Brian Lara's form in 2003

[Richard]

So him getting run out is when he makes a quack?

eddie'll love that!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Rik.

Still no points. :P

 

[Richard]

And one of the most wonderful things in the world is banging your head repeatedly against a brick wall. It feels great when you stop.

Surely, then, stopping banging your head against a brick-wall is better?
Believe me, though; you might feel I'm BMHAABW but it actually feels pretty good to keep reiterating what seems to me to be the blindingly obvious.

 

[Rik]

Rik.

Nope. I do think it's a factor, just not the be-all-end-all reason. No doubt his average is inflated by not-outs, but that is more due to batting down the order against deflated bowlers and coming in under little pressure. He has performed under pressure quite a few times, to show he can, but he rarely ends no-out on those occasions. When he is pushed up the order he rarely comes off.

 

[Richard]

And if William Webb Ellis had been stillborn, the world would have been entirely different. "If" matters not in the past.

That's a rather big "if".
A couple of bigger ones: if the recently captured had been stillborn (or if he'd been treated better in childhood); if Mullar Omar (sp?) had been stillborn; if Slobhadan (sp?) had been stillborn; if Kaiser Wilhelm had been stillborn; if the bullet had struck a centimetre to the left (history students may know what I mean).
It all counts. If matters not in the past, I couldn't agree more. Hence I am not saying "if". I am saying "because". Because he gave a chance on 15 that should be given more value than it has been.

 

[Richard]

A couple of things...

1/ That still does not erase what he has done in the past two years.

2/ He then scored 163 in his second innings. Don't begrudge him that.

2/ he scored 187* in his "second" innings. I don't for a minute begrudge him that, it was a fantastic knock. I just wish people would remember that it took him a let-off to get it.
1/ I certainly don't want to attempt to erase what he's done since Sri Lanka for a minute either.

 

[Richard]

Nope. I do think it's a factor, just not the be-all-end-all reason. No doubt his average is inflated by not-outs, but that is more due to batting down the order against deflated bowlers and coming in under little pressure. He has performed under pressure quite a few times, to show he can, but he rarely ends no-out on those occasions. When he is pushed up the order he rarely comes off.

And in a few innings in 2001 and 2002 he had a hell of a lot of luck (not luck in every innings, but a lot of luck in the period). This luck meant he got lots more runs than his play merited.
Perhaps my comments have suggested I think he's had lots of luck outside this period? If so I once again apologise for my poor phraseology.

 

[Craig]

Rahul Dravid's form over his last 18 Test innings:

He has scored 1258 @ 89.85 with 4 not outs and three double 100s.

 

[luckyeddie]

Surely, then, stopping banging your head against a brick-wall is better?
Believe me, though; you might feel I'm BMHAABW but it actually feels pretty good to keep reiterating what seems to me to be the blindingly obvious.

Fair comments.

Consider this...

1. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
2. A true lunatic considers everyone else insane.

50:50 chance.

 

[Richard]

Rahul Dravid's form over his last 18 Test innings:

He has scored 1258 @ 89.85 with 4 not outs and three double 100s.

Wowee. :O

 

[Richard]

Fair comments.

Consider this...

1. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
2. A true lunatic considers everyone else insane.

50:50 chance.

Hmm, fair comments also.