Proof that scoring 200s and 180+ in odi is no easy task

[velu]

7 minutes ago, philcric said:

 

Boult is a cricket player, not a sprinter.

 

got mixed up between boult and bolt

[nitinbwj]

AFG and Bangla.better watch out. The Hitman is ready !

[philcric]

1 minute ago, velu said:

got mixed up between boult and bolt

 

Unable to control his euphoria 

[maniac]

12 minutes ago, philcric said:

 

Boult is a cricket player, not a sprinter.

 

Thanks for the spell-check. Philcric >>>> Apple auto correct 

[MechEng]

 

[philcric]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Thanks for the spell-check. Philcric >>>> Apple auto correct 

 

 

[nevada]

3 hours ago, maniac said:

A destructive bat like Warner just got out for 166 against a weak bowling line up against a weak bowler despite having his eye in.

 

We have had 100s of Minnow games in WCs

 

yet one guy scores 3 200s and has a record for most 180+ scores and we brush it off saying flat pitches or weak bowling.

 

Its no joke scoring a 200 in odi leave alone 264.

 

Let us just appreciate this wonderful Herculean feats and be in awe and proud of our own.

Absolutely! Even after scoring those many runs, Warner still ended up about 100 runs short of Rohit's 264. Once can be considered a fluke but Rohit has done it 3 times, which is a phenomenal feat any which way you look at it.

[bahubali]

He was on course to make 4thbone against Pakistan, doesn't matter sl, afg and BD are still in kitty.

[maniac]

8 minutes ago, bahubali said:

He was on course to make 4thbone against Pakistan, doesn't matter sl, afg and BD are still in kitty.

WI as well  

[zen]

3 hours ago, velu said:

physically not possible for 98.7% of the batsmen to score a double and mentally 99.3% of the batsmen will lose concentration when nearing a double 

I am not sure if batsmen focus on scoring “doubles” or is a priority. If they focus on it, they can score for e.g. take Warner today, he could have hit one if he focused on keeping the ball on the ground but instead went for a chip shot to hit over the infield for a 4

 

PS other factors include: 

 

 

If there is one man who embodies the spirit of this England ODI side, it is Jason Roy.

 

Roy was one of the new breed of fearless batsmen England turned to after the debacle of the last World Cup. He made his debut in their very next game - the rain-ruined match in Ireland - and, although he struggled to make an impact in those early days (he failed to reach 40 in any of his first five innings, all against New Zealand, including a first-baller in his maiden innings), the England management were impressed by his attitude and selflessness. In particular, they noted that he bought into the aggressive ethos and never sought to protect his own figures at the expense of the team. So they stuck with him.

 

The early days of the Roy-Bairstow partnership were characterised by competition. With Hales breathing down their necks in pursuit of a recall, neither man could afford to either fail or, more importantly, be seen to pursue a personal agenda in the hope of securing their own position. As a result, they pushed each other harder - much as England's seamers pushed each other in the months before this squad was selected (and Mark Wood and Jofra Archer may still be pushing each other to bowl quicker right now) - and took their games to new levels.

 

That opening partnership is fast becoming one of the great strengths of this England side. They have now recorded eight century stands in the 29 innings in which they have opened together - that's double the amount of the next most prolific opening pair over the same period - including the two quickest made since their partnership began in September 2017.

 

In all, they have scored five of the 10 quickest century opening stands in ODI cricket since that date and averaged 62.62. No opening pair in history - well, no opening pair which has opened together a minimum of 25 times - has put together century stands more regularly than Bairstow and Roy's 3.63 innings average: Graeme Smith and AB de Villiers are second with a century stand every five innings, while Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly are next on the list with a century every 6.48 innings. As Morgan has pointed out on several occasions, when you have an opening pair giving you that sort of start, it does not just breed confidence in the home dressing room, it destroys the opposition's.

 

England have never had an opening partnership like it. Certainly not in World Cups. This was only the fifth century from an England opener in the tournament's history - only Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have recorded fewer centuries from opening batsmen from teams involved in at least 30 games - but already it would be a surprise if that record does not improve further in the coming weeks.

