Best match saving innings you have seen

[NUFAN]

Not all that often really. As Kev said pretty much, it's simply a case of bad deliveries being punished more readily these days, but with that comes the fact that deliveries which look at first glance to be bad and are actually dangerous will cause a batsman's downfall more often. Bowlers have to be good enough, and possessed with the tools, to produce these though.

Agree with this completely, but people didn't suddenly stop posting third-mans in 2001/02. I've thought "FFS, put a third-man in" in more games of Test cricket than I can possibly remember as far back as I can remeber.

Not sure it will TBH, a better system that gets more correct decisions and wastes less time would help more... but there we go.

1. I don't really think Kev said that - He said: The same balls are just being treated differently (Im talking more about the leaves than anything else in this particular case).

2. Yeah I know third-mans didn't stop specifically in your favourite season of 2001/02, but third-mans were used a hell of a lot more in the 90s than the 00s, that's a fact.

3. The UDRS has been excellent for bowlers, I'm a big fan of it.

 

[Flem274*]

Not really - it's something that can be manufactured into a contradiction if you try to be clever with words, but in reality in terms of what I mean it isn't.

Nah, it was just a contradiction dude. Clear as day.

Yes, I do. The idea of "bullying bowlers" just isn't acceptable to me. Bowlers can always, if they're good enough, produce something which a batsman is powerless to resist. Batsmen merely respond to what is bowled at them; Hayden and Sehwag are very good at looking dismissive when they smash a crap delivery for four, and this creates the illusion of them "bullying" bowlers. But their games both retain flaws that a top-class bowler can exploit.

This, I think, is where the problem lies.

It's unbelievably easy to prove otherwise. The bowler bowls the ball. All the batsman can do is react to what the bowler bowls at him. The bowler thus has control of the exchange, and only when the bowler errs can the batsman make some sort of gain.

The batsman reacts to what is bowled at him. I have seen batsmen hit good balls for four.

Thus, good bowling means successful batting is very difficult. The better the batting, the more likely the bowler is to have to produce something special, but there is no circumstance where the batsman can be in control.

Missed a few games then obviously.

Good bowling makes batting harder, but not impossible.

Murali and Warne were outstanding bowlers and played for most of 2001/02-2006/07. Lee was crap for all bar a handful of Tests in 2007/08; Saqlain and Harbhajan, Swann and Vettori are all fingerspinners who can only bowl well when presented with a turner which as I mentioned has not happened often of late, and the same mostly applied to Kumble. Donald, Srinath, Wasim Akram, Gough and Caddick all played a mere handful of Tests after 2001/02 and all were by then crap, as (as I mention) a great many players are at the end of their careers. Gillespie, Bond, Akhtar and Asif barely played for a variety of reasons and were certainly not 100% reliable when they did; Steyn has only been around for the last 3 years; Flintoff was only good for a relatively short time; Vaas could either be brilliant or terrible with no indication of what was coming next; Pollock was clearly not the bowler post-2001/02 that he was up to 2001; Johnson has barely been around 5 minutes and has not made that much of an impact yet. So essentially you're left with Murali, Warne and McGrath - they are the only really, really good bowlers who have played consistently after 2001/02. And those from the next rung down (eg Harbhajan and Hoggard) are mostly not capable of performing when they do not have helpful conditions.

Burgey dealt with this. I dont need to say it again.

It's not about orthodoxy (Gary Kirsten is a far better example than Andrew Jones as he was far more consistently successful, and he was wholly unorthodox), it's about having obvious flaws in the game which top-class bowlers can exploit. In my view there's enough evidence in the relatively few occasions Hayden and opener-Sehwag actually faced said bowling post-2001/02 to show that they had said obvious flaws and that with more consistently good bowling they'd have been exposed. Of course there can be no certainty and I've never, ever said there can be; I simply say that to me it's logical deduction.

Sure.

Also, they faced difficult wickets very few times. Why change if you're going to see a difficlut wicket rarely? As for facing good bowling, we've discussed this. Also, Hayden in his test exile as a young batsman faced some pretty damn good bowling domestically.

my view the evidence suggests otherwise. Ponting and Kallis have always shown some amount of vulnerability to top-class bowling. Of course, any batsman can do this, it's no shame, but to my mind there is enough evidence to suggest both are notably lesser than the likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Stephen Waugh.

I thought there were no top class bowlers? Can't have it both ways.

Their techniques are pretty much watertight bar Pontings ability to lose his wicket to seamers under 20 and to Shane Bond. Ponting and Kallis have dominated anything and everyone this decade. They are greats of the game. Without checking, they also played in the 90s right? I know Ponting definitely did and went very, very well.

I found compelling StatsGuru evidence that there are very few bowlers with good averages over lengthy careers since 2001/02. Of course some will prefer to believe this is because the calibre of batsmanship has improved; with the way I see that the game works, I believe this to be illogical.

Your logic is markedly different to everyone elses...

They disagree, so they try to look for reasons I am wrong, and prejudice is a favourite. I, however, know myself better than them and am quite capable of identifying my own biases; others are not, as no-one on here knows me anywhere near so well as I know myself.

