Ponting is the biggest choker of them all !

[social]

Ah yes. But I really thought it was the captain's blunder to choose to field in the final given the cirumstances.

Doesnt excuse the absolute rubbish that they bowled.

Anyway, for people to declare Tendy a choker because he wasnt able to chase down 350-odd in 50 overs is really very odd.

 

[Pratters]

Doesnt excuse the absolute rubbish that they bowled.

The bowlers choked. We both agree on it.

 

[shankar]

Ah yes. But I really thought it was the captain's blunder to choose to field in the final given the cirumstances.

It was definitely not a blunder. Probably a marginally wrong decision at worst. There was plenty of help for the bowlers early on and the Indian bowling had been in prime form throughout the tournament. So it was a very justifiable decision indeed.

 

[Pratters]

It was definitely not a blunder. Probably a marginally wrong decision at worst. There was plenty of help for the bowlers early on and the Indian bowling had been in prime form throughout the tournament. So it was a very justifiable decision indeed.

It was a blunder. The Indian batsmen were more experienced and would likely handle the early butterflies of such a pressure match better. As proven by what happened actually, the bowlers became shaky, bowled crap and choked.

Another point - Australians had such a good batting line up, they were likely to get a big total (even if not a 350) despite India bowling well - if they had. Chasing a big total in a pressure final would always be VERY tough.

Even historically chasing in the world cup final has proven tough.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm starting to really think what is the use of discussing who's a choker and who isn't.

Take Tendulkar for example. He's been accused of being a choker since 2002 by certain people. What about the World Cup then? India started horribly, but Sachin was consistent throughout, and played a significant part in India's making it to the final.

So what if Ponting fails while chasing? Is he the only one who has to chase? He's helped Australia thrash opponents by setting huge totals. The fact that even if he can't chase under pressure, but can set up big totals, even in pressure matches, should be even to have people stop complaining.

And I want to add another point here.


We have all these people telling us that 4th innings runs are what counts.... I had a chance to talking to a former FC cricketer a few days ago and since he has been a captain of a Ranji side, I asked him about this theory and he told me that if he had a batsman who wouldn't perform in the first innings and only perform in the second, he would drop him. That made sense as well. Ideally, you want to bat only once in the match, score big, bat the opposition out of the game and try and bowl them out cheaply in both innings. What is the use of a player who would do really well in fourth innings and not in the other innings?

 

[Deja moo]

And I want to add another point here.


We have all these people telling us that 4th innings runs are what counts.... I had a chance to talking to a former FC cricketer a few days ago and since he has been a captain of a Ranji side, I asked him about this theory and he told me that if he had a batsman who wouldn't perform in the first innings and only perform in the second, he would drop him. That made sense as well. Ideally, you want to bat only once in the match, score big, bat the opposition out of the game and try and bowl them out cheaply in both innings. What is the use of a player who would do really well in fourth innings and not in the other innings?

To be frank, you've wasted your time posting that entire thing. Do you mean to say that those batsmen mentioned as being excellent in the fourth innings do nothing in the first or second ? Can you name some batsmen who fit the description provided by this Ranji player, because the type of batsman he describes is virtually non-existant.

 

[honestbharani]

To be frank, you've wasted your time posting that entire thing. Do you mean to say that those batsmen mentioned as being excellent in the fourth innings do nothing in the first or second ? Can you name some batsmen who fit the description provided by this Ranji player, because the type of batsman he describes is virtually non-existant.

not really, but people put WAY too much emphasis on fourth innings stuff, AFAIC. It is just as important that a batsman sets up the game for his side. Juz because Yuvi has a higher second innings average and lesser difference between his first and second innings averages doesn't necessarily make him a better player than, say, a Sehwag.

 

[Deja moo]

not really, but people put WAY too much emphasis on fourth innings stuff, AFAIC. It is just as important that a batsman sets up the game for his side. Juz because Yuvi has a higher second innings average and lesser difference between his first and second innings averages doesn't necessarily make him a better player than, say, a Sehwag.

It does point out that a particular player has deficiencies in batting in less than perfect batting conditions, or under pressure.

 

[Sudeep]

It does point out that a particular player has deficiencies in batting in less than perfect batting conditions, or under pressure.

Well, but if that same batsman as an opener plays the first innings of a match on a pitch that has much moisture, and plays well? Isn't there the pressue to lay the foundation in less than perfect batting conditions?

 

[Deja moo]

Well, but if that same batsman as an opener plays the first innings of a match on a pitch that has much moisture, and plays well? Isn't there the pressue to lay the foundation in less than perfect batting conditions?

Sachin and Lara arent openers.

 

[Sudeep]

Sachin and Lara arent openers.

Errrr... we're talking about Sachin and Lara? I thought it was in general.

But still, even if a batsman is coming at #4 or 5, especially after loss of early wickets, isn't there still pressure, of setting up a good first innings score? I'm not sure of the stats for these two particular batsmen though.

