Hundreds shmundreds - who the eff cares?

[BacktoCricaddict]

The discussion around arbitrary landmarks like centuries is getting to a be truly annoying.  It should become a relic of the past.  Even I am guilty of it and catch myself watching "till someone gets his 100." 

 

In contrast, listen to Washington Sundar when he was asked if he was disappointed:  

----------------------------------

"No, no. Not at all disappointed," he said, when asked the inevitable question. "When it's the right time for me to get a hundred, it'll come, I feel, and yes, definitely very, very happy to have contributed, especially in those couple of innings, and you know, any way I could contribute to the team, and if the team could succeed out of that, I'm the happiest person."

-----------------------------

Same with Pant.  Was on 89 and reverse-sweeps Anderson.  He did not try anything like that when the team was still in trouble, but by the time he had 89, things were comfortable and he felt confident enough to smash the Poms to pulp.  It was not about his "100."  It was about his team.  Sehwag was the same way.  

 

Just win, baby.  Eff the 100s.  Eff the 5-fers.  If you got out 50 times in the 90s in your career and your team won most times you did it, hold your head high - you are an ATG.  

Edited March 6, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[zen]

it is mostly about impact ... a fighting innings v tough opponents, say a S Waugh type, can hold more value than a 100 in less demanding scenarios (esp. if you are playing for a 100 irrespective of the match situation) 

[mancalledsting]

Sachin to the point of destroying his reputation and good will. 

[New guy]

At a personal level it will matter when considering a player for selection. For example, Pant has 3 100s, now. If he had 7 (counting all the 89 and 90ss, his case would have been way stronger

 

Similarly an all rounder who scores 2 100 is considered way more than someone who scored 2 90s. it will be considered only 2 50s

 

You might not like it, but thats the reality, the selection of the players get affected. Not all matces will be legendary. People will forget most matches. So while looking at stuff, 2 50s will seems way less than 2 100a

Edited March 6, 2021 by New guy

[rtmohanlal]

1 minute ago, New guy said:

At a personal level it will matter when considering a player for selection. For example, Pant has 3 100s, now. If he had 7 (counting all the 89 and 90ss, his case would have been way stronger

 

Similarly an all rounder who scores 2 100 is considered way more than someone who scored 2 90s. it will be considered only 2 50s

 

You might not like it, but thats the reality, the selection of the players get affected

also it will adds to a batsman's confidence to come back from  bad phases being aware  that  he has scored that much 100s till date. 

[Serpico]

Why is it a relic, it's a great achievement. Team wins matters most ofcourse but that doesn't mean we should stop enjoying anything else in cricket

[Jimmy Cliff]

Mr. Sundar would like to have a word .

[Vickydev]

Apparently Washi's dad does

[Rasgulla]

1 hour ago, mancalledsting said:

Sachin to the point of destroying his reputation and good will. 

True no one does other than sachu chamchas who are obsessed with 100s for some reason

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, rtmohanlal said:

also it will adds to a batsman's confidence to come back from  bad phases being aware  that  he has scored that much 100s till date. 

Shouldn't it add the same level of confidence if he has scored as many 96s?  Four more runs were not going to change the team's fortunes by very much?  

 

I realize I am pissing into the wind here, but why is "100" the cut off?   Why not 8 dozen runs - 96?     

 

Or they should start a cricket tournament wherein they count wins by the number of centuries, not number of runs, made by the team.    

[Tattieboy]

1 hour ago, New guy said:

At a personal level it will matter when considering a player for selection. For example, Pant has 3 100s, now. If he had 7 (counting all the 89 and 90ss, his case would have been way stronger

 

Similarly an all rounder who scores 2 100 is considered way more than someone who scored 2 90s. it will be considered only 2 50s

 

You might not like it, but thats the reality, the selection of the players get affected. Not all matches will be legendary. People will forget most matches. So while looking at stuff, 2 50s will seems way less than 2 100

So by your reckoning context has nothing to do with it and a 100 against Ireland on a great wicket at Bengaluru is worth more than 96* on a challenging track at Ahmedabad against England .

" People will forget most matches " who are those people ?  , people don't select , selectors select and they have  of  masses of data on every innings Infront of them nowadays .

[nevada]

5 hours ago, Tattieboy said:

So by your reckoning context has nothing to do with it and a 100 against Ireland on a great wicket at Bengaluru is worth more than 96* on a challenging track at Ahmedabad against England .

" People will forget most matches " who are those people ?  , people don't select , selectors select and they have  of  masses of data on every innings Infront of them nowadays .