Generally people are blind to their own biases, thats part of the reason some people are biased..

I have plenty, of both a numerical and non-numerical nature, but I am merely saying I don't need actual numerical data to know what I know;

Sup God.

Lets see this data.

it might help to demonstrate it to others, however, if they're willing to open their minds.

Irony.

 

[Flem274*]

If I thought theories were wrong I wouldn't have attached myself to the belief of them.

Woah! No ****.

Doesn't mean they still can't be wrong.

Turtles are the superior race! I don't believe this is wrong otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

If I say people are replying to what they'd like to have been written rather than what has been it's because that's what's happened. It'd be so much easier for everyone if they just replied to what had been written, because it'd save needless bickering. There is no "being beaten" because mostly people on CW aren't that way inclined, but yes, there are some things that people have said on the subject-matter down the years that has influenced the way I think about the batting-has-gotten-easier-since-2001/02 matter - and many besides. I don't feel any sort of comedown thus, it's perfectly natural. But I won't admit anything is wrong when I've spent plenty of time considering it and there has been nothing presented by someone else to change my mind.

Haha, you're doing it again. I do respond to whats being written. So don't try and profess cross your heart hope to die that I'm shifting the goalposts.

 

[Burgey]

unless the captain was Closey

haha - indeed!

 

[aussie]

Aussie ^

Hayden had been out of form for nigh on 12 months before the Ashes series iirc. England executed its mints, I mean plans, to him well though, no doubt.

Point I think is that any player from any era will struggle against good fast bowling where the ball's moving late, be it in the air or off the deck. Those who've been conditioned to be more aggressive and to attack may well struggle more than those who let 60 balls per hour go in earlier eras where 210 in a day was an explosive day out at a Test match, usually through about 70 overs btw, as there were no over rate penalties.

These players, from whatever era, are products of their times. If guys came along and played as slowly as they used to, the captain would probably tell them to get a wriggle on. And tbf, they're probably good enough that they could do so. Except Boycott, he'd just tell the captain to **** off.

Dont like getting into these Hayden arguments since i see him as great. But it seems to be a trend of CW, so what the hell!

Hayden was out of form, just under 12 months i'd say. Between IND 04 to NZ 05 (Oct 04 - March 05 which is about 10 months). But i dont think his bad run was solely down to just bad form though. He was exposed technically in the IND 04 - NZ 05 period to bowlers who could swing the ball back into his pads by Akhtar & Mills (a technical flaw that was noticeable since the 2001 Ashes). England in 2005 with a good all-round pace attack, just showed him up. He had to make adjsutment which he did in latter half of his career & those flaws he eradicated a fair deal IMO (although some may dispute this).


Yes all batsmen would struggle againts good fast-bowling where the ball is moving late etc since no batsman is perfect technically. But the batsmen with the least technical flaws (Tendulkar) are likely to have more success in such conditions - than batsmen with more technical flaws (Sehwag).

Great batsman whether opener of middle order batof the past knew when to attack & be defensive when conditions suite. So i have never fully agreed with the batsmen "are a products of their times" argument as a way to defend FTBs of the 2000s era. I have always seen this new aggressive extinct & increase scoring rate amongts FTBs in tests(although skills gathered from ODIs & T20 skills have played a part) to be down to the reduction of quality bowling & flat pitches.

As i've mentioned before in the 2000s era. We basically had 3 consistent quality attacks.

- Australia

- IND @ Home

- SRI @ Home

Everyone else was few & far between. Do you remember too many quality batsmen or teams dominated these attacks with scoring rates at 4 rpo or scoring 300+ runs a day againts them regulary. Or individual batsmen scoring hundreds at fast rate againts those bowlers?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Match saving innings

Hanif Mohammad's 337 against West Indies
Imran Khan's 136against Australia at Adelaide
Inzamam's 138 against Bangladesh at Multan
Laxman's 281
Dravid's hundred in that match
Ponting's 155 at Old Trafford
Langer and Gilchrist against Pakistan in 99
Lara's hundreds against Australia in 99
and I dont remember this too well but I think Sunil Gavaskar scored a 100 to save India a match in the 80s..not sure if it was against Pakistan or West Indies

and since the topic is about match saving innings and not necessarily 100s, Colllingwood vs Austarlia in the 1st test, Collingwood vs SA this year come to mind straightaway

There are heaps of others I am sure

Will write more as I remember.

 

[zaremba]

On batsmen who average 45-49 being called great. Immediately i think of Gordon Greenidge a man who was good enough to average 50 & was better than most opener of the last 15 years. Peter May, Inzamam, Zaheer Abbas, Gooch, Boycott, Worrell.

"Great or Not" can be a sterile debate but I'd add Martin Crowe to the list.

 

[Richard]

1. I don't really think Kev said that - He said: The same balls are just being treated differently (Im talking more about the leaves than anything else in this particular case).

He said that poor deliveries with fair width would often be left rather than punished. This is undoubtedly true - but with that, given no drop in the calibre of bowling, comes additional risk, sometimes substantial additional risk.

