt but to say all the other things about Laxman's innings is..well...You cant still accept that he did that to Australia can you?

 

[silentstriker]

Gooch, for all the reasons already said.

As for VVS, the wicket was an absolute road, Warne never did a thing in India in those days, McGrath & Gillespie were probably knackered after Waugh enforced the follow on ...

If the pitch was such a road, how come the Aussies were bowled out in less than a day?

 

[Goughy]

If the pitch was such a road, how come the Aussies were bowled out in less than a day?

Well it could have a lot to do with Harbhajan. In the 2nd innings he bowled twice the number of overs as the next man and bowled India to victory.

It could be argued that he was the man of the match with his 13 wickets rather than VVS. With Gooch there was no dispute over his domination as he was head and shoulders above any other player on the field.

 

[silentstriker]

Well it could have a lot to do with Harbhajan. In the 2nd innings he bowled twice the number of overs as the next man and bowled India to victory.

It could be argued that he was the man of the match with his 13 wickets rather than VVS. With Gooch there was no dispute over his domination as he was head and shoulders above any other player on the field.

Thats fine, but they lasted less than 70 overs. That leads me to believe that it wasn't such a road after all, Harbhajan or not.

 

[Goughy]

Just to add to what I said earlier:

You have to look at it context:

Here was an Australian team at the top of its game. India had been blown out of the first test, and Australia had 16 consecutive Test victories. When Australia enforced the follow on, it seemed that Australia would finally win a series on Indian soil.

And then came an innings in the second innings, aganist McGrath, Warne, and Gillespie where virtually no chances were given. Waugh described it as some of the best batting he'd ever seen, and it was hard to argue. From being completely dominated for a test and a half, he turned the tables, and the Indians dominated the aussies within the span of one day. Yes, Dravid was there to support and his contributions should not be minimized...but it was easily Laxmans' day.

EDIT: And he also scored 59 in the first innings.

Well applying that criteria to Goochs innings.

- Until this game England had not won a Test match at home against the WI since 1969 (22 yrs and 23 test matches). Thats right I said match not series. It was that bad.

- The WI bowling attack of Ambrose, Patterson, Marshall, Walsh is one of the best the world has ever seen

- The Headingley track was a green seaming nightmare that no body could be expected to succeed on. Gooch was the only century maker in a match full of quality players.

- Gooch scored over 60% of his teams runs in the innings. His score was nearly 6 times as high as the next highest and he was still not out

- Of the 40 innings in the test 32 were less than 20 and 25 for 6 runs or less. Ill repeat that. Way over half the innings in the test were of 6 runs or less!!

This was a minefield of a track that only 1 person raised above. Laxman played a great innings but he was by no means the only player successful in the game.


____________________________Laxman_______________Gooch_____________
% of Team Innings Score_________43%_________________60%______________
Multiple of next highest innings____1.6__________________5.7_______________
No. Innings of 20 or less in Match__22___________________32_______________
No. Innings 6 or less____________14___________________25________________
No. other 100s in Test___________2____________________0_________________

Laxmans was a great innings and was dramatic and exciting with a great deal of emotion but Goochs was an innings that would be hard to see repeated. Laxmans innings was almost repeated in the same innings by Dravid and it was only a run-out that potentially stopped him.

 

[Anil]

laxman

 

[Jono]

So its come to the point of bagging Laxman's knock? And if it was such a road, can't understand why Sachin and Dravid did nothing in the first innings, with the top score being 59.

 

[Goughy]

So its come to the point of bagging Laxman's knock? And if it was such a road, can't understand why Sachin and Dravid did nothing in the first innings, with the top score being 59.

Im not bagging Laxmans knock, I think people are (for whatever reason) devaluing Goochs. And compared to Headingley the track Laxman batted on was a road.

Laxmans may have been greater theatre but in batting and cricket terms Gooch was a step ahead.

 

[marc71178]

So its come to the point of bagging Laxman's knock? And if it was such a road, can't understand why Sachin and Dravid did nothing in the first innings, with the top score being 59.

Sachin clearly choked.

I'm going to go for Gooch because I don't think that realistically there was any pressure on Laxman when he came in (since the match was to all intents and purposes gone)

 

[Jono]

Im not bagging Laxmans knock, I think people are (for whatever reason) devaluing Goochs. And compared to Headingley the track Laxman batted on was a road.

