What constitutes a match losing hundred ?

[f.b.m]

This thought has been in the back of my head ever since the first mash-winnah 'debates' in internetland many aeons ago. Guys like Lara and God are said to have played many match losing hundreds and so the other is declared as the greatest batsman. So I have come up with two types of match-losing hundreds. Neither of them make any sense but here they are: - The overdrive to stall hundred: This is the hundred where you cash in when the going is easy and bottle it when you encounter bowling of a half-decent standard, and letting the rest of the batsmen collapse. An example would be Simon Katich's hundred against us in Nagpur 08 (Hussey came close as well): He motored along to 90 odd taking Australia to 180/2 at 4 an over and couldnt score a run after we set 8-1 fields. The rest of the line up made nothing afterwards. That was more or less what lost the match for them and what won the match for us. - The seat reservation hundred: Paul Collingwood seemed to be the main practitioner of this art form until an Australian by the name of Marcus North came around to show us how its really done. The hundred itself may or may not lose the immediate match but will increase the longer term chances of losing. A recent example would be North's hundred against us in Bengaluru. Not only did Australia lose the match (through no fault of his own but why let that get in the way) but he made sure they don't win the next two matches either. Untill recently, Alistair Cook was in this privileged company. Feel free to add more...

[CSK Fan]

Here is the kind of logic used by those people who talk about winning and losing 100s Sachin scores 106 in India where everyone including Sehwag, Gambhir, etc make merry on a flat track, Indian spinners strike and India wins. Its a superb match-winning knock Sachin scores 111 in south Africa where everyone esle fails, the bowlers concede 600+ runs and India lose the match. It was a selfish 100 in a losing cause by someone who plays only for himself and not his team I really wonder about the IQ of those people who don't understand the folly of the above reasoning

[Robelinda]

Brian Lara 100 4th test vs Australia 1999. Just went nuts, he got out with the score at like 140, team crumbled after that. With no experienced batsmen it was just too reckless to go out and just tonk, but it sure was AWESOME!!!! Was happy when he got out though.

[Ganeshkumar]

A tail-ender's 50 or 100 always comes under the category of 'match-losing knock';I mean when there's no recognised batsman at the other end and there's a huge deficit to be erased or a big target to be chased;like Agarkar's 100. :D

[Sir_Afridi]

Sachin 100 at Chennai in 1999 series.

[Sachin=GOD]

Sachin 100 at Chennai in 1999 series.

Mods Alert: troll detected!! :shot:

[Shakthi]

Sachin 100 at Chennai in 1999 series.

Mohammed Yousuf 2004 Multan first test

[Clarke]

The idea is, the batsman must be good enough to face five deliveries and score 2/4/6 off those while taking a single at the last delivery. He must do this over after over until his team wins. If that requires 475* on a minefield against the likes of Steyn/Mcgrath/Warne/Murali/anyone else, so be it. This is what makes a match winner, especially when talking about Tendulkar. P.S. god fearing religious people with beard as well as all adopted sons are exempt for obvious reasons.

[CSK Fan]

A bit off topic, but is Munaf Patel now the best bowler under pressure (using the same logic used for Inzi, Razzaq, Laxman, etc) because he took all those wickets when it mattered the most yes Steyn took all those wickets and is ranked no 1 but did he do it while the stakes were down and the opposition needed 1 run? Patel is the true match-winner and all those meaningless Steyn wicket means nothing He also took 4 wickets when the next bowler from India took only 2 so you also have to see the importance of those 4 wickets which is like 8 wickets in any other match

[yoda]

A bit off topic' date=' but is Munaf Patel now the best bowler under pressure (using the same logic used for Inzi, Razzaq, Laxman, etc) because he took all those wickets [b']when it mattered the most yes Steyn took all those wickets and is ranked no 1 but did he do it while the stakes were down and the opposition needed 1 run? Patel is the true match-winner and all those meaningless Steyn wicket means nothing He also took 4 wickets when the next bowler from India took only 2 so you also have to see the importance of those 4 wickets which is like 8 wickets in any other match

confusing ODIs and tests aren't we?

