Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[Pratters]

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

A blatant lie considering it was the other way around instantly after I quoted you on my signature and you have quoted me on a few ocassions as well like on off topic on the Football sim.

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

There's the 309 and another big ton.

I wrote earlier regarding Sehwag being a matchwinner and you jumping on the tests because India havent wont hat many tests and 2/12 wins thingy. We are really rolling in a circle.

 

[Pratters]

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

Do not accuse me wrongly. I didnt attack you in any way.

 

[Sanz]

An example of a recent match-saving innings which did not come in the 4th innings is Martyn's 104 at Chennai.

The only match saving inning in the Chennai game was played by the Rain Gods in the 4th innings.

 

[Sanz]

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?

You are getting more and more ridiculous with every post in this thread.

I dont even get your point, it would obviously be batting against extreme odds if only 1 out of 22 batsmen scores a double century and rest of them fail in a total of 4 innings of a test match (meaning there were at least 32 and at most 43 times someone had to bat in that test match and fail for aus to win)

Imagin the odds and if Ponting had done that, yes it would have been a great inning.

 

[aussie]

Err How come Australia were facing certain defeat, it was just the first day and first innings of the test match ??

What?? Martyn hundred was scored on day 4, Australia were facing a deficit of 141 and if i remember were 150/4 going into that 4th day.

 

[aussie]

You are getting more and more ridiculous with every post in this thread.
I dont even get your point.

Exactly you dont get his point so how can you say that the statement is ridiculous???

 

[aussie]

The only match saving inning in the Chennai game was played by the Rain Gods in the 4th innings.

Nonsense.....

 

[Jono]

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

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

There's the 309 and another big ton.

LOL! Now you're confusing 'match winning knocks' with 'key contributions'. The use of that term is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

If you think Sehwag's ton against Australia in the 2nd test wasn't a 'key contribution', then following your standard every player's performance in a losing team is not even worth noting.

 

[shankar]

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?

It would have been of more value to the team; The fans would remember it more fondly; But, No it wouldnt have affected the quality of the innings in any manner. In the example you gave, I dont see why Ponting's innings was better than Dravid's.

Would you say that a 100 made on a treacherous pitch is of lesser quality than one made on a flat track if only the latter is 'match-winning'?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Would you say that a 100 made on a treacherous pitch is of lesser quality than one made on a flat track if only the latter is 'match-winning'?

No. As I have said, having a hand in winning or saving a match is not everything in determining the value of a performance, but it is not nothing either. And, in my opinion, most of the absolute greatest innings ever played (and bowling performances too) are those which are brilliant in many other facets as well, and also lead their team to victory.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You are getting more and more ridiculous with every post in this thread.

I dont even get your point, it would obviously be batting against extreme odds if only 1 out of 22 batsmen scores a double century and rest of them fail in a total of 4 innings of a test match (meaning there were at least 32 and at most 43 times someone had to bat in that test match and fail for aus to win)

Imagin the odds and if Ponting had done that, yes it would have been a great inning.

Umm, how is that unusual? When I say fail I don't mean they all get ducks or whatever, I mean if, following on from Ponting's innings, India had been bowled out for say 200 odd twice over without any big individual scores and Australia had won by a huge margin, Ponting's innings would obviously be credited much more highly than it was in the end. The point I was trying to demonstrate is that you need to judge an innings in the context of the match as a whole, rather than being able to judge it immediately when it finishes as shankar was claiming.

Ponting's innings was good either way, but the fact that Dravid scored an equally good innings in reply means that Ponting's innings can never be viewed in the same way as it would have been if India had been thrashed in that match and Dravid had never made many runs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The only match saving inning in the Chennai game was played by the Rain Gods in the 4th innings.

If Martyn hadn't played that innings, India would probably have won on a the fourth day. Because of it, the match was evenly poised going in to the last day and then the rain came.

 

[aussie]

If Martyn hadn't played that innings, India would probably have won on a the fourth day. Because of it, the match was evenly poised going in to the last day and then the rain came.

it was evenly poised but if you look at the way Australia had the Indian Batsmen throughout that series, australia to me were more likely to bowl India out than India getting that total. Mind you getting Sehwag early on the 5th day would have been the key.

 

[Sanz]

I mean if, following on from Ponting's innings, India had been bowled out for say 200 odd twice over without any big individual scores and Australia had won by a huge margin.

