Time to shed the century fixation

[CC1981]

?? Are you saying he was left out of those WC matches for disciplinary reasons only ??

Either that or fitness. In ODIs, who apart from Pollock has done as well as Ntini with the ball in the last 3-4 years ? Certainly not Kallis, who picks up wicket pretty much on greentops only. Not Nel, not Hall (who isnt even a regular), not Steyn either. Definitely not 'in-and-out' Langeveldt. So who else is there, Pollock apart, who can lay claim to being an equal ODI bowler to Ntini, let alone better, in South Africa today ?!?

[Donny]

Either that or fitness.

Sorry, neither. He was out of form. Pure and simple. Cricinfo: Ntini given a wake-up call Dileep Premachandran in Barbados April 17, 2007 A glance at the South African team-sheet first thing in the morning was enough to remove any lingering cobwebs of sleep. Makhaya Ntini wasn't in the 12. Given Ntini's poor run of form at this World Cup, it could hardly be called a shock exclusion. ...had Ntini paid the price for one nocturnal jaunt too many? Gordon Templeton, the media manager, emphasised that it was certainly not the case. "It was a tactical decision," he said. "He hasn't performed as expected so far." The numbers certainly bear that out, with just six wickets at 48.83 from seven matches. He's also gone at 4.65 runs an over.

[yoda]

And Iam trying various ways to break it to you that low SR <> SUCK doh ... if that is the case then there is a entire bunch of batsmen worldwide who should have been discarded outright as ODI bats because they have SR < 80 for more than 75% of their Careers .... its not that cut and dry ... infact guys like Dravid have created a succesfull ODI careers out of being slow and steady.

If guys like Dravid or anyone hogged 25 overs at 20 SR lower than the rest of the 25 overs, it would be considered sucking in my book.

[yoda]

Had you watched the match, you'd know that we lost not because of slow batting but because our pace attack is SHYTE and CANNOT replicate the kind of bounce, movement and pace as Saffie bowlers (particularly Ntini) did.

Exactly the reason why we needed to set a decent target. DUH!

[CC1981]

Exactly the reason why we needed to set a decent target. DUH!

We *did* set a decent target. As i keep saying and you keep ignoring, Tendulkar's slower strike rate is because he was batted against the best bowler in the match (and that too, by a light year!) far more than anyone else! Its very simple- if someone is bowling like Ambrose and he bowls to one batsman for over 50% the deliveries, that batsman will reasonably have a lower strike rate even if he is playing just as good as his partner- well because he is facing down AMBROSE while the other guy is dealing with a lot easier bowling. How hard is that to understand ?

[CC1981]

If guys like Dravid or anyone hogged 25 overs at 20 SR lower than the rest of the 25 overs, it would be considered sucking in my book.

Then your book is an illogical book which is not based on WATCHING the match and taking match situation into consideration. Ie, its without context and thus, is useless. In your stupid book, if i bat against Ambrose armed with the new ball and score at a slower rate than you while you are batting against Dillion after the shine is gone, i 'suck' at strike rate. That alone shows how ludicrous your book is. Watch more matches mate- numbers only go so far. What you speak of is not how it is. Its just that simple.

[yoda]

Bla, Bla, Bla. Bottom line we were runs short as Dravid himself said. And the guy to take the blame for the short fall - the one who hogged the strike with the lowest SR. Simple. BTW this innings is the worst of his career by a mile in terms of SR for the number of balls faced (prev lowest being 141 off 143). That speaks volumes about how great a career he has had so far. It also says this is not an innings to be remembered for the right reasons.

[Ram]

Then your book is an illogical book which is not based on WATCHING the match and taking match situation into consideration. Ie, its without context and thus, is useless. In your stupid book, if i bat against Ambrose armed with the new ball and score at a slower rate than you while you are batting against Dillion after the shine is gone, i 'suck' at strike rate. That alone shows how ludicrous your book is. Watch more matches mate- numbers only go so far.

CC, Sachin was slow. I mean , when was the last time you heard of an ODI match when the batsman scored a 100 of 145 balls ? And this is not the only time you have tough batting conditions or good bowlers bowling. Now , whether that cost us the match is something we have to decide. But 50 off 95 balls is totally unacceptable.

[CC1981]

Bla, Bla, Bla.

Translation : i cant come up with B$ anymore.

Bottom line we were runs short as Dravid himself said.

That is because Makhaya bowled like a dream. We were short of runs because a worldclass opening bowler at the other end fired down a brilliant spell of worldclass bowling. How hard is that to understand ?

And the guy to take the blame for the short fall - the one who hogged the strike with the lowest SR. Simple

Simple indeed. Except thats not what happened and its nothing more than you looking at the numbers and not the matchplay situation. Tendulkar's lower strike rate is because he bore the brunt of Makhaya's brilliant bowling. After Makhaya got out of the way, Tendulkar scored as well as anyone else in the match. Therefore, Tendulkar's strike rate is perfectly okay, considering that the BOWLER has a say in how fast a batsman scores too ! They are not batting against bowling machines- obviously if a bowler bowls brilliantly, you cannot blame the batsman for not scoring at 5-6 rpo. Simple.

[CC1981]

Sachin was slow. I mean , when was the last time you heard of an ODI match when the batsman scored a 100 of 145 balls ? And this is not the only time you have tough batting conditions or good bowlers bowling.

Simply put, Makhaya bowled one of the top 3 opening spells i've seen in the past 4 years. For the first time in years, someone bowled like Ambrose used to bowl (well sligtly far out of the crease but same areas ball is landing and doing same thing) and this was a 90s-era pitch where 240-250 should've been enough for any decent bowling attack.

