Best match winning innings you have seen?

[gwo]

Please don't take an English language course.

Actualy, do. You might learn something.

Yeah, we all might learn something if we took an English language course.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

 

[GIMH]

We should expect a fielder to catch something they have a realistic chance of catching. Therefore, they should catch something they have a realistic chance of catching. Of course, what someone should do is not always what they will do because humans are fallible.

You're constantly omitting the vital element of what is realistic.

No Richard, you're adding in the 'realistic' element. Look up the word chance.

 

[morgieb]

Probably Laxman @ Kolkata and Gilchrist @ Hobart. Botham @ Leeds was pretty epic too.

 

[Days of Grace]

This whole lark about batsmen being unable to win matches/can only set them up is annoying, but it is essentially true, except in 4th innings chases.

The fact is that Kallis and Amla scored a ****load of runs in the last test, but if the South African bowlers couldn't take 20 wickets then it would have been a draw.

 

[Uppercut]

It's not that it isn't technically true, it's just petty and it's annoying that Richard keeps pointing it out all the time when it has no relevance to real life.

 

[Richard]

Please don't take an English language course.

Actualy, do. You might learn something.

I've taken many. Drop the patronising two-liners please.

 

[Richard]

No Richard, you're adding in the 'realistic' element. Look up the word chance.

As I said when I first posted about it, a great many things in life would be best with a "realistic" tagged onto the start. As I also said, you can essentially claim that the outcome of any delivery was a theoretical chance. What matters is whether it was a realistic chance (of a catch being taken) or not.

 

[Richard]

It's not that it isn't technically true, it's just petty and it's annoying that Richard keeps pointing it out all the time when it has no relevance to real life.

As I said, it's purely a matter of semantics. It's equally annoying that people can't use more accurate phraseology.

 

[GIMH]

As I said when I first posted about it, a great many things in life would be best with a "realistic" tagged onto the start. As I also said, you can essentially claim that the outcome of any delivery was a theoretical chance. What matters is whether it was a realistic chance (of a catch being taken) or not.

Indeed, but some are larger chances than others...chances can be big or small and therefore the term half-chance is not stupid/non-existant, but fair

 

[Richard]

No, as I say, chances are not a linear continuum, they're a descriptive one. Chances can be sitters, easy, fairly straightforward, vaguely tricky, difficult, very difficult... and many things in between or instead of.

It is very silly to attempt to use a mathematical fraction to describe a chance. Very silly indeed. And apart from in "half" terms, no-one ever attempts to do so.

 

[GIMH]

It is very silly of you to take the term 'half-chance' so literally. The truth is in acknowledging that chances vary in difficulty, you acknowledge that what people class as a 'half-chance' does exist, just that you refuse to use such terminology. However, language is not always to be used literally, open your mind a little bit (halfway maybe? )

 

[Richard]

It's no more silly of me to take it literally than it is for people to use it at all. By-and-large, it's used to describe something that is not, realistically, a chance at all - it's something that is never going to be caught bar freak circumstances.

What'd be best would be if people just dropped the term, because it'd make it so much easier to understand how a chance works.

 

[Uppercut]

A half-chance is an opportunity that you couldn't reasonably expect a fielder to catch but that sometimes, when it's your day, sticks.

That's the definition everyone uses. Deal.

 

[GIMH]

It's no more silly of me to take it literally than it is for people to use it at all. By-and-large, it's used to describe something that is not, realistically, a chance at all - it's something that is never going to be caught bar freak circumstances.

What'd be best would be if people just dropped the term, because it'd make it so much easier to understand how a chance works.

Maybe it would be better if you dropped the argument against the term as you are the only person who has a problem with it

 

[Top_Cat]

Half-chance the thread will get ****-canned, tbh

 

[wpdavid]

Think Mr Greenidge played a part in winning this match.

2nd Test: England v West Indies at Lord's, Jun 28-Jul 3, 1984 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Ridiculous innings, surprised it has not been mentioned.

Maybe because those of us who even remember the innings know how shoddy England's bowling was. I suppose the eventual blackwash means that it became just another great WI performance in an easy series win. And obviously the fact that it was played before 2000 and wasn't played by Lara or Bradman counts against it too.

I'm trying to think beyond the ones listed. Apparently Hobbs & Sutcliffe were pretty marvellous in setting up an winning target in the Ashes decider on a decidedly tricky wicket at the Oval - maybe 1928?

Waugh's twin tons at Old Trafford in 1997. And his match winning innings in the pivotal WI series in the mid1990's.

 

[decklingbrain]

Laxman 281.., Struass 139, Sehwag 309,319; gooch 333, lara 400*

lastly being a fan of indian cricketers especially Sachin's double @ Sydney..

Brain..

 

[Richard]

I'm trying to think beyond the ones listed. Apparently Hobbs & Sutcliffe were pretty marvellous in setting up an winning target in the Ashes decider on a decidedly tricky wicket at the Oval - maybe 1928?

1926 I imagine, because that's the only home Ashes England won during Hobbs and Sutcliffe's time.

And it's no coincidence that the match is far better remembered for the match-winning bowling of Larwood and Rhodes.

 

[Richard]

Maybe it would be better if you dropped the argument against the term as you are the only person who has a problem with it

I'm the only person to speak out against it; if more people thought about it they'd realise how silly it is as well. As the off-spin\leg-spin thing demonstrates though, people in cricket are often happy with inadequate terminology if it's time-honoured.