Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Athlai is a jet with the third new ball.I don't think you can be too harsh on a fielding side for being a bit limp once a third new ball is being taken. Before then, maybe.
Athlai is a jet with the third new ball.I don't think you can be too harsh on a fielding side for being a bit limp once a third new ball is being taken. Before then, maybe.
Fair point about the bowling, although you could say a 3rd/4th day Indian wicket was hardly perfect conditions for McGrath, Gillespie & the seamers & also India had a history of playing Warne with relative ease at home prior to that Test. But yeah, still a more difficult proposition to Shami, Ishant & co.Not trying to put down the effort at all but it would be hard to make a case due to the difference in the quality of the bowling imo.
Definitely up there as one of the best though imo.
Damn9 bucks for the draw hmmm if nz weren't prone to sucking with the bat.....
And what? McWarne wasn't exactly a combination that covered themselves in glory in India. I agree they're a more touted bowling attack (how could I not? That's possibly the greatest duo in cricket, ever) but in terms of absolute rear guards and absolutely no hope if either guy lost their wicket for over one hundred overs of batting, this shouldn't be underrated simply because for once on tour, Sharma, Khan and Shami didn't combine to do the job.The quality of our bowling attack drops faster than Jono's pants when he sees Kohli in conditions favourable for batsmen.
So, bat all day, bat all night, runs runs runs.Brian Waddle
"…and push for a win?"
BazCullum
"We'll sleep on that. We need to weigh up the fact that we're 1-0 up in the series and consider how far we've come to dig ourselves out in this match with the situation we came in"
they should at least still be batting in the morning, and will probably go halfway through the first session IMO.So, bat all day, bat all night, runs runs runs.
Look, McGrath was deadly no matter what. Gillespie was brilliant that series. Warne struggled but was still Warne, FFS. Can't compare that with the attack we have. If you put Laxman in that form against this indian attack here he probably old be done the same as what mccullum did. Put Mccullum against Warne, McGrath and Gillespie in Kolkata then would he have done the same? Nah, imoFair point about the bowling, although you could say a 3rd/4th day Indian wicket was hardly perfect conditions for McGrath, Gillespie & the seamers & also India had a history of playing Warne with relative ease at home prior to that Test.
Laxman came in way before that. He came in at 40-1 with India with 235 behind.And also a team that took the first five wickets for under 100.
Watling and McCullum for near on two days were in a position that getting out effectively ended NZ's chances. Dravid and Laxman came together at 4 for 232.
I'd still put Laxman ahead of this innings, but not by much and by a diminishing margin if NZ get up and take India out here.
I'm not underrating it. I did say it was one of the best efforts ever.And what? McWarne wasn't exactly a combination that covered themselves in glory in India. I agree they're a more touted bowling attack (how could I not? That's possibly the greatest duo in cricket, ever) but in terms of absolute rear guards and absolutely no hope if either guy lost their wicket for over one hundred overs of batting, this shouldn't be underrated simply because for once on tour, Sharma, Khan and Shami didn't combine to do the job.
Calling it one of the best rearguards ever is under rating it?And what? McWarne wasn't exactly a combination that covered themselves in glory in India. I agree they're a more touted bowling attack (how could I not? That's possibly the greatest duo in cricket, ever) but in terms of absolute rear guards and absolutely no hope if either guy lost their wicket for over one hundred overs of batting, this shouldn't be underrated simply because for once on tour, Sharma, Khan and Shami didn't combine to do the job.
Yup, I think ultimately this is a maturity moment for himself and NZ Cricket. They have no reason to give India any more than 65 overs to chase a target here, considering how hard they've scrapped to get back in. If they gave India say 80 overs at a 380 target, I think ultimately they're taking a series win and gambling it, having fought so hard to secure it.they should at least still be batting in the morning, and will probably go halfway through the first session IMO.
Waddle sorta asked a similar question towards the end of the interview and McCullum gave a more aggressive answer. Something along the lines of that they'd consider declaring overnight.
Given how #aggressive McCullum is known to be, I'm glad that he's at least considering the fact that the series win is more important, and that a draw is still an extremely good result from the situation they were in.
Sounds fair to me.Stop this **** you people, we indian fans are in a bad enough mood as it is without you trying to claim this is equal to Laxman's 281.
Come tomorrow, if McCullum has 300-350 runs and puts India in, and NZ run through them and take a victory, I'll put this ahead of Laxman for one easy reasonLook, McGrath was deadly no matter what. Gillespie was brilliant that series. Warne struggled but was still Warne, FFS. Can't compare that with the attack we have. If you put Laxman in that form against this indian attack here he probably old be done the same as what mccullum did. Put Mccullum against Warne, McGrath and Gillespie in Kolkata then would he have done the same? Nah, imo
Laxman came in way before that. He came in at 40-1 with India with 235 behind.
Stop this **** you people, we indian fans are in a bad enough mood as it is without you trying to claim this is equal to Laxman's 281.
Great, great innings though, no doubt. One if the best rearguards of all time, no question
That's not one easy reason. It's also absolutely ridiculous to use that sort of reasoning.Come tomorrow, if McCullum has 300-350 runs and puts India in, and NZ run through them and take a victory, I'll put this ahead of Laxman for one easy reason
1. The last two innings were all out for a hundred, they were 94/5 at the time this partnership started.
2. India are Ranked 2. NZ are Ranked 8th.
1. What? India scored almost 450. The put h has changed enormously since day 11. The last two innings were all out for a hundred, they were 94/5 at the time this partnership started.
2. India are Ranked 2. NZ are Ranked 8th.
Thank u!!! Finally someone with some perspective. Great innings by McCullum but sorry VVS' innings was superior. Without McCullum's innings Nz probably would've lost and the series still tied (not the end of the world). Without VVS' India would have lost the series and Oz won their 17th in a row...possibly staring down the barrel of a white wash.Look, McGrath was deadly no matter what. Gillespie was brilliant that series. Warne struggled but was still Warne, FFS. Can't compare that with the attack we have. If you put Laxman in that form against this indian attack here he probably old be done the same as what mccullum did. Put Mccullum against Warne, McGrath and Gillespie in Kolkata then would he have done the same? Nah, imo
Laxman came in way before that. He came in at 40-1 with India with 235 behind.
Stop this **** you people, we indian fans are in a bad enough mood as it is without you trying to claim this is equal to Laxman's 281.
Great, great innings though, no doubt. One if the best rearguards of all time, no question