 

A more selfish player may have sensed an opportunity to become the first England player to make an ODI double-century. But not Roy. He had already thrashed three sixes off the first three balls of a Mehidy Hasan over when he attempted to skip down the pitch and drive a fourth. He knew he wasn't out there to eke out a personal milestone and he knew England had the batting to come that justified a high-risk approach.

Edited June 20, 2019 by zen

[Vilander]

**** is going down against Sl, AFG, BD and WI. 

 

 

[rkt.india]

19 hours ago, zen said:

I am not sure if batsmen focus on scoring “doubles” or is a priority. If they focus on it, they can score for e.g. take Warner today, he could have hit one if he focused on keeping the ball on the ground but instead went for a chip shot to hit over the infield for a 4

 

PS other factors include: 

 

 

If there is one man who embodies the spirit of this England ODI side, it is Jason Roy.

 

Roy was one of the new breed of fearless batsmen England turned to after the debacle of the last World Cup. He made his debut in their very next game - the rain-ruined match in Ireland - and, although he struggled to make an impact in those early days (he failed to reach 40 in any of his first five innings, all against New Zealand, including a first-baller in his maiden innings), the England management were impressed by his attitude and selflessness. In particular, they noted that he bought into the aggressive ethos and never sought to protect his own figures at the expense of the team. So they stuck with him.

 

The early days of the Roy-Bairstow partnership were characterised by competition. With Hales breathing down their necks in pursuit of a recall, neither man could afford to either fail or, more importantly, be seen to pursue a personal agenda in the hope of securing their own position. As a result, they pushed each other harder - much as England's seamers pushed each other in the months before this squad was selected (and Mark Wood and Jofra Archer may still be pushing each other to bowl quicker right now) - and took their games to new levels.

 

That opening partnership is fast becoming one of the great strengths of this England side. They have now recorded eight century stands in the 29 innings in which they have opened together - that's double the amount of the next most prolific opening pair over the same period - including the two quickest made since their partnership began in September 2017.

 

In all, they have scored five of the 10 quickest century opening stands in ODI cricket since that date and averaged 62.62. No opening pair in history - well, no opening pair which has opened together a minimum of 25 times - has put together century stands more regularly than Bairstow and Roy's 3.63 innings average: Graeme Smith and AB de Villiers are second with a century stand every five innings, while Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly are next on the list with a century every 6.48 innings. As Morgan has pointed out on several occasions, when you have an opening pair giving you that sort of start, it does not just breed confidence in the home dressing room, it destroys the opposition's.

 

England have never had an opening partnership like it. Certainly not in World Cups. This was only the fifth century from an England opener in the tournament's history - only Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have recorded fewer centuries from opening batsmen from teams involved in at least 30 games - but already it would be a surprise if that record does not improve further in the coming weeks.

 

A more selfish player may have sensed an opportunity to become the first England player to make an ODI double-century. But not Roy. He had already thrashed three sixes off the first three balls of a Mehidy Hasan over when he attempted to skip down the pitch and drive a fourth. He knew he wasn't out there to eke out a personal milestone and he knew England had the batting to come that justified a high-risk approach.

A guy who scored his first 100 in 100 balls and next 164 runs about 70 balls have to bat unselfishly and take risks every over to do that kind of stuff.  Rohit kept it going, did not get out.  Jason Roy could not that is the difference in the ability of the two players and not the difference in intention. Sensing the opportunity is different but completing it will take some doing.  you cannot  score 200 by taking singles and doubles.  Even if Roy had sensed an opportunity he still had to hit out to achieve that and he got out in that process.

Edited June 21, 2019 by rkt.india

[zen]

6 hours ago, rkt.india said:

A guy who scored his first 100 in 100 balls and next 164 runs about 70 balls have to bat unselfishly and take risks every over to do that kind of stuff.  Rohit kept it going, did not get out.  Jason Roy could not that is the difference in the ability of the two players and not the difference in intention. Sensing the opportunity is different but completing it will take some doing.  you can score 200 by taking singles and doubles.  Even if Roy had sensed an opportunity he still had to hit out to achieve that and he got out in that process.