 

[Deja moo]

Errrr... we're talking about Sachin and Lara? I thought it was in general.

But still, even if a batsman is coming at #4 or 5, especially after loss of early wickets, isn't there still pressure, of setting up a good first innings score? I'm not sure of the stats for these two particular batsmen though.

The chances of a batsman being under more pressure/batting in conditions not at their best, are higher in the fourth innings than in the first, for virtually every batsman, and more so for middle order batsmen.

Stats for Sachin, Lara in the fourth : 34 and 37 respectively, compared to 50+ for the first innings.

 

[Sudeep]

The chances of a batsman being under more pressure/batting in conditions not at their best, are higher in the fourth innings than in the first, for virtually every batsman, and more so for middle order batsmen.

Stats for Sachin, Lara in the fourth : 34 and 37 respectively, compared to 50+ for the first innings.

But is playing under pressure the only criteria? Isn't dominating from the word go a criteria too in judging a player? That was my main point in the first case. That discussing again and again that someone chokes, just because he has done average in the fourth innings or in ODIs where 250+ is the target, is getting too monotonous. It's like whatever else he does/did is bunk. India had a horrid start to WC 2003. But Tendulkar played consistently throughout. Wasn't that under pressure? A couple of more losses, and India would have been out. Surely, fourth innings performance shouldn't be the only criteria for labelling a batsman "choker"?

 

[Deja moo]

But is playing under pressure the only criteria? Isn't dominating from the word go a criteria too in judging a player? That was my main point in the first case. That discussing again and again that someone chokes, just because he has done average in the fourth innings or in ODIs where 250+ is the target, is getting too monotonous. It's like whatever else he does/did is bunk. India had a horrid start to WC 2003. But Tendulkar played consistently throughout. Wasn't that under pressure? A couple of more losses, and India would have been out. Surely, fourth innings performance shouldn't be the only criteria for labelling a batsman "choker"?

I'd say its a better critereon for doing so than using first innings stats. I'm not saying hes a totally wasted batsman because he cannot bat well in fourth innings ( and you guys are implying that thats the picture I'm painting), but it does show that that particular batsman fails more often than not when faced with those pressures, because as I said, the chances of a batsman having all the elements against him are greater in the fourth than in the first, on most occasions.

 

[Sudeep]

I'd say its a better critereon for doing so than using first innings stats. I'm not saying hes a totally wasted batsman because he cannot bat well in fourth innings ( and you guys are implying that thats the picture I'm painting), but it does show that that particular batsman fails more often than not when faced with those pressures, because as I said, the chances of a batsman having all the elements against him are greater in the fourth than in the first, on most occasions.

Would you call that batsman a choker?

There might hardly be a handful of current batsmen that average more than 40 (the ones that come to mind instantly are Dravid and Kallis, but I think Langer might be one too - can't really think of any more from the top of my head). Can't it be looked upon as a special ability of theirs, rather than the lack thereof in other batsmen?

Even Bradman averaged way less in the fourth innings, than he did overall...

 

[Deja moo]

Would you call that batsman a choker?

There might hardly be a handful of current batsmen that average more than 40 (the ones that come to mind instantly are Dravid and Kallis, but I think Langer might be one too - can't really think of any more from the top of my head). Can't it be looked upon as a special ability of theirs, rather than the lack thereof in other batsmen?

Even Bradman averaged way less in the fourth innings, than he did overall...

Well, if its significantly less compared to his peers, I wouldnt discount the possibility of either choking or simply lack of applicable skills (blasphemy, I know). Yeah, as you say, it could simply be a special ability of those batsmen who do manage it, but the fact is that they do, and Sachin and Lara arent able to match them. (Hayden, M Waugh, Atherton too managed above 40).

 

[social]

The best pressure player in recent memory has been Steve Waugh.

Almost never failed when Aus was even in the slightest bit of trouble.

However, he had a career 2nd innings average of 25 or something.

This indicates that he did all his damage in the first innings and, given that Aus virtually never lost during the final several years of his career, puts the 4th innings into perspective.

 

[Deja moo]

The best pressure player in recent memory has been Steve Waugh.

Almost never failed when Aus was even in the slightest bit of trouble.

However, he had a career 2nd innings average of 25 or something.

This indicates that he did all his damage in the first innings and, given that Aus virtually never lost during the final several years of his career, puts the 4th innings into perspective.

Actually it doesnt put it into perspective. You're using a twisted logic which essentially goes like,

Steve waugh was good. He didnt have a good 4th innings record. He cannot not be good !Therefore fourth innings are over rated.

I think its time to just accept that idols like Waugh, Sachin, Lara etc had their glaring flaws, and move on.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I think he means that if you bat well enough in the first innings, then there's no need to bat again - exemplified in Waugh never failing to enforce the follow-on when available.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How many games are won by knocks in the 4th innings?

A lot less than knocks in the 1st.