Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[Pratters]

If you'd been around at the time you'd have noticed all the talk was about Tests, but no, you just have a go at me for daring to think Tendulkar isn't as good as he used to be.

That specific comment was on Sehwag and not Tendulkar

To say Sehwag wasnt being a match winner by producing that India won just 12 test matches in whatever period and Sehwag won the match only twice was ludicrous.

 

[Dasa]

A match-winning (or match-saving) innings is one which takes a situation in which a team would almost certainly have lost or failed to win the game, and turns it around. It does not have to come in the 4th innings.

Examples of match-winning innings which did not come in the 4th innings are Laxman's 281 against Australia in 2001, and Trescothick's 180 against South Africa earlier this year. An example of a recent match-saving innings which did not come in the 4th innings is Martyn's 104 at Chennai.

It's also perfectly possible to play a match-winning role in the first innings, simply by making a massive score which takes the opposition out of the equation... by any stretch, Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe was clearly match-winning, even if it wasn't made under pressure. He scored a heap of runs very quickly making it impossible for Zimbabwe to win and giving the bowlers plenty of time to dismiss them... meaning it put Australia into a winning position and was hence match-winning.

In all those examples the batsman didn't win (or save) the match himself. Laxman's 281 wouldn't have counted for that much if Harbhajan didn't take all those wickets, Trecothick's 180 the same if Hoggard hadn't skittled the South Africans.
The batsmen made the runs and ensured they would not lose, leaving it for the bowlers to actually win. If the bowlers aren't good enough to take the wickets, then it doesn't matter how many runs are made.That's why in my opinion, batsmen don't make match-winning contributions except in very rare cases. They may make enough runs make winning a likely option, but the main work is still to be done.
Just look at why India aren't a top Test team, they have batsmen who can make the runs, but not bowlers who can take 20 wickets.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In all those examples the batsman didn't win (or save) the match himself. Laxman's 281 wouldn't have counted for that much if Harbhajan didn't take all those wickets, Trecothick's 180 the same if Hoggard hadn't skittled the South Africans.
The batsmen made the runs and ensured they would not lose, leaving it for the bowlers to actually win. If the bowlers aren't good enough to take the wickets, then it doesn't matter how many runs are made.That's why in my opinion, batsmen don't make match-winning contributions except in very rare cases. They may make enough runs make winning a likely option, but the main work is still to be done.
Just look at why India aren't a top Test team, they have batsmen who can make the runs, but not bowlers who can take 20 wickets.

Yes, obviously nobody can win a match on their own unless they do a Botham and take 10-fer and score the bulk of the runs or whatever. But, a match-winning innings in my mind doesn't really mean they literally win the game all on their own, but that the innings puts the team in a position where they should or could easily win the game, when they weren't before. Before Laxman's 281, India were heading for a big loss, after it, they were well on top and destined for victory. Before Trescothick's 180, the game looked like a certain draw or potentially even a South African win, but because he scored the runs England were given a chance to win the game, which Hoggard and company took.

People will say that Laxman's innings would be equally valuable if Australia had chased the runs and India had lost, but I really don't think it would be. It would still be an amazingly good innings and something few of us will ever get to see again, but the fact that he also guided India to an improbable victory with it is what makes it one of the greatest innings ever played. Likewise with Lara, if he had gotten out for a few runs less and the West Indies had lost, the innings would not be quite as valuable because it will always have been "not quite enough", like Tendulkar's knock in '99 against Pakistan.

 

[shankar]

People will say that Laxman's innings would be equally valuable if Australia had chased the runs and India had lost, but I really don't think it would be. It would still be an amazingly good innings and something few of us will ever get to see again, but the fact that he also guided India to an improbable victory with it is what makes it one of the greatest innings ever played. Likewise with Lara, if he had gotten out for a few runs less and the West Indies had lost, the innings would not be quite as valuable because it will always have been "not quite enough", like Tendulkar's knock in '99 against Pakistan.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. How can an innings lose value because of something that's not under the batsman's control? Let's say that a batsman plays an astoundingly brilliant knock to put his team in a winnig position from a seemingly hopeless situation. Now there's a tail-ender at the crease for the last ball and he needs to score a run to win the match. Now are you saying that, if the tail-ender gets the single the innnings becomes an all-time great knock and if he doesnt it becomes merely a good one? The value of the innings would be greater to the supporters, team-mates and the batsman himself if it wins the match. But this should not be confused with the quality of the innings played which is not affected by the match result.

