Greatest individual performance ever

[Richard]

I seem to recall he was dropped at some point in that innings, which clearly makes it inferior to a chanceless 319 or a chanceless 200-odd*.

(Note: I don't know fo' sho' whether the 200-odd* was chanceless - just suggesting a possibility)

 

[Uppercut]

I seem to recall he was dropped at some point in that innings, which clearly makes it inferior to a chanceless 319 or a chanceless 200-odd*.

(Note: I don't know fo' sho' whether the 200-odd* was chanceless - just suggesting a possibility)

Nothing the cricinfo commentary thought could have been caught- a quick scan reveals no use of the word "drop".

Here's his 317. Just for the beauty of it.

 

[Top_Cat]

I seem to recall he was dropped at some point in that innings, which clearly makes it inferior to a chanceless 319 or a chanceless 200-odd*.

(Note: I don't know fo' sho' whether the 200-odd* was chanceless - just suggesting a possibility)

Haha, what? You hold a chance or two against him on a flier yet 300+ on a runway is a better knock?

http://img.sparknotes.com/content/sparklife/sparktalk/instructoart_****oo.gif

 

[nightprowler10]

i would have to agree with the above.

being an indian i, like millions of indians, rate several miandad, imran and akram performances against as among the very best moments test cricket can throw up. am sure there are enough sachin, gavaskar, sehwag and kapil fans across the border to make it even.

EDIT: if xuhaib's comment was more general in nature, i have to, again, agree with him. regular indians and pakistanis have nothing against one another and get along very well; in fact, better than they would with people from other countries since their language, food, music, movies and cricketing culture are quite similar.

Its the same here (by here of course I mean in US). There are 11 Indians in my squad of 13 and I get along with them better than the other Pakistani in the team. The animosity is really only between the ****ed up teenagers with xenophobic parents who have nothing better to do. Even in London I have yet to come across any incidents. In fact, I just came back from Southall which is like 97% Indian and ate at a Lahori restaurant that was filled with Indians.

 

[Fusion]

Being in London, we have a number of Indian and Pakistani people and they genuinely don't like each other for the most part. Those who share a religion, in my experience which is limited compared to back in Asia obviously, seem to get on more. Muslims particularly, though that may just be in London.

Only the chavs among the indo-pak community otherwise among the normal lot the realtionship is pretty easy.

Its the same here (by here of course I mean in US). There are 11 Indians in my squad of 13 and I get along with them better than the other Pakistani in the team. The animosity is really only between the ****ed up teenagers with xenophobic parents who have nothing better to do. Even in London I have yet to come across any incidents. In fact, I just came back from Southall which is like 97% Indian and ate at a Lahori restaurant that was filled with Indians.

Yeah I can only speak for my experience, but I have felt no animosities between Indians and Pakistanis where I live. Dallas and Houston have a huge South Asian population base. I have lived in this area for almost 20 years and never thought the relationship between the Indian and Pakistani communities was hostile.

 

[Xuhaib]

i would have to agree with the above.

being an indian i, like millions of indians, rate several miandad, imran and akram performances against as among the very best moments test cricket can throw up. am sure there are enough sachin, gavaskar, sehwag and kapil fans across the border to make it even.

EDIT: if xuhaib's comment was more general in nature, i have to, again, agree with him. regular indians and pakistanis have nothing against one another and get along very well; in fact, better than they would with people from other countries since their language, food, music, movies and cricketing culture are quite similar.

haha...awta during my student days in UK my group was a good mix of just Indian and Pakistanis infact I remember my Cost Accounting professor once commented what this continous media bs of India and Pakistan going to war because each year in all my classes all I see is Indian & Pakistani getting along brilliantly with each other and probably having a closer relationship with each other rather then with people from other ethnicities.

 

[Beleg]

the difference between a pakistan and indian is a sad episode in history.

 

[oitoitoi]

We're fine with each other when in small groups, it's when big crowds and mob mentality get's involved that it all goes to sh*t.

That said when I was a kid we used to play tennis ball cricket all summer long, one day by pure chance we ended up with only indian and pakistani players (as well as one south african - he umpired) so we had a india pakistan match. This was the only time there were blows at yard cricket, the pakistani team started beating each other up!

 

[Richard]

Haha, what? You hold a chance or two against him on a flier yet 300+ on a runway is a better knock?

I do indeed "hold a chance or two" against him, because in my book not getting out is a quite important part of batting. As they say, "you can't get runs from the pavilion".

(And yes, of course, in giving a chance a batsman has done everything which is in his power to get out)

A near-faultless 300+ score, runway or not, is some serious achievement.

 

[Fusion]

This was the only time there were blows at yard cricket, the pakistani team started beating each other up!

So not much different from the National cricket side then?

 

[rivera213]

Can you explain to me where in my post I gave the impression that I was making assumptions based on statistics? I quoted extensively from someone who was playing in the game and made no reference to stats at all.

In your post below, which was BEFORE you quoted a player who was involved-

"Jim Laker, of course - 9 in the first innings, 10 in the second. That really takes some thinking about. And in an Ashes Test.

The pitch was obviously tailor-made for him too but his team-mates weren't trying to avoid taking a wicket at the other end, as happened in Kumble's case."

There's no mention of how you knew, or that indeed you did know and it sounded like you thought the bowlers were avoiding taking a wicket at the other end for a substancial period of the game when in fact it was only 1 over.

No biggie, just thought you should've quoted Alan Oakman at the same time as your initial post.

 

[zaremba]

In your post below, which was BEFORE you quoted a player who was involved-

"Jim Laker, of course - 9 in the first innings, 10 in the second. That really takes some thinking about. And in an Ashes Test.

