Biggest cricket moment when you've been at the ground

[Richard]

yeah and have a look at how many Sehwag scored in that very innings.....as you say, thats all that counts

It's all that counts, yes... to the match.
To a consideration of how well Sehwag - in himself, regardless of the rest of the match - played, there are other things that come into consideration - such as let-offs.

 

[Richard]

you are right..Botham didnt give a chance in the Headingley innings,and yet,I think,...and Botham thinks..and pretty much everyone I have heard talk about it, or seen writing about it,says the Old Trafford innings was the better innings (despite the one chance given...actually I think Botham gave a chance to John Dyson at 3rd man as well,might be wrong on that)

It was scored more quickly, yes, but it wasn't nearly so significant.
Like I say, I've never seen anything more than a handful of strokes from the Old Trafford innings, so I really don't know - but if he was dropped on 46 or whatever he can't, simply, have played as well in the whole innings as he did in the match-head-turning Headingley one.

 

[marc71178]

Not under any circumstances can that session - those two Test-matches, indeed - be described as anything other than dilapidated.
Terrible batting from Gilchrist and the rest, even worse fielding from England - some of the worst cricket ever, and something I hope to God I never, ever see again, especially in an Ashes.

But other people enjoyed it.

Maybe because they go to Cricket to have fun.

 

[marc71178]

So amazing, and so wouldn't-have-happened-if-Simon-Katich-could-catch.

Funny how you rave so much about someone who has only had 2 big innings, 1 of which had a massive drop on about 8 in it.

But then again, you don't like Sehwag do you?

 

[marc71178]

And your stupid I'll-stick-to-my-guns attitude isn't going to change the fact that offering a simple chance on 47 means that anything that happens after that isn't a great knock.

Checks scorebook.

 

[Langeveldt]

Funny how you rave so much about someone who has only had 2 big innings, 1 of which had a massive drop on about 8 in it.

But then again, you don't like Sehwag do you?

Seems as valid as him rating Utseya over Heath Streak...

 

[marc71178]

God, how many times do we have to do this?
I'm exceedingly impressed with his 484*, yes

He didn't score 484*, he scored 501*

 

[Richard]

But other people enjoyed it.

Maybe because they go to Cricket to have fun.

If any Englishman had fun in those 2 Tests they deserve to be shot!

 

[Richard]

He didn't score 484*, he scored 501*

No, he scored 484* - count them up.
If you take it from a certain point (a point at which he got out, to be precise), you can see clearly how many he scored.
You could take it from any point - from 500* he scored 1* - but the point it makes most sense to take it from was 17 - given that he wouldn't have got more than that had the catch been taken.

 

[Richard]

Funny how you rave so much about someone who has only had 2 big innings, 1 of which had a massive drop on about 8 in it.

Really? You missed these then?
But then again, you don't like Sehwag do you?[/QUOTE]
No, not at all - I've got nothing against him - well, except that since November 2003 he's been an extremely overrated Test-opening-batsman.
But before then I neither "liked" or "disliked" him.

 

[Richard]

Checks scorebook.

Because we all know that the most commonly used statistics are all that matter in cricket, don't we?

 

[Richard]

Seems as valid as him rating Utseya over Heath Streak...

If you read-up on the latest developments in that thread, you might be updated...

 

[Langeveldt]

If you read-up on the latest developments in that thread, you might be updated...

Nah, you said something about him being a better bowler than all the rebel 15.. Before changing your comments to cover the fact you were being proved wrong again..

 

[Richard]

Or to cover for my far-from-perfect phraseology.

 

[marc71178]

If any Englishman had fun in those 2 Tests they deserve to be shot!

Sorry wpdavid, looks like Richard's decided you've got to be shot.

 

[marc71178]

No, he scored 484* - count them up.
If you take it from a certain point (a point at which he got out, to be precise), you can see clearly how many he scored.
You could take it from any point - from 500* he scored 1* - but the point it makes most sense to take it from was 17 - given that he wouldn't have got more than that had the catch been taken.

No the point it makes sense to look at is the scorebook as that's how many runs he scored.

 

[marc71178]

Really? You missed these then?

Sorry, what is it I'm supposed to have missed from that?

 

[marc71178]

Because we all know that the most commonly used statistics are all that matter in cricket, don't we?

Please remind me how games are decided.

 

[Richard]

Sorry wpdavid, looks like Richard's decided you've got to be shot.

Yep - and I'm sure he'd be fine admitting he didn't have much fun, at all.

 

[Richard]

Sorry wpdavid, looks like Richard's decided you've got to be shot.

Yep, and I'm sure he'd be fine admitting he didn't really enjoy it much.
He always seems to care so deeply about England whenever I talk to him, or read his articles.