Selectors and Team Management are the ones obsessed with 100s. KL Rahul scored a string of 50s in a very tough series against Australia but he got dropped, with Shastri offering the lame excuse that he failed to convert and get hundreds. From a logical point of view, 96 vs 100 is no big deal but innthe world of selectors and Team Management, it is THE deal. 

[coffee_rules]

Ask Gavaskar, most of his commentary is about milestones, when Ashwin was batting and India was 121(5, he was talking about his Sennai 100

[Cricketics]

Guys like Yuvraj Singh have proved that you can be considered champion in a particular format of the game without scoring or having a lot of hundreds in a format. Its the quality knocks eventually which you will be remembered for in the format you play,  the ones in world cups when team is facing defeat or a knock in an important game, the ones in chases and of course top grity knocks in test cricket. Centuries are great but I will take a knock like Dravid’s 68 odd type of knock in Kingston Jamaica in 2006 to win us first ever series in ages. All our top players have such knocks at some point but their fans are still obsessed with their tons. 
 

 

[New guy]

9 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Shouldn't it add the same level of confidence if he has scored as many 96s?  Four more runs were not going to change the team's fortunes by very much?  

 

I realize I am pissing into the wind here, but why is "100" the cut off?   Why not 8 dozen runs - 96?     

 

Or they should start a cricket tournament wherein they count wins by the number of centuries, not number of runs, made by the team.    

Selectors are not going to go through each and every score card of every player. They will see total 50s, 100s, etc. Human beings have measure milestones from the beginning if time and will always. 

[rkt.india]

100 as a milestone is important for every batsman. It counts in front of your name. One hundred is better than zero hundred. Milestones are for individual pride. Like a 5-fer for bowlers is important.

Edited March 7, 2021 by rkt.india

[Stan AF]

Every single player cares.

 

Fans, don't fool yourself with players statements like i don't care for a 100, i want a team win blah blah blah. Almost everyone is on the level of actors when it comes to talking in front of a camera.

[R!TTER]

6 minutes ago, Stan AF said:

Every single player cares.

 

Fans, don't fool yourself with players statements like i don't care for a 100, i want a team win blah blah blah. Almost everyone is on the level of actors when it comes to talking in front of a camera.

Yup, fans are delusional & one eyed when they say milestones don't matter - cricket is a game of numbers & every run/wicket matters! If Sundar had gotten to his hundred he wouldn't be answering that way, Pant (not criticizing him) also feels the pressure of a hundred just like Sharma did trying to reach 50 with just a single -

 

79.1 live by the sword, die by it. Lyon has got his man. He had five men back on the boundary. Pant, undeterred, danced down the track again. But Lyon got this a mite wider and Pant loses his shape trying to thrash it over cover, ends up splicing it to gully. Brings to a close an endlessly entertaining knock 250/4

 

Now how do you explain this? It's his natural game & he has no game awareness 

 

But didn't we all/experts included say that he played the game situation perfectly & attacked at the right moment? So he had no game awareness 2 months back 

 

He was just trying to get to his hundred before the new ball IMO, that's his way much like Sehwag. The likes of SRT/Sharma/Kohli would rather get it using a single. Guess which approach is better?

 

Cricket is a game of numbers - 10 wickets nets you a test, not 9 or 8, likewise you have to preserve at least 1 wicket whilst chasing. Anyone delusional enough to believe that landmarks don't play on the psyche of a player are just that - delusional 

 

Players take various of ways to get through that phase, the one which suits your agenda is the one you prefer is the right approach!

[flat_wicket_bully]

I remember Kohli celebrating a century against hapless Windies after 2019 as if he was the first one to score 500 and he will do the same when he scores next ton lol. This itself tells you what matters to players 

[mancalledsting]

1 hour ago, Stan AF said:

Every single player cares.

 

Fans, don't fool yourself with players statements like i don't care for a 100, i want a team win blah blah blah. Almost everyone is on the level of actors when it comes to talking in front of a camera.

It’s a nice thing and good achievement no doubt. But some teams/societies have matured to look at the bigger picture and put it in context. For example, Michael Clarke could have easily gone on to break Lara’s 400 record but he stopped as he realised his team winning the game was the bigger priority and achievement. It’s far better to score a 96 and your team win then 100* and your team lose. Washington played a clutch knock which helped lead his team to victory. In a way, that’s all that matters. The achievement of a 100 is someone what cheapened in the modern era as there have been a glutton of them in modern ODI cricket. I’m sure many modern  batsmen have more ODI hundreds than Adam Gilchrist and higher averages but does that mean I think they’re better players? So there you go, hundreds put in their correct context. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by mancalledsting
J