Greatest innings?

[Neil Pickup]

If you look closely at that list, then it does - the greatest innings are those that carry a team to victory against the odds, and/or are much, much higher than anything else in the match.

Sanath Jayasuriya's 340 isn't on there, and neither is the 267 Aravinda made in the same match as Crowe's 399, for the same reasons.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Crowe's 399, for the same reasons.

World-record holder?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Crowes 299 may have been in a dead test and a dead track,but that doesn't make it any less as one of the great innings.

It doesn't make it one of the greatest though.

299 on a flat pitch against...

Champaka Ramanayake
44 wickets @ 42.72

Rumesh Ratnayake
73 wickets @ 35.10

Graeme Labrooy
27 wickets @ 44.22

Jayananda Warnaweera
32 wickets @ 31.90

Arjuna Ranatunga
16 wickets @ 65.00

Aravinda DeSilva
29 wickets @ 41.65

Asanka Gurusinha
20 wickets @ 34.05

and of course...

Asoka De Silva
8 wickets @ 129.00

 

[twctopcat]

To be fair you can say the list is inconclusive and all the rest but those innings are rated as such for a reason as said before, they were all under pressure in a pivotal moment in a series where other batsmen did not even come close to their heroics. Due to the fact that i have not seen the vast majority of the innings given, by reading the events as well as respecting the views of those who have seen the innings, it is fair to say how accurate the list really is.

 

[Richard]

Just watched it again, short ball angled into the ribcage, straight at Kirsten crouching about 8 yards from the bat, hit him in the stomach and bounced out and underneath his hands and on to the ground.

The look of anguish on Donald's face and the "oh, s---" expression on Kirsten's tell it all.

Donald would have looked anguished if the ball had fallen a couple of centimetres short.
I've seen short-legs (and other close fielders) wear "oh, s---" looks when they've dropped stuff they've, frankly, no right to catch.
That doesn't mean anything. Some people don't understand what they should and shouldn't catch; in the heat of the moment it's easy to think you should have had a wicket when you shouldn't.
8 yards is not very far. Do you think anyone had a realistic chance of catching it? Did he really make a movement with his hands? Did it bounce back to somewhere at which he should have held it?

 

[Richard]

To be fair you can say the list is inconclusive and all the rest but those innings are rated as such for a reason as said before, they were all under pressure in a pivotal moment in a series where other batsmen did not even come close to their heroics. Due to the fact that i have not seen the vast majority of the innings given, by reading the events as well as respecting the views of those who have seen the innings, it is fair to say how accurate the list really is.

But chancelessness is still more important than anything.
How do you deserve credit for "performance under pressure" when you wouldn't have had that "performance" but for something you didn't earn?
If Crowe's 299 was chanceless it was still a phenominal feat of concentration, just like Hayden's 380, Jayasuriya's 340 and Taylor's 334*. They may all have been on some of the flattest wickets you could wish to see against some nothing bowling (yes, Pakistan had a couple of usually-decent bowlers but both bowled terribly) but they were still batting for long, long times. Far better than a 213 where but for a slip drop the innings would have resulted in 44 and no more.

 

[twctopcat]

Im not doubting the fact that many other large innings are great examples of concentration and skill, but for example Hayden's innnings was against a poor zimbabwe attack under no pressure, it's not as if he was batting for the series. The innings on the wisden list are all special examples, unbiased, and to discard them would be a bit ignorant.

 

[Richard]

From what I understand, Wisden didn't place nearly enough emphasis on let-offs for that list to have any credit in my mind.
Anyhow, the point is the task was totally impossible - it may be conceivable to rank a top 10 of approximately equal innings of all-time, but not to rank 50 innings "exactly".
I think to score a chanceless 380, even against a popgun attack, is a far better achievement than to score 290 against a more accurate attack if you were dropped on 51, 131 and 198 and that innings resulted in a sensational victory.
I don't think Hayden's 380 was anywhere near as good an innings as Lara's 375, but I also think Astle's 222 was sensational and probably better than the 375, though I've only seen highlights and read reports of the 375.
I doubt I'll ever rate an innings I've seen higher than the 222.
And nor do I think it is possible for anyone to play a better innings than Bradman's 254 at Lord's in 1930, because every shot went exactly where he aimed. I doubt many people will score a 50 where that happens.