The point is that there are opportunities to score 200 but it may not be a goal/priority for many, who would score their first 100 quickly too (not of 100 balls) on such surfaces 

 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, zen said:

The point is that there are opportunities to score 200 but it may not be a goal/priority for many, who would score their first 100 quickly too (not of 100 balls) on such surfaces 

 

Of course that goes without saying. Michael Phelps goes into to every race just to win for his country so does Bolt. The goal is to just win the race. World records are just a by product of how good they are. Similarly to these 200s.

 

scoring the first 100 is as important as scoring the 2nd 100. 2nd 100 lol even the premise of that sounds so odd because it has happened a handful of times and one guy has done it 3 times 

[zen]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Of course that goes without saying. Michael Phelps goes into to every race just to win for his country so does Bolt. The goal is to just win the race. World records are just a by product of how good they are. Similarly to these 200s.

 

scoring the first 100 is as important as scoring the 2nd 100. 2nd 100 lol even the premise of that sounds so odd because it has happened a handful of times and one guy has done it 3 times 

On a surface where you can score 164 of 70, not many will attempt to mess up their team by scoring the first 100 of only 100 (if you don’t get lucky, you can do more harm to your team). Only in countries such as Ind, we have such a culture

[rkt.india]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

The point is that there are opportunities to score 200 but it may not be a goal/priority for many, who would score their first 100 quickly too (not of 100 balls) on such surfaces 

 

200 is not a priority for anyone.  if that was the case, Rohit could have more cautiously against Pak to score 200 instead of improvising and getting out.  200 is a by product.  No one can play for 200.

[rkt.india]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

On a surface where you can score 164 of 70, not many will attempt to mess up their team by scoring the first 100 of only 100 (if you don’t get lucky, you can do more harm to your team). Only in countries such as Ind, we have such a culture

which other batsman batted like him on the same surface?  Kohli scored 66 of 64. it was he who made it possible by some awe-inspiring batting.  If he had tried to do that from the start who knows he might have got out and we could have been all out for 250 like SL in 2nd innings scored 251. 

[putrevus]

Only morons think scoring 200s is a result of flat pitches or weak bowling attacks.Rohit is one heck of an odi player , he is already better than any other odi opener barring Sachin.There are very few batsmen who have his ability.

[zen]

11 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

which other batsman batted like him on the same surface?  Kohli scored 66 of 64. it was he who made it possible by some awe-inspiring batting.  If he had tried to do that from the start who knows he might have got out and we could have been all out for 250 like SL in 2nd innings scored 251. 

If it is were in a batsman’s control when to get out, no one would ever get out or people would be scoring 100s in every inning. The conversation is leading to a point where the batsman just went all out like Afridi after probably wasting many balls to reach his 100 (100 of 100). While many others who  bat for100 balls would have got a lot more than a 100 

 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, zen said:

If it is were in a batsman’s control when to get out, no one would ever get out or people would be scoring 100s in every inning. The conversation is leading to a point where the batsman just went all out like Afridi after probably wasting many balls to reach his 100 (100 of 100). While many others who  bat for100 balls would have got a lot more than a 100 

 

He batted around 100 SR to reach his 100, so, he did not waste balls and no, there are not many others who can get more than 100 of 100 balls on a consistent basis and even if they do they wont score 264.  He by scoring 100 first made sure that we are safe as we had lost some wickets.  start was not great, we were 59/2 in 13 overs and if he had gotten quickly too, we would have been in a problem.  He batted along side Kohli and both batted with same approach.  Once they were in a good position, they started scoring quickly.  Kohli and Rohit had a partnership of 202, which Kohli scored just 66, Rohit almost double.  Rohit and Uthappa had a partnership of 128 of which Uthappa just scored 16. So, you could understand the dominance.