Ummm wouldn't that mean poor batting from at least majority of aussie batsman and entire Indian team in two innings either due to extremely difficult batting conditions or some real irresponsible batting(the latter being very unlikely with 5 world class batsmen doing that twice in a test match) ??

That said India wouldn't have won that Test match without AA's 6 wicket haul and IMO he was the real match winner in Adelaide. So no, imo Dravid and Ponting's innings are of same value or may be I will rate Dravid's little bit higher because it was an away test and India were under some pressure to avoid follow on. Dravid doesn't get an extra point because India ended up winning the test match.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ummm wouldn't that mean poor batting from at least majority of aussie batsman and entire Indian team in two innings either due to extremely difficult batting conditions or some real irresponsible batting(the latter being very unlikely with 5 world class batsmen doing that twice in a test match) ??

That said India wouldn't have won that Test match without AA's 6 wicket haul and IMO he was the real match winner in Adelaide. So no, imo Dravid and Ponting's innings are of same value or may be I will rate Dravid's little bit higher because it was an away test and India were under some pressure to avoid follow on. Dravid doesn't get an extra point because India ended up winning the test match.

I agree Dravid's innings rates higher, for a few reasons. One is the higher level of pressure because Australia already had the runs on the board, another is the fact that India were definately in trouble at one point in that innings and heading for a sizable first innings defecit, and another is that because of his knock and his partnership with Laxman, India went from staring down the barrel to being on level pegging.

I don't think Dravid's innings was match-winning (although it was certainly important in the match) because all it did was right the scales really. Afterwards, Australia were still slightly ahead with a 1st innings lead and India having to bat last. It was, as you said, Agarkar and some terrible batting from Australia which saw India to a win.

 

[Sanz]

If Martyn hadn't played that innings, India would probably have won on a the fourth day. Because of it, the match was evenly poised going in to the last day and then the rain came.

And if it had not rained, India would probably have won the match anyway, so I dont count that as a match saving inning.Martyn was out early when the score was around 260-270 something, If I remember correctly it was Gillespie who saved the game for Australia. The pitch was so flat that India couldn't even get Gillespie out.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And if it had not rained, India would probably have won the match anyway, so I dont count that as a match saving inning.Martyn was out early when the score was around 260-270 something, If I remember correctly it was Gillespie who saved the game for Australia. The pitch was so flat that India couldn't even get Gillespie out.

Gillespie and Martyn added 139, before Martyn fell for 104 and Gillespie was the next man to go one run later for 26, so no, Martyn saved Australia by not only batting for some time but scoring enough runs that India couldn't possibly chase it on day 4. That partnership took Australia from 4 runs in front with 6 wickets in hand to 143 runs in front with 5 in hand, then Clarke and Lehmann pushed on with decent scores to set India a target.

With regard to the result, I think it was definately too close to call at stumps on day 4. Looking at the rest of the series, India could have won it at a canter or been knocked over 100 short. Who knows?

 

[aussie]

It was,as you said, Agarkar and some terrible batting from Australia which saw India to a win.

That was for me Australia's worst's batting performace in the last 5 years.

 

[aussie]

With regard to the result, I think it was definately too close to call at stumps on day 4. Looking at the rest of the series, India could have won it at a canter or been knocked over 100 short. Who knows?

Exactly but if you look at the way India batted throughout that series i would have gave Australia the advantage to bowl India out.

 

[Sanz]

Gillespie and Martyn added 139, before Martyn fell for 104 and Gillespie was the next man to go one run later for 26, so no, Martyn saved Australia by not only batting for some time but scoring enough runs that India couldn't possibly chase it on day 4. That partnership took Australia from 4 runs in front with 6 wickets in hand to 143 runs in front with 5 in hand, then Clarke and Lehmann pushed on with decent scores to set India a target.

The fact remains that Gillespie's stay at the pitch was as important as MArtyn, regardless of the runs scored. Infact it was Clark's inning that ensured that match went to the fifth day. Overall one can say that it was a collective batting effort from the middle order batsmen to save the match for Australia . You are giving too much credit to Martyn' innings.

With regard to the result, I think it was definately too close to call at stumps on day 4. Looking at the rest of the series, India could have won it at a canter or been knocked over 100 short. Who knows?

Err even on a pitch like Mumbai India scored 200 runs in their second innings and Chennai was nothing like Mumbai.