 

[twctopcat]

You can go on about "what if's" all day but that would just be trivial. I'm not doubting that someone dropped 10 times on their way towards a 290 is not as good as a straight 380 but that's obvious and pointless to argue about. I don't quite get what you're trying to refer to with all this. All i'm saying is i rate 150 against a good attack rather than 222 against a mediocre one. Greatest innings isn't always about an individual performance, but one that matters in terms of a result for the team, after all cricket is a team game.

 

[Richard]

Dropped catches aren't "what if"s. I've said that so many times. They are fact; they happened and there's no denying them.
Cricket may be a team game but team stuff shouldn't detract from individual brilliance.
Of course a 150 against a good attack is better than a 222 against a weak one (assuming, of course, that both are chanceless) but I wouldn't say our attack in Christchurch was exactly weak. We've had stronger ones, but Caddick bowled superbly for the most part of that game, Hoggard swung the ball all game long, Flintoff and Giles may be rubbish (in those conditions) if you want wickets but they're both accurate enough.
The fact is, Astle smashed the ball with power that was quite scary. I've never seen the like, and I've watched quite a bit of cricket. Those who saw live Richards' innings in Antigua (100 off 56 balls) compared them and it must have been very similar. And he did it against accurate bowling when the ball was moving around for most of his innings. The game might have been gone but he played like few will ever play. A chanceless 222, off 158 balls, in those conditions really is beyond the comprehension of how well you have to play.

 

[marc71178]

But the fact remains that Astle's innings was played with little-to-no pressure on him.

Don't see how that makes his innings better than those which actually achieve something.

 

[twctopcat]

Im not doubting the greatness of astle's innings but to be fair the bowlers could not have been bowling so brilliantly to get put around like that, lets face it. An innings isn't measured in terms of greatness purely by the speed of the scoring, it's by the results of an innings as said before. If astle had been batting so superbly then perhaps he should of hung around for a bit (i.e 99 runs) and won the match, that would have made it truly great. After all he had a day left of batting so should have had the sense to slow it down, because the win was there to be taken.

 

[PY]

One wicket remaining, a quality wicket ball would have come along at some point and with it the match down the drain.

Although I understand your point, the way he was going it could have been over in 8 overs.

 

[twctopcat]

True, just imagine if he had though. Now that would have been one of the best ever, even according to wisden! To chase 550 down and make close to 300, even i wouldn't have minded seeing that, not as if he plays for australia or anything!

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Im not doubting the greatness of astle's innings but to be fair the bowlers could not have been bowling so brilliantly to get put around like that, lets face it. An innings isn't measured in terms of greatness purely by the speed of the scoring, it's by the results of an innings as said before. If astle had been batting so superbly then perhaps he should of hung around for a bit (i.e 99 runs) and won the match, that would have made it truly great. After all he had a day left of batting so should have had the sense to slow it down, because the win was there to be taken.

He got runs like a rocket because he had no real partners besides Craig Mcmillan.All of the rest were bowlers (besides parore,but he quite nicely got out for a duck)so he had to get the runs before the bowlers got out.Bu the time Cairns was in,he was in one hell of a roll,so just kept going,and going...

It would have been over in less than 10 overs if he didnt get out.

 

[Tim]

Sure there was no pressure on Astle, but we're talking about an innings in which Astle blazed a chanceless 222 off 153 balls against a good English pace attack in their favourable conditions.

Sure Astle had nothing to lose, but you think its easy to go out there & blaze an international attack all over the park anyway?

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Sure there was no pressure on Astle, but we're talking about an innings in which Astle blazed a chanceless 222 off 153 balls against a good English pace attack in their favourable conditions.

Sure Astle had nothing to lose, but you think its easy to go out there & blaze an international attack all over the park anyway?

wasnt the greatest batting pitch in the world too...

 

[Tim]

Well thats what I was saying...even on day 5 it was still seaming around alot.

Hoggard I thought bowled the best I have ever seen in that test & Caddick wasn't too far behind him.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Well thats what I was saying...even on day 5 it was still seaming around alot.

Hoggard I thought bowled the best I have ever seen in that test & Caddick wasn't too far behind him.

although all of them got hammered

caddicks deliveries were like this at one point: 4,6,6,4,6,6,6 ...thats 38 in 7 balls.... is that even legal?

 

[twctopcat]

I still don't get why if he was able to hit them about so well he didn't hang around and win the test, if he was hitting it that cleanly then 100 more can't of been a massive amount to ask. And the attack cannot of bowling that well, to get hit about like that off a good line and length with the ball seaming and swinging does not happen, that's why they call it a good line and length