 

[Beleg]

C_C posted,

Taking away the last series in Australia, Dravid averages 35.87 against McGrath/Warne.
That is not in the statospheric 50+ ave. zone of Lara or Tendy but better than any other batsman playing the game currently i think.

Inzy's average is greater If you take away the recent game at Perth (where he was suffering from Injury) and about the same (I run difference) if you add in that. (Data from around 13 games)

 

[Beleg]

Fiaap,

Your comparison of Lara and Laxman's innings is erronous. Lara getting out and Australia chasing successfully are two totally different things and thus have different (read almost negligible) impact of the greatness level of the innings in question.

It is better to judge innings solely on their own merit rather than binding their success with the performance of the whole team. Both approaches have notable glitches with the later having far more than the former.

Judging on its own merit, the greatness of Laxman's 281 is not effected by the outcome of the game.

 

[Zinzan]

C_C has run away.

You mean like you did a week or so ago from the Natwest thread Scallywag?

 

[Scallywag]

You mean like you did a week or so ago from the Natwest thread Scallywag?

Hehehehehehehehhee

Everybody gets bitter and twisted when the Aussies win.

 

[Zinzan]

Hehehehehehehehhee

Everybody gets bitter and twisted when the Aussies win.

I'm also happy Australia look back on track......But thats got little to do with your disappearing act just over a week ago.

 

[Dasa]

People will say that Laxman's innings would be equally valuable if Australia had chased the runs and India had lost, but I really don't think it would be. It would still be an amazingly good innings and something few of us will ever get to see again, but the fact that he also guided India to an improbable victory with it is what makes it one of the greatest innings ever played. Likewise with Lara, if he had gotten out for a few runs less and the West Indies had lost, the innings would not be quite as valuable because it will always have been "not quite enough", like Tendulkar's knock in '99 against Pakistan.

I have to disagree with that. I'm sure I've mentioned this previously, but I don't think an individuals innings should be rated on whether it results in a win/draw/loss. In a recent issue of Wisden Asia Cricket they made that point and how ratings like the Wisden 100 are inherently biased towards the more successful teams. For a team that has been successful throughout it's history like Australia, you can rate a 'winning' knock higher than one in a draw or a loss, but for a team like India which has been historically very average, the best batting performances often don't result in anything better than a draw.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. How can an innings lose value because of something that's not under the batsman's control? Let's say that a batsman plays an astoundingly brilliant knock to put his team in a winnig position from a seemingly hopeless situation. Now there's a tail-ender at the crease for the last ball and he needs to score a run to win the match. Now are you saying that, if the tail-ender gets the single the innnings becomes an all-time great knock and if he doesnt it becomes merely a good one? The value of the innings would be greater to the supporters, team-mates and the batsman himself if it wins the match. But this should not be confused with the quality of the innings played which is not affected by the match result.

Because, in your situation, if the batsman did the best he possibly could, the tail ender would not be on strike unless he could be relied on to get the runs. If you look at great knocks with the tail like Lara in 1999, or for that matter Bevan in 1996 against the West Indies, they made sure the team got the runs.

Anyway, I think the difference if a fairly small one, but it IS significant that a player guides his team to victory rather than not. If Australia had made that chase successfully, the feeling would always be there that Laxman didn't get quite enough runs. It would still be a great knock, but if your team doesn't win there is always more you could have done... as it was, Laxman won the game for India, and Lara won the game for the West Indies, and that does add something to the innings.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I have to disagree with that. I'm sure I've mentioned this previously, but I don't think an individuals innings should be rated on whether it results in a win/draw/loss. In a recent issue of Wisden Asia Cricket they made that point and how ratings like the Wisden 100 are inherently biased towards the more successful teams. For a team that has been successful throughout it's history like Australia, you can rate a 'winning' knock higher than one in a draw or a loss, but for a team like India which has been historically very average, the best batting performances often don't result in anything better than a draw.

Surely though, the fact that the more successful teams have been more successul indicates they may well have had more "great" knocks? If you look at the Wisden 100, there are innings in there for teams that lost the match, but the feeling always has to be that if a team didn't win, any individual performance is sullied by the fact that they didn't do enough to win their team the game.

