Battle of the Test Innings

[SJS]

Bradman.

If you can get 300 in a day you must be in 'the zone'.

You dont have to be in the zone to score 300 in a day. You just have to be Don Bradman and on the first day of a test match you should come in almost immediately after play started (Australia lost the first wicket before the spectators had settled down).

Bradman never got into this kiond of s situation ever again in his career, having the whole day of a fresh test wicket otherwise he would have done it again.

It was a big surprise then but after four more years of Bradman it was clear that this was just another innings by the run-machine.

Sorry, nothing in this innings that one cant find in his other triple century or the 299 not out except the timing of it at the start of the test.

Think about it. Its a fantastic record by a man who was capable of making more such had a situation arisen.

Nothing special. all in the days work

 

[Dasa]

You dont have to be in the zone to score 300 in a day.

Another thing with that is it was because over-rates were so much better then that Bradman was able to score 300 in a day. If you look at balls faced there have been faster 300s. I dare say if over-rates now were as they were back then, Sehwag would've made his 309 all on the first day as well, instead, he ended up not-out on 228.

 

[Hugh]

VVS Laxman, considering the circumstances.

 

[silentstriker]

Aren't you supposed to be neutral here ?

Bradman.

Why would I be neutral? All I need to be is fair, so there is no shady business in terms of counting votes, or things like that. It would be disingenuous to claim that I am not rooting over person or another.

Its simply my opinion that this Bradman innings does not belong in the top 10. Obviously, people disagree and thats their right. I also disagreed when VVS beat out Bradmans' 270 in the first round since that innings was (to me) the best innings in history of cricket. I felt that Bradman innings was clearly superior to VVS. But out of these two, I feel VVS innings is clearly superior.

Yes, he scored 300 in the first day...but compare the over rates. And the team still didn't win. I cannot fathom how a test that ends in a draw can have an innings that is the best that has ever been played. It is just beyond my comprehension how people can vote for a first innings knock in game that resulted in a draw...to be the best knock in 130 years of cricket. I don't get it.

 

[benchmark00]

You dont have to be in the zone to score 300 in a day. You just have to be Don Bradman and on the first day of a test match you should come in almost immediately after play started (Australia lost the first wicket before the spectators had settled down).

Bradman never got into this kiond of s situation ever again in his career, having the whole day of a fresh test wicket otherwise he would have done it again.

It was a big surprise then but after four more years of Bradman it was clear that this was just another innings by the run-machine.

Sorry, nothing in this innings that one cant find in his other triple century or the 299 not out except the timing of it at the start of the test.

Think about it. Its a fantastic record by a man who was capable of making more such had a situation arisen.

Nothing special. all in the days work

Don't be facetious, if you asked Don himself (which would require him to be alive) i'm sure he'd admit he was in an extraodinary frame of mind that day.

 

[SJS]

When Bradman hit 300 in a day, he didn't know the match would end a draw.

No he did not and it wasnt his fault that Australia couldnt bowl England out.
Even India may not have bowled Australia out, Laxman's innings wouldnt have changed due to that. Laxman did not bowl Aussies out nor dould h have been responsible if the Aussies salvaged a draw. same for Bradman...

BUT..

When Bradman went into bat his side was not staring defeat in the face.

AND
When he was pulverising the English attack, he was not thinking that one mistake by him and his side would lose for sure.

Thats the diffenece and its a big one if you choose to see it.

 

[benchmark00]

Another thing with that is it was because over-rates were so much better then that Bradman was able to score 300 in a day. If you look at balls faced there have been faster 300s. I dare say if over-rates now were as they were back then, Sehwag would've made his 309 all on the first day as well, instead, he ended up not-out on 228.

It's not an issue of speed. Mental application is what made it great IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not an issue of speed. Mental application is what made it great IMO.

But it was a knock on the first day of a game that ended in a draw. How can that knock be in the top ten, let alone the best ever?

 

[benchmark00]

But it was a knock on the first day of a game that ended in a draw. How can that knock be in the top ten, let alone the best ever?

This is exactly what people were doing to Laman's knock last round...

I'm not going to degrade Laxman's knock because that was extraodinary too, I trust you'll do the same to Bradman's.

 

[silentstriker]

This is exactly what people were doing to Laman's knock last round...

Yes, they were. But I am simply saying that in my opinion, for the reasons I mentioned a couple posts above, that it was not a top ten knock. Heck, it may not even be a top 20. It didn't save a test, nor did it win one. That is the point of cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

This is exactly what people were doing to Laman's knock last round...

I'm not going to degrade Laxman's knock because that was extraodinary too, I trust you'll do the same to Bradman's.

Maybe I am degrading this particular knock, but its only because people are voting it to be the best knock in the history of cricket. That is completely undeserved IMO. In fact, I think Laxmans 281 isn't deserving of it either but its clearly the better of the two.

 

[benchmark00]

Yes, they were. But I am simply saying that in my opinion, for the reasons I mentioned a couple posts above, that it was not a top ten knock. Heck, it may not even be a top 20. It didn't save a test, nor did it win one. That is the point of cricket.

