Battle of the Test Innings

[Jono]

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.

With all due respect Goughy, it doesn't read like that at all. How on Earth anything I said in that post is even relevant to Gooch's knock, let alone devalues it. Its almost like you've purposely attempted to reverse my claim (that people are devaluing Laxman's knock for the sake of it) and saying I am doing so, which is false.

I believe Laxman's knock to be a little better. If Gooch won 15-1, I wouldn't have minded, would have been surprised, but wouldn't have minded. But the sheer fact that, due to the immense popularity of Laxman's knock (Loved by Indians and Australians, Indians for obvious reasons, Australians because it was against their great team) many people (I don't want to generalise and say 'English', but Jeez) have come here and stated things such as "I vote Gooch, however I expect Laxman will win, what a shame, what a tragedy" shows that all isn't right.

Its just the fashion that the votes for Gooch occurred. Almost to spite Laxman. "Gooch's was better, Laxman's was run of the mill on a road, and that Warne guy wasn't any good against India anyway".

 

[Hugh]

Comments like "The Aussie bowlers were knackered anyway" are plain ridiculous. How many Test matches out of 1000+ ever played have ended in a win for the team following on ? If all bowlers bowling after enforcing the follow on are knackered enough, wouldn't one expect more than four measly comebackfromthedead victories in 100+ years of Test Cricket ?

 

[silentstriker]

Comments like "The Aussie bowlers were knackered anyway" are plain ridiculous. How many Test matches out of 1000+ ever played have ended in a win for the team following on ? If all bowlers bowling after enforcing the follow on are knackered enough, wouldn't one expect more than four measly comebackfromthedead victories in 100+ years of Test Cricket ?

You can't post in this thread without voting :P. What's your vote?

/But I completely agree with your statement.

 

[Hugh]

You can't post in this thread without voting :P. What's your vote?

/But I completely agree with your statement.

I think I've already voted mate. If not, Its in favour of VVS.

 

[wpdavid]

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?

Believe me, I loved the fact that he did it to Australia.

btw why are some people (not you, SJS) getting so sensitive about all this? I thought it was obvious I was tongue-in-cheek about one of the all-time-great innings, but apparently not.

 

[Jono]

The only thing that made me think it may be tongue in cheek was it was coming from you.

Otherwise the delivery was poor

 

[wpdavid]

The only thing that made me think it may be tongue in cheek was it was coming from you.

Otherwise the delivery was poor

Sorry, I'll work on it

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Personally, I do feel that Laxman's innings is a little bit overrated. That's not to say it wasn't one of the finest innings of all time, because it was, but many people (particularly on here) talk about it as if it is so far ahead of every other innings in test history as to make all comparison pointless.

As an example, look back to the very first battle of this whole thread, where Laxman's 281 beat Bradman's 270 by a landslide margin. Bradman's innings is by almost universal concensus far better than his 334, and was rated by Wisden as the finest innings in test history. In Bradman's match, Australia trailed 2-0 in the Ashes (series on the line, as with Laxman) and made 200 batting first, before England were bowled out for 76. Australia reversed their batting order as the wicket was damp and Bradman came in at 5/76, and made 270 off 375 balls, against a fine attack including Voce and Verity. Whether or not you think it's better than Laxman's, that Bradman knock is obviously a very fine one, and yet you had comments in this thread saying that the decision was "easy" and so on, and about 3 or 4 people voted for it. Laxman's knock was brilliant, but there are valid critcisms of it when compared to other great innings, and simply saying "the pitch was flat" or "the bowlers were tired" isn't a capital crime, as those statements have some validity.

Anyway, I'll go Gooch in this one, I think. Both would be deserved finalists though.

 

[silentstriker]

"the pitch was flat" or "the bowlers were tired" isn't a capital crime, as those statements have some validity.

I think Bradmans' innings was better, but the pitch being flat doesn't have validity considering the Aussies were all out in less than 70 overs right after.

As for the bowlers being tired...HOW? India were all out in less than 60 overs in the first innings. What validity?

The way you are describing, enforcing a follow on = death sentence.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think Bradmans' innings was better, but the pitch being flat doesn't have validity considering the Aussies were all out in less than 70 overs right after.

As for the bowlers being tired...HOW? India were all out in less than 60 overs in the first innings. What validity?

Bowling back-to-back innings in heat and unfamiliar conditions is obviously going to take it out of anyone. I hardly think anyone can claim that the Australian bowlers were bowling at their best. And the pitch certainly had some turn in it, but batting was really quite easy throughout the match against the seamers. Bounce was nice and even, no seam movement as you'd expect, and there was turn but Warne certainly wasn't bowling well enough to take advantage of it.