Laxmans may have been greater theatre but in batting and cricket terms Gooch was a step ahead.

Alright, then vote Gooch then, like you did. But don't come in (not referring to you in particular) claiming that it will be a tragedy of tragedies if Laxman's wins, because his is far inferior.

Its like Laxman's knock could have been done by anyone.

"281? Pffhh. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie? Following on? If he goes out no other batsman left? Meh."

Then again I shouldn't be surprised, I've read comments here by various people that Pietersen's Oval knock was better than Laxman's too.

 

[Goughy]

Alright, then vote Gooch then, like you did. But don't come in claiming that it will be a tragedy of tragedies if Laxman's wins, because his is far inferior.

Its like Laxman's knock could have been done by anyone.

"281? Pffhh. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie? Following on? If he goes out no other batsman left? Meh."

Then again I shouldn't be surprised, I've read comments here by various people that Pietersen's Oval knock was better than Laxman's too.

Stop being so defensive, as if anything said favourably for anyone else is an attack on Laxman. Its showing too much emotional attachment to the subject which kinda devalues your opinion a bit. It shows some bias.

There is nothing wrong with Laxmans innings, it was great, few people have played similar, the result was very meaningful to India. However, it does not change the fact that Goochs innings was better.

Saying Gooch innings was better does not devalue what Laxman did its just applying fair and rational thinking. I think Goochs was the best innings in recent times for some pretty complelling reasons. If Laxmans is 2nd, 3rd or 4th that is no insult or disgrace.

 

[silentstriker]

Sachin clearly choked.

I'm going to go for Gooch because I don't think that realistically there was any pressure on Laxman when he came in (since the match was to all intents and purposes gone)

.....

 

[Jono]

Stop being so defensive, as if anything said favourably for anyone else is an attack on Laxman. Its showing too much emotional attachment to the subject which kinda devalues your opinion a bit. It shows some bias.

There is nothing wrong with Laxmans innings, it was great, few people have played similar, the result was very meaningful to India. However, it does not change the fact that Goochs innings was better.

Saying Gooch innings was better does not devalue what Laxman did its just applying fair and rational thinking. I think Goochs was the best innings in recent times for some pretty complelling reasons. If Laxmans is 2nd, 3rd or 4th that is no insult or disgrace.

I think we're all biased when it comes to judging knocks, so calling me biased isn't an insult or a denigration of my opinion, even if you try and make it out like it is.

And point out where I said voting Gooch was a) wrong and b) devaluing Laxman's knock.

 

[Sanz]

I wasn't going to vote, but seeing Englishmen wanting to create an upset here, here is my little ONE vote to LAXMAN.

 

[Goughy]

I think we're all biased when it comes to judging knocks, so calling me biased isn't an insult or a denigration of my opinion, even if you try and make it out like it is.

And point out where I said voting Gooch was a) wrong and b) devaluing Laxman's knock.

I do not want being insulting. Just stating what I percieve. I don't think I have any bias on this topic. I have no idea what will win or what I think will win. I want to hear what others have to say and make an educated vote based on all the evidence possible. I'm not an emotional guy and none of these innings really mean that much to me on a personal level.

Alright, then vote Gooch then, like you did. But don't come in (not referring to you in particular) claiming that it will be a tragedy of tragedies if Laxman's wins, because his is far inferior.

Its like Laxman's knock could have been done by anyone.

"281? Pffhh. McGrath, Warne, Gillespie? Following on? If he goes out no other batsman left? Meh."

How that reads is that you are implying to in order to value Goochs innings above Laxmans then his innings has to be devalued to the level of the ordinary. Its as if you think Goochs innings cannot have been that good. I may have misinterpreted but that is how it read to me.

 

[silentstriker]

How that reads is that you are implying to in order to value Goochs innings above Laxmans then his innings has to be devalued to the level of the ordinary. Its as if you think Goochs innings cannot have been that good. I may have misinterpreted but that is how it read to me.

I don't see how this comment (not by you):

As for VVS, the wicket was an absolute road, Warne never did a thing in India in those days, McGrath & Gillespie were probably knackered after Waugh enforced the follow on ...

doesn't attempt to devalue the innings?