[CSK Fan]

confusing ODIs and tests aren't we?

Hey I am sure there would be scores of unsung heroes who have such bunch of match winning bowling at critical times over the over-hyped 'greats'. remember Michael Clarke's six for? Did McGrath ever do that?

[yoda]

Hey I am sure there would be scores of unsung heroes who have such bunch of match winning bowling at critical times over the over-hyped 'greats'. remember Michael Clarke's six for? Did McGrath ever do that?

how is that relevant to this thread which is about losing 100s? To me, you can only call a 100 as a losing hundred if the team's loss can somehow be attributed that innings. 1. The player batted too slowly, not giving a team enough time to play for a win when they are behind or level in a series. 2. The player batted like a dumbass even after getting the 100, when the test could have been saved or even won with a little more sensible play, the 100 notwithstanding

[CSK Fan]

how is that relevant to this thread which is about losing 100s? To me, you can only call a 100 as a losing hundred if the team's loss can somehow be attributed that innings. 1. The player batted too slowly, not giving a team enough time to play for a win when they are behind or level in a series. 2. The player batted like a dumbass even after getting the 100, when the test could have been saved or even won with a little more sensible play, the 100 notwithstanding

It was not and I did say it was off topic in my first post. So, is there a match losing 5-fer? for your second point, wouldnt the player have already done most of the work by scoring a 100? Yes he had the additional responsibilty of seeing the team through but that would be like I substituting for my absent friend at work after I did my job. Its will be great if I do it, but if I am not very successful its my sick friend who should be held accountable (i.e, the other batsmen). My point is we actually blame the batsman who scored a 100 and got out more than all the other batsmen who failed though the later should be more to blame

[zen]

Here is the kind of logic used by those people who talk about winning and losing 100s Sachin scores 106 in India where everyone including Sehwag, Gambhir, etc make merry on a flat track, Indian spinners strike and India wins. Its a superb match-winning knock Sachin scores 111 in south Africa where everyone esle fails, the bowlers concede 600+ runs and India lose the match. It was a selfish 100 in a losing cause by someone who plays only for himself and not his team I really wonder about the IQ of those people who don't understand the folly of the above reasoning

I thought Sehwag, GG and Dhoni all did pretty well when Tendulkar scored that 100. I don't know why would you see scores of a 60, a 80, a 90 as failures! Also ind scored 400+ in that innings, common sense tells that usually when a team scores 400+ and one batsman has hit 110 odd then some of the others would have contributed :winky: Appears as if you are hard pressed to find examples that you are looking for!

[yoda]

It was not and I did say it was off topic in my first post. So, is there a match losing 5-fer? for your second point, wouldnt the player have already done most of the work by scoring a 100? Yes he had the additional responsibilty of seeing the team through but that would be like I substituting for my absent friend at work after I did my job. Its will be great if I do it, but if I am not very successful its my sick friend who should be held accountable (i.e, the other batsmen). My point is we actually blame the batsman who scored a 100 and got out more than all the other batsmen who failed though the later should be more to blame

I agree with you that we tend to blame the person who "failed later". We also tend to remember the one who "performed better later". Let's say player A is the one who got out earlier for a low score of say 20s and let's say player B scored a 100, but failed to take the team through. We need to look the following in context to conclude if it is fair to lay the blame on player B when compared to player A: 1. Kind of delivery that got the player (A or B) 2. Assistance bowlers were getting when the player got out 3. Ball condition when player got out 4. Kind of shot offered If Player A got out to an unplayable delivery for a 20 and player B played a brain dead shot to an easy delivery after scoring a 100, it can attributed to lack of concentration after playing a long inning, but I can see why some would say player B's 100 was a match losing one.

[The Outsider]

Looks like a lot of people have not got over the idea that a Laxman innings can be ranked over Tendulkar's. The 96 is better than the 111 should not be even up for debate, but it is better than the 146 because that innings more or less put the match result in India's favor. If Tendulkar had scored another 50 runs and added 75 to the Indian total it would have been of the same level.