Guest HariSampath Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 A little more smarter cricket by Sachin may have seen us leading by 100 now. I mean if Ishant can hit 5 fours and Bhajji can get 60, Sachin after getting past 100 must be able to get as many runs as quickly as possible. If ishant had got out 7 overs back or RP and Ishant had gone in 2 balls 12 overs back, Sachin would have been stranded with no signficant lead. He just needs to shift gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 some faster cricket and who knows sachin himself could have been around 180 now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 A little more smarter cricket by Sachin may have seen us leading by 100 now. I mean if Ishant can hit 5 fours and Bhajji can get 60, Sachin after getting past 100 must be able to get as many runs as quickly as possible. If ishant had got out 7 overs back or RP and Ishant had gone in 2 balls 12 overs back, Sachin would have been stranded with no signficant lead. He just needs to shift gear. Exactly. 11 DOT BALLS by SRT with Ishant Sharma batting. Thats 11 CONSECUTIVE dot balls!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holysmoke Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Holysmoke, When SRT takes a single off the first ball during the early overs when Ishant Sharma is there, even SRT does not know if I.S. will survive or not. He took huge risk, it works ok today, but think WHY IS HE DOING THIS? Why? Becos he wants to be Not Out. THATS ALL. THATS WHY. This is not being done to develop I.S. batting confidence. Certainly not. Please understand this. There is NO gracious reason why this is being done! Only selfish reason, can you see this? With bhajji its ok, not IS certainly. As I said he wants not out, and I hope the "real" God above denies him that. wtf. SRT plays with IS every f'ing day in the nets. He knows exactly what IS can do, and what he cant. If you notice, that is why he didnt let IS face a single ball of hogg. Its a calculated risk, one which he thought was worth taking, and thats why he took it. Thats why it worked. I dont think it is a selfish reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 These tactics are non-sensical and downright selfish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 These tactics are non-sensical and downright selfish... quit facking crying and tell other moron's to contribute. Morons I.E, Jaffer, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Kumble. Dont fackin blame tendulkar on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 We could have gotten 100 RUN LEAD instead of 69 run lead if this SELFISH PIECE OF ... had chosen not to be selfish. Ishant is out - Maybe the "real" God above will reward SRT with an injury for the remaining series... (ok, bracing for calls of me being accused as Paki, but whatever... this is SELFISH #$#%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravid Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 pretty shithole batting their at the end by sachin.... wtf is he thinking..anyways, GREAT innings.. draw.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
living Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 All you useless ppl always think negative. Can anyone tell me when did Zak become a reasonable bat??? Only after he had a last wicket partnership with God in which Zak scored big. Since then he hasn't looked back and is a decent bat. Maybe in the nets IS showed some potential + it's his first test innings. There could be so many reasons behind the approach. I personally like the approach because more than the runs we need to damage the aussie confidence by frustrating them - and I think we succeeded in that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Finey, just a small request. I think you have made your point, now please stop making a hue and cry about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravid Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 We could have gotten 100 RUN LEAD instead of 69 run lead if this SELFISH PIECE OF ... had chosen not to be selfish. Ishant is out - Maybe the "real" God above will reward SRT with an injury for the remaining series... (ok, bracing for calls of me being accused as Paki, but whatever... this is SELFISH #$#%) injury?? settle down:finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uthappa Rocks Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 He has always played for stats. That's y he is not as great as we indians think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 The team deserved a 100 run lead. SRT could have given this. THANK U, Dravid for knowingly or unknowingly denying a 200 to SRT in Multan. Thank u, real God, for giving the selfish guy 7 (thats right 7) 90s in year 2007 :thumbs_up: 7 90s :thumbs_up: This statician would have SO WANTED the 100s, great he did not get it in 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakin Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 180 runs with the tail and yet people are complaining........LMFAO, this thread separates the haters and pretenders of understanding cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The team deserved a 100 run lead. SRT could have given this. THANK U, Dravid for knowingly or unknowingly denying a 200 to SRT in Multan. Thank u, real God, for giving the selfish guy 7 (thats right 7) 90s in year 2007 :clapping: 7 90s :clapping: Yea... now you are beginning to sound totally dumb...But for him, we would have been all out for 300, dont forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Finey' date=' just a small request. I think you have made your point, now please stop making a hue and cry about this...[/quote'] Request denied. Point will be made again, and again, and again, every day here. THe selfish @#$#%#% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakin Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It's all right chaps, feel free to display utter ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 This stupid thread, with absolute nonsense being posted by a particular poster, should be locked, NOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachinism Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 yeh i have to agree it was selfish its shocking at how badly he was being outscored by the tail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 People are really dense. He could have gotten out going for runs. The partnership was worth 31 runs. It added a lot of frustration on Aussie, esp the openers who would have to survive another 10 overs. The partnership not only got enough runs and also it bade time. WHo know how much a tired Sachin would have scored if he had kept most of the strike. Ultimately he is out there playing and is best judge of the situation and the rest of us can only feel frustrated and stupid complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts