Obviously, not. But that is the beauty of sport. There is no place for "ifs" and "buts". Two very similar knocks in quality - sachin's and lara's - one guy led the team to victory and his would always be called the better knock. the dropped catch is not even worthy of a footnote.
against india, yes.
Of course it is. The dropped catch decided the match, and the series. Healy takes that catch, Australia win 3-1. As it was, the series was a 2-2 draw. Same thing was true of that Browne drop off Stephen Waugh in 1995 - Australia ended-up with a massive victory; if Murray had been well, had played and had (in all probability) taken that catch, the game would've been in the balance and either side could've won.
Well, if you were merely meaning in the closest together series then you could make some amount of case for that, but personally I'd say India were challenged more by the England attacks of 2005/06 and 2007 than any Pakistan attack from 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06 or 2007/08.
missed chances are part of any game. cant be bothered about these ifs and buts when judging the sport. even bradman, in one of the early matches after ww2, was not given out on 10 as the umpire thought it was a bump ball. he went on to make 187 and his post war career flourished. he would have retired from the game immediately otherwise. who gives a damn? all we remember is that he continued to pile on centuries, plundered runs off every team that came his way and led the invincibles in one of the greatest tours of all time. no one is saying "he was helped by the umpire". that is how it should be. I always think people are foolish to miss the big picture.
in the years you have mentioned, how many series did pakistan win against india? and how many did england win?
I always think people are foolish to miss the pieces of the picture. Missed chances are indeed part of the game - and that's exactly the point I'm making. Some people think the impact is minimal; the precise point I'm making is that they can be huge. Your above example backs that up completely. That one Umpiring mistake, had it been made correctly, would have completely changed cricket history, because without it the Invincibles tour would have been totally different.
Bowlers cause results; batsmen decide whether the results are good or bad. And what's more, the relative strength of the Indian team also impacts, not just the opposition.
Even if he's worked the batsman over so he's on the back foot which then causes him to tread on his stumps?
Does the same go for missed run outs?
Says who, Richard? It is less than a footnote. Ifs and buts are absolutely useless to me.
Right. And Pak won a series against India in the years you have mentioned. England did not. Proves my point.
Lara's most runs made in a chanceless knock was 400* (he did smack one back at Gareth Batty that went through his fingeres almost before he had the chance to move his hands). Nonetheless, the 375 >> the 400* for mine.
A dropped catch is no if nor but - it's unequivocal, obvious and you can put an exact value on the impact.
How many Tests were drawn between both India-England and India-Pakistan?
Yup, pretty much - if a fielder has ages to take the ball when whip the bails off but fumbles and the batsman escapes, that's an obvious let-off. If something requires a direct-hit with no-one at the stumps, that's not really a let-off, because a direct-hit is always a bonus.
What about his 213 against Australia in 1999?
How does that make an English attack superior to Pakistan's? My point is simple. Pakistan managed to beat India in a series. England did not.