Basically, Laxman's 281 wasn't played on an absolute road, but it certainly wasn't a difficult wicket by any stretch. That's a perfectly valid criticism of the innings when comparing it to another great innings. eg: 'Laxman's innings was on a flat wicket, while Gooch's was on a minefield'. It doesn't make either innings automatically better or worse, but it's a valid statement nonetheless.

 

[Jono]

Batting wasn't easy against the seamers for the Indians, I think that's the point.

 

[cameeel]

Gooch

 

[marc71178]

Otherwise the delivery was poor

As poor as the long hops served up to VVS?

 

[SJS]

Believe me, I loved the fact that he did it to Australia.

btw why are some people (not you, SJS) getting so sensitive about all this? I thought it was obvious I was tongue-in-cheek about one of the all-time-great innings, but apparently not.

One can understand why Indians are so 'posessive' (for want of a better word) of this innings by Laxman.

We havent had many great achievements in the game, certainly much less than our doting zillions expect of 'Gods'. Laxman'a innings, no the defeat of Australia, and the breaking of the Steve-Waugh-team's long winning streak, the accolades that followed, the temporary illusion of seeing ourselves as number two and strong contenders for being the next occupants of that top spot, all made Indians swoon with heady delight.

Its the British's feeling at winning the Ashes last time around multiplied a hundred fold.

Other than the world cup win of 1983, this must be very close to being the most cherished moment of Indian cricket and Laxman's innings and everything that went with it made him the unlikely hero of india. Its not not Laxman you know. Inspite of this great innings and so many other absolutely delightful ones, he is one of the first Indians agree as a people to drop from the Indian side. He is hardly the hero you would expect, not even the hero he surely is. Its just that triumph.

Thats why this innings is so special besides the fact that it undoubtedly is one of the all time great innings.

I suspect that if this innings had not been played by an indian, some of us (myself included) might have voted differently. But thats not surprising, is it. I "think" I might not have voted for Laxman if I wasnt an Indian (or he wasnt). But I "am sure" I would have voted for Gooch had i been English.

 

[oz_fan]

Gooch

 

[wpdavid]

One can understand why Indians are so 'posessive' (for want of a better word) of this innings by Laxman.

We havent had many great achievements in the game, certainly much less than our doting zillions expect of 'Gods'. Laxman'a innings, no the defeat of Australia, and the breaking of the Steve-Waugh-team's long winning streak, the accolades that followed, the temporary illusion of seeing ourselves as number two and strong contenders for being the next occupants of that top spot, all made Indians swoon with heady delight.

Its the British's feeling at winning the Ashes last time around multiplied a hundred fold.

Other than the world cup win of 1983, this must be very close to being the most cherished moment of Indian cricket and Laxman's innings and everything that went with it made him the unlikely hero of india. Its not not Laxman you know. Inspite of this great innings and so many other absolutely delightful ones, he is one of the first Indians agree as a people to drop from the Indian side. He is hardly the hero you would expect, not even the hero he surely is. Its just that triumph.

Thats why this innings is so special besides the fact that it undoubtedly is one of the all time great innings.

Incidentally, an you recall at what pont in his innings you thought you had a good chance of winning the game? Nothing to do with the poll - just wondering.

 

[honestbharani]

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 ...

he has never done much in India, doesn't mean the wickets were roads.

 

[honestbharani]

Vvs.

 

[SJS]

Incidentally, an you recall at what pont in his innings you thought you had a good chance of winning the game? Nothing to do with the poll - just wondering.

The predominant memory I have of that match is one of Laxman playing so effortlessly as wickets fell around him. It looked like he was having nets. Then as rahul joined him and the two took roots my second memory is of feeling that he is never ever going to get out. I never doubted he will get a triple century. He was in that rarefied zone.

I thought India had a very decent chance when they took a lead of 250 runs (around 520 for 4). Once they crossed 600 I thought it was bad captaincy to continue batting. I dont think a triple century by Laxman was important (he was still in) and a lead of about 325 was enough for India to go for it. At that stage I thought Australia could at best draw the game because if they went for the runs, India's chances of getting wickets would increase.

 

[SJS]

I distinctly remember telling my wife how poor a decision it was to bat on, on the fifth morning (India led by over 300 runs). Then when Laxman got out and India continued batting, I said, "oh my God, now Rahul is going to try for a double century" but Rahul too got out and India batted for some more time !!

I think Australia did a terrible job in not staying at the wicket well as Harbhajan bowled.