But 50 off 95 balls is totally unacceptable.

Its totally acceptable when a bowler bowls a spell like Makhaya did- which is the kind of spell one rarely sees in ODI cricket. This was 'Ambrosian' bowling- where the ball pitches on good length-offstump line and kicks to chest high while swinging/angling in. Find me how many times bowlers in the past few yrs have done that. Not many. Put the innings in context- it was a pretty decent innings against some top-flight bowling.

[Ram]

Therefore, Tendulkar's strike rate is perfectly okay, considering that the BOWLER has a say in how fast a batsman scores too.

We arent talking of a test match here , where the batsman has the liberty to ride out a bowler. Sachin should have atleast rotated the strike a bit more agaisnt Ntini, which he didnt do. And it doesnt look as though Sachin was at his attacking best against other bowlers. Except for the Langaveldt , he averaged less than a run a ball against all others. If you took the freedom to see off a tough spell from one bowler , you should atleast attack against the rest. He didnt do that too.

[CC1981]

We arent talking of a test match here , where the batsman has the liberty to ride out a bowler. Sachin should have atleast rotated the strike a bit more agaisnt Ntini, which he didnt do.

Do you realize that if a bowler bowls like a dream on a helpful pitch, there isnt much a batsman can do ? Wtf was tendy supposed to do ? Gift his wicket away like Veeru does whenever he plays a few dot-balls in a row ? Makhaya bowled brilliantly and the field set for him was perfect. We dont have bowlers who can answer back Makhaya's brilliant bowling. Atleast, not in pace. Thats why we lost the match. Tendulkar could've batted better but his batting was most definitely in the 'good' column, not in the 'suck'. It just wasnt in the 'stellar' column.

[Ram]

Its totally acceptable when a bowler bowls a spell like Makhaya did- which is the kind of spell one rarely sees in ODI cricket. This was 'Ambrosian' bowling- where the ball pitches on good length-offstump line and kicks to chest high while swinging/angling in. Find me how many times bowlers in the past few yrs have done that. Not many. Put the innings in context- it was a pretty decent innings against some top-flight bowling.

Your ONLY line of defence against Sachin's slow batting seems to be Ntini's wonderful bowling. Sachin faced 38 balls of Ntini , scoring just 17 runs. And worse , 25 of them were dot balls. He could have atleast gone for quick singles and rotated the strike.

[CC1981]

Your ONLY line of defence against Sachin's slow batting seems to be Ntini's wonderful bowling.

Eh ??!? Only line of defence ? U mean to say if a worldclass bowler bowls wonderfully, he still should get spanked for 45-50 runs ?! eh ??? I saw the match, i am telling you what HAPPENED...not a question of line of defence or not...Makhaya's opening spell was a dream- most of which Tendy faced. So Tendy's strike rate suffered as a result. When Makhaya went off, Tendy scored against the rest as well as anyone else. Sachin's performance was a 7/10 effort in my books. Sure, he could've done better but he did pretty decently out there.

[Ram]

Eh ??!? Only line of defence ? U mean to say if a worldclass bowler bowls wonderfully' date=' he still should get spanked for 45-50 runs ?[/quote'] Nope , I didnt mean that. If a world class bowler bowls a fiery firsr spell , then the best batsman in ODI history should atleast be able to take singles and rotate the stirke more. And anyway , this debate about Sachin slowness is useless. Since , we cant attribute India's loss in this game to it. It was ONE of the factors that could have made a difference , but not THE factor.

[CC1981]

If a world class bowler bowls a fiery firsr spell , then the best batsman in ODI history should atleast be able to take singles and rotate the stirke more.

What you ask for is possible for Tendulkar from the 90s heydeys...not today. The way Ntini bowled, i'd not give more than 3 other batsmen CURRENTLY a better scoring rate on that pitch unless they made 25-ball 20s.

[yoda]

Simply put, Makhaya bowled one of the top 3 opening spells i've seen in the past 4 years. For the first time in years, someone bowled like Ambrose used to bowl (well sligtly far out of the crease but same areas ball is landing and doing same thing) and this was a 90s-era pitch where 240-250 should've been enough for any decent bowling attack.

your random assertion would have some weight if the rest of the batsmen hadn't played at 89 SR.

[Bumper]

I didnt watch the game today, but from the score cards, the overall progress of the match, it does appear that the criticism of SRT (based on this innings) is a bit OTT. Am glad he is finally scoring some runs in difficult batting conditions against good attacks. I dont care too much about the result of this game. These games should be used as practice for the real contest later this year (Ind-Eng test series), so any runs made in these games is good. As for batting for milestones, thats one of the main reasons (besides money), SRT has chosen to continue his career. So we have to live with that.

[CC1981]

your random assertion would have some weight if the rest of the batsmen hadn't played at 89 SR.

The rest of the batsmen combined faced less than 40% of Ntini's bowling. Rest of the batting combined scored 150% more than Tendulkar alone-while losing 7 other wickets. That is why your pure number-crunching is inapplicable here and baseless.

[Ram]

your random assertion would have some weight if the rest of the batsmen hadn't played at 89 SR.

This statement isnt that sound. The "rest' of the batsman were able to score at that pace becasue there were wickets in hand , and sachin played a HUGE role in making sure there were wickets in hand towards the end. CC is right in one sense that , instead of being 100 for 2 in 28 overs , we could have easily been 130/5 in 30 over. We would have probably been bowled out for 220 odd in that case. @CC I am finding hard to buy believe this " Ntini bowled an unplayable spell etc etc" . I didnt watch the match , still....