Greatest innings?

[LankanPrince]

In my opinion the best ODI innings was Jayasuriya's 189 vs. India at Sharjah. It was a remarkable innings as he got off to the usual explosive start but for once he really cashed in and proved he is not just some glorified slogger good for scoring a quick 30. He showed great endurance. That has got to be one of my most cherished moments, as for once the Sri Lankans gave India a well deserved thrashing. It is unlikely that we will ever perform so well against India.............I can only dream about Sri Lanka beating India!

 

[Richard]

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

The reason he didn't change his style is the old "broken don't fix it" thing. If something's working, you'd do best to keep it up.
Believe me, being hit around like that when bowling about as well as possible does happen. Hardly ever, but it happened at Antigua in 1980something and it happened again at Christchurch in March 2002.
Normally we can say it does not happen but if you think about how many innings are played in cricket, it must happen very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very occasionally.

 

[Richard]

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 said if it'd got down to 70 he'd have started to look for singles.
The fact is, 99 is still a massive amount.
And take it from someone who watched just about every delivery, Caddick and Hoggard bowled superbly throughout the match. Seam and swing were available, and they found it very well. It was still seaming and swinging when Astle was hammering it into the stands.

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.

After Horne and Vincent were dismissed by superb Caddick outswingers early on (one catch breaking Butcher's finger), Richardson batted with him for a time, Fleming continually picked-up leg-side deliveries and then wasted it all by chasing a wide delivery from Flintoff, McMillan lasted until he smashed a return-catch, then after Parore dragged-on, the fun really started.
But what happened before it was pretty classic stuff too.

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.

I agree with that.
The pitch wasn't seaming around on day-five in this match, though - it ended on day-four!
I will be amazed if I see an innings I consider better, and I've (hopefully) got a lot of cricket-watching ahead of me.

 

[scud101]

For me, it doesn't get any better than Laxman's 281. A great, great innings. Coming in at 52/1, his side 274 runs adrift, amazing display of batsmanship. 44 boundaries, all of them along the ground. Amazing.

I would also rate his 167 at Sydney in '99/00 as a great innings because he scored those runs quickly and accounted for all but 94 runs of team India's total.

Lara's 277 was great. Great stuff.

Astle's 222 was extraordinary.

Sachin Tendulkar's 98 off 75 balls against Pakistan in WC '03 was a superb innings also.

 

[Richard]

Now why did you have to spoil all those fantastic innings by putting in one massively overrated two knocks in

Sachin Tendulkar's 98 off 75 balls against Pakistan in WC '03

 

[marc71178]

Change the record.

 

[scud101]

Now why did you have to spoil all those fantastic innings by putting in one massively overrated two knocks in

Why do you think Sachin's innings is "massively overrated"? Did you even watch that game? The way he dissected the Pakistani attack was spectacular.

[Peace]

 

[Richard]

Change the record.

OK.
There. Changed "Right Here, Right Now" (Fatboy Slim) to "Turn Around" (Phats And Small).
Happy now?:P

 

[Richard]

Why do you think Sachin's innings is "massively overrated"? Did you even watch that game? The way he dissected the Pakistani attack was spectacular.

And the way Razzaq dropped him when he should have caught him meant that over half the innings wouldn't have happened under normal circumstances.
I don't need to have watched the game to know that.

 

[scud101]

And the way Razzaq dropped him when he should have caught him meant that over half the innings wouldn't have happened under normal circumstances.
I don't need to have watched the game to know that.

Razzaq's was a difficult chance..

Now don't tell me Astle's 222 wasn't chancy, though it was an extraordinary innings nonetheless.

If your talking about missed chances, Laxman lived through several run-out chances during his 281, one of them when he was on 99. Had there been a direct hit, he would've walked back to the pavillion at 99.

[Peace]

 

[Richard]

Astle's 222 was COMPLETELY chanceless - that, funnily enough, is why it was so good.:rolleyes:
Razzaq's mightn't have been a sitter but everything I've heard suggests it was catchable.
Were any of the run-outs Laxman's poor calling?

 

[marc71178]

Razzaq's mightn't have been a sitter but everything I've heard suggests it was catchable.

So all along, you've been criticising what has been rated by a lot as one of the finest innings in recent times, and you haven't even seen the reason why you're putting it down.

 

[Richard]

Nope - but I have heard about 20 accounts of it.

 

[marc71178]

Nope - but I have heard about 20 accounts of it.

some of which you've clearly decided to ignore...

 

[Richard]

What - did some say "Razzaq had no real chance of catching it"?
If so I find it strange that you found them and I did not, when you presumably watched the game so had far less need of reading reports than I did.