When I was thinking over this earlier, one game sprang to mind as an Australian, which is the match at Sydney between South Africa and Australia in the epic 93/94 series. This game is remembered for one great individual performance from Warne, and a shocker from Martyn that saw him dropped from the team and put his career on hold for half a decade.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1234

Now, in this game, Warne destroyed South Africa twice over, and set Australia up for a fairly straightforward chase, and statistically, given the quality of the opposition and his figures of 12/128, it was one of his great performances. Martyn hit a valuable half-century in the first innings, but in the second faced over 50 balls for just 6, but McDermott's hitting took Australia from 42 short of the target to just 7, before Martyn played an absolutely daft shot and got himself out, with Australia losing by 5 runs. He was dropped because of it, and had to work for years to get another chance.

Now, the point here is that for all the great efforts from players like Warne and Slater in that match, the best performance of them all was a fairly modest but vitally significant one from Jonty Rhodes, where he shepharded the tail to add 76 out of 132 runs after he came to the crease and finished not out, in the process ensuring Australia had to chase at least something, and setting them a target of 117. In the end, De Villiers and Donald got the wickets, Martyn threw his away, and South Africa won the match, and while the innings played by Rhodes might not have been as great in some ways as that played by Slater who got the highest score in the game, and De Villiers might not have taken as many wickets with his 10 as Warne's 12, it was those two who put in the match-winning performances, and Slater, Martyn and Warne who did "not quite enough".

 

[marc71178]

No it is you ropinion to feel whatever on Tendulkar. But you keep jumping on the mention of his name and try to keep arguing on that, bringing it up which is why I feel that you have issues with him or people who dont share the same view.

I don't keep bringing it up - someone else made the comment and I added my opinion (with the reasoning behind it)

 

[marc71178]

That specific comment was on Sehwag and not Tendulkar

But your continual attacks on my comments haveonly started since I dared to criticise Tendulkar.

To say Sehwag wasnt being a match winner by producing that India won just 12 test matches in whatever period and Sehwag won the match only twice was ludicrous.

He's only made key contributions in 2 Tests out of over 30 - o how is it ludicrous?

 

[shankar]

Because, in your situation, if the batsman did the best he possibly could, the tail ender would not be on strike unless he could be relied on to get the runs. If you look at great knocks with the tail like Lara in 1999, or for that matter Bevan in 1996 against the West Indies, they made sure the team got the runs.

Anyway, I think the difference if a fairly small one, but it IS significant that a player guides his team to victory rather than not. If Australia had made that chase successfully, the feeling would always be there that Laxman didn't get quite enough runs. It would still be a great knock, but if your team doesn't win there is always more you could have done... as it was, Laxman won the game for India, and Lara won the game for the West Indies, and that does add something to the innings.

If Harbhajan had bowled badly in the second innings India wouldnt have won. Now how would that have affected the quality of Laxman's innings? He had no idea how Harbhajan was going to bowl. How can the quality of his innings depend on something that is not under his control. You should be able to tell whether an innings is great or not immediately after it is over - Not after the match is over. The problem as I mentioned earlier is mixing up the value of an innings with its quality.

 

[Pratters]

But your continual attacks on my comments haveonly started since I dared to criticise Tendulkar.

Its you who kept attacking me since I put a statement by you in my signature. As you say, notice the irony.

He's only made key contributions in 2 Tests out of over 30 - o how is it ludicrous?

Sehwag has made only 2 key contributions? Kindly show with stats.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If Harbhajan had bowled badly in the second innings India wouldnt have won. Now how would that have affected the quality of Laxman's innings? He had no idea how Harbhajan was going to bowl. How can the quality of his innings depend on something that is not under his control. You should be able to tell whether an innings is great or not immediately after it is over - Not after the match is over. The problem as I mentioned earlier is mixing up the value of an innings with its quality.

I think the value of an innings is vital to understanding it's quality. I mean, think about it. Ponting hit a double century at Adelaide against India in 2003, if every other batsmen after that had struggled massively and Australia had thrashed India by an innings because of his score, would it not have been more valuable than when it was replied to by an equally brilliant century from Dravid?

 

[Pratters]

I don't keep bringing it up - someone else made the comment and I added my opinion (with the reasoning behind it)

Oh you put in a lot of reasoning in this post after making your point http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=504973&postcount=29

 

[marc71178]

Its you who kept attacking me since I put a statement by you in my signature. As you say, notice the irony.

Except I only quote or reply to you when you have quoted me.

Sehwag has made only 2 key contributions? Kindly show with stats.

Have a look at his cricinfo page, then filter by Test wins.

There's the 309 and another big ton.

 

[marc71178]

Oh you put in a lot of reasoning in this post after making your point http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=504973&postcount=29

Perhaps you should read the whole thread before needlessly attacking me.