The pitch was obviously tailor-made for him too but his team-mates weren't trying to avoid taking a wicket at the other end, as happened in Kumble's case."

There's no mention of how you knew, or that indeed you did know and it sounded like you thought the bowlers were avoiding taking a wicket at the other end for a substancial period of the game when in fact it was only 1 over.

No biggie, just thought you should've quoted Alan Oakman at the same time as your initial post.

I quoted Alan Oakman in my second post - and it was having read that second post (indeed in reply to it) that you accused me of speaking from a position of "complete ****ing ignorance".

And why leap to the assumption that I was speaking on the basis of nothing more than pure statistics? Didn't the fact that I referred to the pitch being "tailor-made for Laker" tip you off that I might actually have read something about that particular match beyond the number 19?

 

[fredfertang]

I quoted Alan Oakman in my second post - and it was having read that second post (indeed in reply to it) that you accused me of speaking from a position of "complete ****ing ignorance".

And why leap to the assumption that I was speaking on the basis of nothing more than pure statistics? Didn't the fact that I referred to the pitch being "tailor-made for Laker" tip you off that I might actually have read somethingabout that particular match beyond the number 19?

...sounds like something written by an Australian Mr Z

 

[rivera213]

I quoted Alan Oakman in my second post - and it was having read that second post (indeed in reply to it) that you accused me of speaking from a position of "complete ****ing ignorance".

As I explained earlier, that wasn't in regards to the Laker feat but in general to feats that people can't possibly have seen.

And why leap to the assumption that I was speaking on the basis of nothing more than pure statistics? Didn't the fact that I referred to the pitch being "tailor-made for Laker" tip you off that I might actually have read something about that particular match beyond the number 19?

That's not what anyone interested in cricket doesn't know already especially since there's footage of Laker's 19 wickets and you can see huge amounts of dust coming off the wicket.

However I never read the Oakman quote before so there was no way of knowing if Lock was holding up an end or trying to take wickets. His figures seem to be defensive figures on the face of it, but are actually good figures which was deserving of a few wickets.

 

[oitoitoi]

So not much different from the National cricket side then?

Lol, some of the pakistani guys were new at the yard and we didn't really know them, suffice to say they didn't come back. They kept calling the one christian indian guy moses, which while historically incorrect was pretty funny.

 

[slowfinger]

Tbh I think when really good bowlers/ tailenders score big runs against a good opposition then I think thats very good Individually.
e.g.Warne getting 99 and being the second best wicket taker of all time, not bad eh.

 

[zaremba]

As I explained earlier, that wasn't in regards to the Laker feat but in general to feats that people can't possibly have seen.

Then why do you say I should have quoted Alan Oakman in my previous post?

This has become too tiresome to bother with now, your posts have veered from the abusive to the mystifyingly illogical and I think I'll let it drop.

FTR, though, in future you might want to pause and consider before making assumptions and assertions that other people are talking from positions of ignorance because you'll very often find yourself being, as in this instance, (a) unnecessarily inflammatory and (b) wrong.

 

[rivera213]

Then why do you say I should have quoted Alan Oakman in my previous post?

As proof you aren't just making assumptions. You were talking as though you were there and since you weren't you should've put "... according to Alan Oakman" at the end. It'd avoid confusion and I'm not the only one to be baffled by the lack of clarity in your posts in this thread tbf.

This has become too tiresome to bother with now, your posts have veered from the abusive to the mystifyingly illogical and I think I'll let it drop.

FTR, though, in future you might want to pause and consider before making assumptions and assertions that other people are talking from positions of ignorance because you'll very often find yourself being, as in this instance, (a) unnecessarily inflammatory and (b) wrong.

My posts are completely logical, you just seem to be misunderstanding them.

The only conclusion people would get from your initial post on this debate would be that you were there or knew something. In fact you did know something, but the lack of a source (aka Alan Oakman's account) gave off the view to any normal person that you were just guessing.

 

[zaremba]

The only conclusion people would get from your initial post on this debate would be that you were there or knew something. In fact you did know something, but the lack of a source (aka Alan Oakman's account) gave off the view to any normal person that you were just guessing.

... So: My post could allow people to conclude that I knew something. And yet at the same time it gave off the view (sic) that I was just guessing...

Imagine how tiresome a "cricket chat" forum would be if, every time you said anything about cricket from times gone by, you had to quote your sources for the benefit of pedants. A happy prospect for you, perhaps, less so for the rest of us I imagine.

I'm not the only one to be baffled by the lack of clarity in your posts in this thread tbf.

No-one else has expressed anything of the sort.

 

[rivera213]

... So: My post could allow people to conclude that I knew something. And yet at the same time it gave off the view (sic) that I was just guessing...

No, the WAY you posted was the same way as someone who would've watched the game would post (not that people would/could assume you know something as such since there was no proof you did so), which you couldn't have given your age, so the only logical conclusion would be that you were guessing/estimating based on statistics and the 0 column in the wickets column.

Imagine how tiresome a "cricket chat" forum would be if, every time you said anything about cricket from times gone by, you had to quote your sources for the benefit of pedants. A happy prospect for you, perhaps, less so for the rest of us I imagine.

TBH, I'm only continuing this because you tried to trip me up in the All-Time XI's thread in regards to Bradman shot selection vs Ponting.

Gotta be consistent.

No-one else has expressed anything of the sort.

Check back a few pages in reagrds to the Indian bowlers not bowling at the stumps for Kumble's feat.

Again, the way you posted lacked clarity and that person assumed you meant throughout the innings or of at least an extended period of time.

A simple "...albeit only 1 over" would've avoided problems.