Time for a joke

[Guest Hiten.]

I was listening to the radio and some guy says the turning point of the game : - Sehwag's 83..... NOT -GG's 60 odd... NOT - Tendulkar's grit and 103* ... NOT - Tendulkar and UV's partnership...... NOT - UV's 80 odd.... NOT BUT the turning point of the game was RD's early dismissal, had he stayed for another 30 mins, he would have made sure that India won't be in any position to chase this and instead pressurize the next Indian batsmen :hysterical:

[Online]

NOT funny

[Sachinism]

Thats what they were saying in the Sky Sports studio, saying that Dravid getting out was a bad thing for England, because when Tendulkar and Gautum got together, runs were flowing freely without them having to really try

[satishg]

how the mighty have fallen :((

[h4te]

:hysterical: :((

[Predator_05]

May sound like a joke, but it's a very good point. Dravid, in his current form, would have been a momentum killer. 30 off 100 was my expectation, but had that happened, the best India could have hoped for was a draw as it would have changed the complexion of the game. After he was dismissed for another cheap score, Laxman came out and played his shots almost immediately, keeping the scoreboard ticking. Big difference

[punjabi_khota]

It would be funny if were not so tragically true.

[vadodaravictor]

It might be true. But if message from dressing room is to go for runs instead of being defensive, wouldn't RD try play run scoring shots ? who knows he might have that in mind but got out ? Not defending RD here..but just a thought

[Anakin]

I was listening to the radio and some guy says the turning point of the game : - Sehwag's 83..... NOT -GG's 60 odd... NOT - Tendulkar's grit and 103* ... NOT - Tendulkar and UV's partnership...... NOT - UV's 80 odd.... NOT BUT the turning point of the game was RD's early dismissal, had he stayed for another 30 mins, he would have made sure that India won't be in any position to chase this and instead pressurize the next Indian batsmen :hysterical:

So where's the joke?

[flamy]

hey he came from 3 in the first innings to a 4 in the second. He is finding form. :yay: At this rate he will get to 100 in 96 innings. And rest assure he will be given those chances, so YEAH!! all these radio phools can go play AKON _ I wanna F U

[Shane]

:hysterical: :((

:hysterical:

[Shane]

Sad but ... true ... Dravid would have striked above 40 ... which would have been fine

[Show_stopper]

I'm getting tired of all this Dravid bashing..he should retire while his Avg is still above 50,imo. A modern great like doesn't deserve to be made fun of by every tom,dick and harry in the foreign media.

[Guest dada_rocks]

May sound like a joke, but it's a very good point. Dravid, in his current form, would have been a momentum killer. 30 off 100 was my expectation, but had that happened, the best India could have hoped for was a draw as it would have changed the complexion of the game. After he was dismissed for another cheap score, Laxman came out and played his shots almost immediately, keeping the scoreboard ticking. Big difference

Tendulkar had strike rate of ~50% in this inning that means 30 of 100 wud be 20 short from what tendulkar did.. And we won this game with 20 overs to spare ( time was not a problme) .. so jokes apart dravid's innings wud have helped

[Mr. Wicket]

From the title I thought you were going to fill the topic with more of Agarkar. But yes, your post does make a lot of sense. This isn't Dravid bashing, it's the effect he's had in a lot of matches as Pred pointed out. When Dravid gets set and buckles down, India rarely ever moves along at a high run rate. Runs do come, but at a gentler pace allowing the opposition to also get set into a rhythm, which often hurts us later in the game. And in games such as that Nagpur run chase v. England a couple of years ago (where Jaffer ended up tonning up), the time Dravid occupied meant less time was available for going after the bowling and scoring runs. More than likely here that if Dravid had been in form and not gotten out so soon at 1-drop, India would not have lost. But India probably would not have won either. On the final morning, India scored 49 runs in 12 overs. England were never able to settle down with that sort of start, were on the defensive right away even with a wicket, and India were never under too much pressure. With RSD around, it may have been 28 runs in 12 overs at that same point in time. The bowlers wouldn't have been hit to the fence as often, strike would not have been rotated as it was, and England would have felt more comfortable about attacking and pressing for wickets rather than trying to curb the run flow.

[Gambit]

As bad as Dravid has been in the past 2 years, thankfully he hasn't eclipsed this knock of his yet. He did come close last year here(2nd innings)though.

[Shane]

As bad as Dravid has been in the past 2 years' date=' thankfully he hasn't eclipsed this knock of his yet. He did come close last year here(2nd innings)though.

Come on Gambit an experienced poster like u cant undermine the importance of the second innings u have mentioned at 11/3 had he not dropped anchor, there would have been a possibility that India would have been all out for less than a 100 and the English would have got a sniff and squared the series. It was RD's innings which helped the others like SCG, VVS and MSD to play their game and get India out of the rut that they had got themselves into !!!