First to score an ODI double century

[Jono]

Ganguly came oh so close in the 1999 World Cup against Sri Lanka. I remember the huge partnership he had with Rahul Dravid. There was two balls left, and he needed two sixes to pass Anwar's world record of 194 so he went for it and was caught in the outfield. One of the finest ODI knocks I've ever seen.

Scorecard

Sachin also had a chance against Pakistan earlier this year in the TVS Cup. He also had that 186* against New Zealand in 1999/2000. Again Gilchrist probably had the best chance over anyone against Zimbabwe earlier this year, and I'm glad he didn't get it because it would of been looked down on. I think Sachin, Gilly, Ponting or Trescothick are my choices. Like someone said earlier, something about Tresco makes me think he can hit a double.

 

[Eclipse]

Adam Gilchrist has a chance because he is probably the best of all the very very aggresive type batsman and has proven he can make big 100s. But I tend to agree that it will probably be made by somone less aggressive who wont throw his wicket away needlesly yet still has great hitting power to make up the diffrence at the end.

 

[Mr Casson]

That Zimbabwe side was nowhere near ODI-class.
Just because it went from substandard to ludicrously-substandard (eg similar to Bangladesh) doesn't mean it wasn't substandard as soon as Alistair Campbell, Guy Whittalll, Andy Flower and the post-WC2003 lot left.
If you have it tooextracool's way they became substandard as soon as they lost just 2 players (Johnson and Goodwin).

Read it again. I wasn't saying that Zimbabwe were good.

Remember this?
"But if that was one of the better teams Zimbabwe has fielded for some time, then it is hardly a saving grace."

 

[SJS]

Ganguly came oh so close in the 1999 World Cup against Sri Lanka. I remember the huge partnership he had with Rahul Dravid. There was two balls left, and he needed two sixes to pass Anwar's world record of 194 so he went for it and was caught in the outfield. One of the finest ODI knocks I've ever seen.

Ganguly is a terrific one day player but I think he has been sorted out by the top bowlers of the world since then. He is less likely to get good length bowling which is what he relishes.

If one has to choose one player most likely to do it, it will have to be Gilchrist.
Again, I am surprised at myself for hesitating to name Ponting

 

[Richard]

Read it again. I wasn't saying that Zimbabwe were good.

Remember this?
"But if that was one of the better teams Zimbabwe has fielded for some time, then it is hardly a saving grace."

That's the thing, though - it wasn't.
It was far, far worse than the side before WC2003 and if Gilchrist had broken any record against them it would be quite right that it would forever be remembered against a substandard side.

 

[marc71178]

Erm, it's been substandard from well before the World Cup.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yeah I agree with that. I think a Sehwag type player won't get a 200 unless its against some minnows. He is just too aggressive for that. It probably will be someone like Sachin or Ponting.

How come he's scored 195 (v Aus) and 309 (v Pak) in Tests in the past year then?

 

[Richard]

Because these were in Test-matches and we're talking about ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Erm, it's been substandard from well before the World Cup.

Yes, because of that be-all-and-end-all thing bare results, taking no notice of circumstances or margins.

 

[aussie_beater]

How come he's scored 195 (v Aus) and 309 (v Pak) in Tests in the past year then?

Aren't we talking about ODIs here ?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, because of that be-all-and-end-all thing bare results, taking no notice of circumstances or margins.

If it were 1 win in 10 you may have a point, but it is 1 win in 34 games.

That's far too many to be coincidence - they've been quite simply substandard.

 

[Richard]

Except that the actual happenings, rather than just the win-ratio, suggests otherwise.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Aren't we talking about ODIs here ?

You said he was too aggressive to get double centuries (contradiction in terms considering you only have 50 overs to score 200 anyway), the fact that he brought up 150 off 150 balls against Pakistan in a Test (without going all guns blazing, he ended up with 309 off 375) suggests he can do something similar but at a faster pace in ODIs at some point, he just hasn't gone on after making 100 yet. Oh and a 'Sehwag type player' made over 200 in English domestic one-day cricket and he wasn't playing against minnows in that standard of cricket.

 

[Richard]

In fact he made two, both with boundaries totally incomparable to those invariably seen in ODI-cricket.
The fact is, a Sehwag-type player is intensely unlikely to score 200 in a ODI because of his style of play not being suited to batting that long, as field-restrictions change.
Batting long in Test-cricket is incomparable to batting long in ODIs.

 

[aussie_beater]

You said he was too aggressive to get double centuries (contradiction in terms considering you only have 50 overs to score 200 anyway), the fact that he brought up 150 off 150 balls against Pakistan in a Test (without going all guns blazing, he ended up with 309 off 375) suggests he can do something similar but at a faster pace in ODIs at some point, he just hasn't gone on after making 100 yet. Oh and a 'Sehwag type player' made over 200 in English domestic one-day cricket and he wasn't playing against minnows in that standard of cricket.

I hope you realise ODIs and tests are quite different in terms of more defensive field settings in ODIs which leaves less room for a strokeplayer like Sehwag to survive all the way to a 200.

As for that Ali Brown thing, I think it was a freak innings.I won't read too much into it, although I am not saying that a 200 is impossible in ODIs....I believe in quite the contrary actually.

 

[marc71178]

Except that the actual happenings, rather than just the win-ratio, suggests otherwise.

Oh, you mean the several innings thrashings and 9 or 10 wicket defeats?

The big run margins they lost by?

1 win in 34 is too many games to be anything but substandard.

 

[Richard]

Yes, thrashings which occurred in places such as India and Sri Lanka, where many better sides have been thrashed equally savagely.

 

[marc71178]

So you'll ignore the innings defeats against the Windies and England, and also 7 or more wicket defeats all over the place.

1 win in 34 games - there's no way that is anything but substandard

 

[Richard]

One thrashing by England and West Indies, one match which they could quite easily have won against each.
Not that this actually matters - both these games were in either 1999\2000 or 2000. Where are you actually counting from?
Can we have it from the New Zealand series (2000\01) onwards please?
There is absolutely no way they were substandard before they lost Johnson and Goodwin, as demonstrated by the fact they could quite easily have beaten England and West Indies.

 

[marc71178]

"could" have done but didn't ever, and in fact only won 1 game out of 34.

Surely that one game becomes an anomaly then, or do they only count to suit you?