I'm not suggesting that Gibbs' batting wasn't dominant, or anything of the sort. Where did I say that? I'm not even saying that Richards dominated the bowling more than Gibbs, I'm saying that Gibbs dominating the bowling as he did isn't as impressive as Richards managing to score 189 out of a team score of 272 despite facing a decent attack and carrying his team through a batting collapse.Swervy said:this is why jusy going off scorecards is dangerous, I saw both innings in question here (Richards and Gibbs)....no matter what the circumstances, there is no denying that Gibbs' batting from about his score being 70, was about as dominating performance as you will ever see (bar the odd lapse of concentration)...
Richards innings was just great for other reasons. I suspect over time, Richards innings will be judged the best, but I dont think the acheivements of Gibbs (and Ponting) should be diminished simply because it was a flat track
BlackCap_Fan said:...
Why not?
I guess I am going off the actual batting itself, as opposed to the effect the batting had....and I dont think anyone could have hit the ball more effectively than Gibbs did, sure the bowling was poor, but I think Gibbs was in a state of mind whereby anything was goingFaaipDeOiad said:I'm not suggesting that Gibbs' batting wasn't dominant, or anything of the sort. Where did I say that? I'm not even saying that Richards dominated the bowling more than Gibbs, I'm saying that Gibbs dominating the bowling as he did isn't as impressive as Richards managing to score 189 out of a team score of 272 despite facing a decent attack and carrying his team through a batting collapse.
Gibbs and Pontings innings were magnificent, and among the best any of us will ever see. Nevertheless, it was about as easy as batting ever gets.
Had Gibbs stayed there until the end of the innings and carried South Africa home for 200+ not out, I think his innings would have been the greatest ever. Getting out as he did meant South Africa still could have lost the match, and means his innings, while great, isn't the best ever in my opinion.
Well, by that account, you'd have to have seen Vincent's 170 odd, Turner's 182 ( I think it was), Anwars 190 odd etc, because it's not fair to discard them if you havn't seen them.Swervy said:because you need to see it to judge...
well yeah, you are right...although I am not sure Turners big score would really count (vs East AFrica and all that)BlackCap_Fan said:Well, by that account, you'd have to have seen Vincent's 170 odd, Turner's 182 ( I think it was), Anwars 190 odd etc, because it's not fair to discard them if you havn't seen them.
Yeah. I was just pulling out big scores out of the top of my head. Also, Vincent's 170 odd was against Zimbabwe when NZ toured there last year, so that wasn't exactly strong opposition.Swervy said:well yeah, you are right...although I am not sure Turners big score would really count (vs East AFrica and all that)
Totally already nominated it.Demolition Man said:Or another miracle from bevan
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/...BS/SCORECARDS/AUS_NZ_VBS_ODI10_29JAN2002.html.
Yeah 6/82 the aussies were, not to mention shane bond was on fire.dontcloseyoureyes said:Totally already nominated it.
Interestingly enough all three were somewhat different playersJono said:Bevan's a freak really. He, Sachin and Viv are comfortably the 3 best ODI batsman ever. The innings those 3 have managed to pull off so consistently throughout their careers is truly phenomenal.