2. Yeah I know third-mans didn't stop specifically in your favourite season of 2001/02, but third-mans were used a hell of a lot more in the 90s than the 00s, that's a fact.

You think? I'm surprised if so, because as I say, I've thought they've been under-used for as long as I've watched the game.

3. The UDRS has been excellent for bowlers, I'm a big fan of it.

Excellent? More half-hearted attempt to do what's best.

 

[aussie]

"Great or Not" can be a sterile debate but I'd add Martin Crowe to the list.

Definately.

 

[Richard]

Nah, it was just a contradiction dude. Clear as day.

It was no such thing - but there's not really any point me trying to show why it wasn't.

This, I think, is where the problem lies.

I think it lies in that other people do find it acceptable. Prove otherwise.

The batsman reacts to what is bowled at him. I have seen batsmen hit good balls for four.

No batsman has ever been able to do this consistently though - else they wouldn't be good balls. What is a good ball to one batsman isn't neccessarily a good ball to another, of course, same way not all good bowlers are especially good at bowling the same type of good deliveries. Nonetheless, the bowler is always the one who bowls the delivery; the batsman can merely react to that, and there are deliveries which no batsman can have a realistic chance of playing.

Missed a few games then obviously.

Good bowling makes batting harder, but not impossible.

Depends - some good bowling makes run-scoring (of a substantial number) difficult; some makes it realistically impossible. All a matter of degree.

Burgey dealt with this.

He did?

Sure.

Also, they faced difficult wickets very few times. Why change if you're going to see a difficlut wicket rarely? As for facing good bowling, we've discussed this.

As I say - there's no way of proving anything conclusive, but the conclusions I draw are not belief-defying, as some like to think.

Also, Hayden in his test exile as a young batsman faced some pretty damn good bowling domestically.

I've discussed that ad nauseum, long before you even discovered CW.n.

I thought there were no top class bowlers? Can't have it both ways.

I said that where exactly? I've always said very few, not never, when referring to post-2001/02.

Their techniques are pretty much watertight bar Pontings ability to lose his wicket to seamers under 20 and to Shane Bond. Ponting and Kallis have dominated anything and everyone this decade. They are greats of the game. Without checking, they also played in the 90s right? I know Ponting definitely did and went very, very well.

They both played up to 2001, and did nowhere near as well as they have post-2001/02. Of course some amount of the reason for their increase in scoring can be placed at the door of the two batsmen improving their own game, but nowhere near as much in my book as can be placed at the door of the ease in difficulty of batting.

Your logic is markedly different to everyone elses...

Not really.

Generally people are blind to their own biases, thats part of the reason some people are biased..

I don't know about everyone, but I can easily recognise a bias in anyone, including myself. I've had to do so many times.

Sup God.

Lets see this data.

I posted it in a thread a little while back, and it'll have changed a little bit since then - since 2001/02 there've essentially been 3 bowlers (McGrath, Murali, Warne) to have remotely impressive Test figures in a career of any real length - Steyn can now be added to them.

Irony.

Not really. An open mind is essential to any form of cricket watching, because new things happen all the time.

 

[Richard]

Woah! No ****.

Doesn't mean they still can't be wrong.

Turtles are the superior race! I don't believe this is wrong otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

Except you don't believe it, you know you don't believe it, and so does everyone else. I've never said a theory I place my belief in can't be wrong, but equally it seems pretty pointless to say "I believe this and I know it might be wrong". Thus it's annoying to have people tell me that I can't ever believe I'm wrong.

Haha, you're doing it again. I do respond to whats being written. So don't try and profess cross your heart hope to die that I'm shifting the goalposts.

Whether you're intending to or not, that's precisely what you've done, sometimes (not always) in the above exchange.

 

[NUFAN]

You think? I'm surprised if so, because as I say, I've thought they've been under-used for as long as I've watched the game.

Yep for sure I think. Third man was always the first man on the off side to go out to the boundary, I guess that's been replaced by the deep cover nowadays.

 

[Richard]

At the present time, you need both. And I'd say as a bowler at that level I'd always want a third-man before a deep cover - at least when the ball goes to the point boundary it's more likely to have been a bad delivery, while when it goes to the third-man one it's much more likely to have been a false shot.

And just about any bowler I've ever come accross would rather concede a boundary to what they know was a poor delivery than one they know wasn't.

 

[Uppercut]

It's not about where you'd rather concede your runs, it's about how to minimise how many you concede. "Filth" in terms of a short, wide delivery has been completely redefined this century. Anything remotely back of a length and outside off stump goes to the point boundary.

 

[Richard]

I presume loggers and analysts have done their analysis and found that typically more strokes go to the point boundary than the third-man one. I certanly hope so anyway.

What I'm saying is that as a quality seam bowler on a flat (or even flattish) deck I'd want a third-man and a deep cover for the most part. On a deck with a bit of life in it I'd want a third-man but I'd certainly leave deep cover absent because as a top-class bowler you always back yourself when batsmen are going for it outside off-stump with regularity - you'll come out on top in ~90% of such circumstances, and your chances are better than if the batsman goes into his shell.