That's just like me saying "the point of cricket is to score the most runs, 334 > 281, thus Bradman's knock > Laxman's knock".

 

[silentstriker]

That's just like me saying "the point of cricket is to score the most runs, 334 > 281, thus Bradman's knock > Laxman's knock".

But it didn't mean anything. Or Laras' 400* would be up here, wouldn't it? That also required vast amounts of concentration.

Here's what I said:


Its simply my opinion that this Bradman innings does not belong in the top 10. Obviously, people disagree and thats their right. I also disagreed when VVS beat out Bradmans' 270 in the first round since that innings was (to me) the best innings in history of cricket. I felt that Bradman innings was clearly superior to VVS. But out of these two, I feel VVS innings is clearly superior.

Yes, he scored 300 in the first day...but compare the over rates. And the team still didn't win. I cannot fathom how a test that ends in a draw can have an innings that is the best that has ever been played. It is just beyond my comprehension how people can vote for a first innings knock in game that resulted in a draw...to be the best knock in 130 years of cricket. I don't get it.

 

[GIMH]

We're going round in circles, because we've had this discussion before, possibly in this thread.

Pietersen's debut innings at Lord's are both special for me, especially his second innings 64* - it was a futile excercise but he did all he could have done in the circumstances, and in the most eagerly awaited Test match in years. Now I'm not saying either of these knocks are the stuff of legends - but the fact that we were hammered doesn't change anything for me.

Cricket is a team sport, and individual brilliance should not be measured by what others in the team could or could not do.

 

[SJS]

Don't be facetious, if you asked Don himself (which would require him to be alive) i'm sure he'd admit he was in an extraodinary frame of mind that day.

You dont get it.

Of course he may have been in an extraordinary frame of mind. But my point is he was capable of doing it again and came pretty close to scoring at the same rate (or faster) for as big an innings. Its just that the innings wasnt spread through A SINGLE CALENDAR DAY !!

He scored his 334 in 449 balls. Thats a strike rate of 74.4, right? (There is no record of how many balls he faced to reach the triple)

His 270 against England at Melbourne in 1937 came in 375 deliveries which is 72.0 per 100 balls. Not too different but he got out.

He did MUCH MUCH better on the England tour of 1934.

At The Oval he scored 244 in just 271 deliveries !! A strike rate of 90.0 !!! Another half an hour of batting and it would have been a faster triple hundred than the 1930 one by a HUGE MARGIN !!

Records arent available of his 299 not out against South Africa in jan 1932. But those who saw the innings say it was whirlwind. Just one more run and it would have been a triple, probably much faster than the one we are discussing.

Thats the point !!

The man was capable of playing more than one such innings.

This one just happens to be the record, PERIOD . A great innings no doubt but not something which he couldnt have repeated. That wouldnt make it unique but for the time it started in the morning.

THAT's the point !!

 

[silentstriker]

We're going round in circles, because we've had this discussion before, possibly in this thread.

Pietersen's debut innings at Lord's are both special for me, especially his second innings 64* - it was a futile excercise but he did all he could have done in the circumstances, and in the most eagerly awaited Test match in years. Now I'm not saying either of these knocks are the stuff of legends - but the fact that we were hammered doesn't change anything for me.

Cricket is a team sport, and individual brilliance should not be measured by what others in the team could or could not do.

Agreed, but we are not talking about simply good or great performances. These are legendary, the knocks that should trancend time and would be an advertisement of how great cricket can be. The only way that a draw could qualify would be if that knock was in the 2nd innings trying to save a test (i.e Hanif). The others should be in victories, no exceptions. Thats why I am still upset that Bradmans' 270 didn't make it this far.

 

[benchmark00]

Seems like he was in the zone to me...

You can be 'in the zone' more than once, you know.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Agreed, but we are not talking about simply good or great performances. These are legendary, the knocks that should trancend time and would be an advertisement of how great cricket can be. The only way that a draw could qualify would be if that knock was in the 2nd innings trying to save a test (i.e Hanif). The others should be in victories, no exceptions. Thats why I am still upset that Bradmans' 270 didn't make it this far.

I agree there. Bradman's 334 is a remarkable innings because it involved a feat that will never be repeated (300 in a day), but I think there's a fair argument that it wasn't his best innings in test cricket. As I said when I voted, I don't think Laxman's knock is the best in history, but I do think it has more in its favour that the 334.

 

[Goughy]

I vote Laxman on the choice of the 2 innings presented and primarily because I cannot vote for an innings in a draw as the best ever.

I regret a little voting for Bradman in the previous round and looking back I think a far better final would be Lara vs Gooch.

Based on the option of Bradman or Laxman, I vote Laxman but in reality, as great as it was, there is no way that was the best inning ever.

 

[silentstriker]

Seems like he was in the zone to me...

You can be 'in the zone' more than once, you know.

But it is widely agreed that it wasn't even his best knock. It just a nice novelty that he scored 300 in one day. It wasn't faster or better than the others...it just happened to fall in the same day. THATS IT. Nothing much else was special.