Vijay.Sharma Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 I think Outsider has beaten this one to death on various threads on why that 96 can be argued to be the 2nd best knock to be played by an Indian(outside of 281). No matter how many scorecards one scans it will be awfully tough to find a 90+ knock to be the highest in the match for a team that won to be followed by the second best score not to even cross 40 from both sides combined. Shows how much the track had in it for the pace bowlers in Durban and anyone who saw that game knows that by even keeping Steyn aside for a second the rest of the pacers from either side looked menacing that on ordinary tracks do not hold a candle to Steyn.That innings was class from Lax but I'll rate Rahul's twin 50s at Kingston in 2006 slightly above this one. I don't have any problem in saying that Lax is a slightly better second innings player than Sachin but what I find incredulous is the argument that Lax is miles ahead of Sachin. Sachin has had some great innings in the second dig too, some of them have saved games, some have won, some have been lost causes. Same case with Lax, Sunny, and Rahul as well.
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 If I were to go by ICF without watching TV' date=' it would seem that Tendulkar is the worst thing to happen to Indian cricket. Thankfully, my Tata Sky still works.[/quote'] Depends on the perspective. If I were to go only by ICF it would seem that Tendulkar can do no wrong and no matter how great feats of other cricketers are they will always be secondary to Tendulkar. I am surprised someone hasn't said that Tendulkar has played even a better innings than the 281 yet.
ganeshran Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 I don't have any problem in saying that Lax is a slightly better second innings player than Sachin but what I find incredulous is the argument that Lax is miles ahead of Sachin. Sachin has had some great innings in the second dig too, some of them have saved games, some have won, some have been lost causes. Same case with Lax, Sunny, and Rahul as well. This.
master22 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Where did I say it was the only criteria? But yeah, it's definitely an important criteria and is used by many as one criteria to rank an innings. By your logic laxman's 281 was not a great innings because dravid scored 180 in the same innings:giggle:
Manny_Pacquiao Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 LOL!!!!!!! another one of these threads, i have never come across aussies or south africans arguing so passionately in 1000 different threads over whether ponting is better than ssteve waugh or whether jacques kallis is better than kirsten only nerdy ndians are capable of doing these boring arguments again and again and again, its quite amusing :two_thumbs_up:
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Afridi outscored Tendulkar at Chennai and Kallis at Cape Town got two hundreds in the test. Gambhir scored two 50s in the test from India at Cape Town and Mongia' date=' Dravid, and Ganguly all got 50s at Chennai.[/quote'] Looking at the criterion set out by you, Hayden's innings could've easily been chosen the best innings for that year (if not for the decade)..then how did Vaughn's innings ended up as the best which came in a match where there were three more other centurions?
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 I don't have any problem in saying that Lax is a slightly better second innings player than Sachin but what I find incredulous is the argument that Lax is miles ahead of Sachin. Sachin has had some great innings in the second dig too, some of them have saved games, some have won, some have been lost causes. Same case with Lax, Sunny, and Rahul as well. Very well said :hatsoff:
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 If I were to go by ICF without watching TV' date=' it would seem that Tendulkar is the worst thing to happen to Indian cricket. Thankfully, my Tata Sky still works.[/quote'] :--D
Gambit Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Depends on the perspective. If I were to go only by ICF it would seem that Tendulkar can do no wrong and no matter how great feats of other cricketers are they will always be secondary to Tendulkar. I am surprised someone hasn't said that Tendulkar has played even a better innings than the 281 yet. No. It is about a rigid, unyielding perception. An example - For someone perceived as a 4th innings dud, his average is a mere 1 run lower than Dravid's. In the last 3 years, Dravid's 3rd and 4th innings' average is 33(1 100). Tendulkar's is 70(4 100s). Dravid's 4th innings avg against top 8 in last 3 years is a risible 27, Tendulkar's 81. Yet, no one calls Dravid a choker or Tendulkar a rock. Different batsmen are found to compare to Tendulkar using different metrics to ensure he is bested. Fact is, Tendulkar is a more complete batsman than all of his peers(Lara included).
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Looking at the criterion set out by you' date=' Hayden's innings could've easily been chosen the best innings for that year (if not for the decade)..then how did Vaughn's innings ended up as the best which came in a match where there were three more other centurions?[/quote'] Are you being deliberately dense? Where have I said it's the "only" criteria? But given that for example Tendulkar's 136 and Laxman's 96 both came against strong bowling attacks in difficult conditions having to pick one I would definitely pick the one in which the batsman outscored everyone else by miles. That's also the reason Gooch's 154 is rated so highly by many people. If one does not consider the relative dominance of a batsman in a test might as well start picking centuries scored on pattas where everyone feasts on as the best innings.
Sachinism Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 And why is that not a great test innings? It's rated as one of the best by many specially given the heat and conditions it was scored in. But' date= it probably won't fit your criteria since it wasn't played by Goddy. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Good one - please introduce some of these people to us. Edit: Oh man even CRICINFO, the decider of everything, rated it as one of Hayden's Top 5. Please forgive me for doubting you Sachin's runs against Zimbabwe are deducted. But someone else bashes them and its suddenly rated as a great knock. And you're point was about significant difference between batsmen on the same pitch, same match and when that was destroyed, you bring up conditions and 'many people rate it highly' :haha: Sachin has pounded teams in Chennai, but I guess conditions there are extremely mild and comfortable.
CSK Fan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 IMO, as soon as you use any filter to a batsman's record ( won matches, 3-4th innings, decade of 2000 onwards etc, etc) you are being dishonest to yourself. Any batsman's career should be taken in its entirety and if something doesnt fit the regular stuff, like average, total runs, etc then its irrelavant. A batsman's job is to score run and if he does that, he has done enough. Anything else is something contrived to prove the viewpoint of the one doing the (skewed) analysis I can easily prove that Anwar is the best bat ever followed by Inzi. I just have to apply a couple of filters
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 No. It is about a rigid, unyielding perception. An example - For someone perceived as a 4th innings dud, his average is a mere 1 run lower than Dravid's. In the last 3 years, Dravid's 3rd and 4th innings' average is 33(1 100). Tendulkar's is 70(4 100s). Yet, no one calls Dravid a choker or Tendulkar a rock. Different batsmen are found to compare to Tendulkar using different metrics to ensure he is bested. Fact is, Tendulkar is a more complete batsman than all of his peers(Lara included). Well I might not be the right person to answer this because I don't "perceive" Tendulkar to be some choker or poor performer in the second innings and do agree with your rating that he is the best batsman of his generation. However, that does not necessarily mean that he has also played innings as good as Laxman's 281 or 96. Obviously, he has played a lot of great innings in his career in both forms of the game but what's wrong in admitting that he hasn't been able to deliver a legendary innings like the above? Let's take some common sense criteria to judge an innings quality: 1. Difficulty of pitch and conditions 2. Strength of opposition attack 3. Batting with the tail 4. Performance of others in the match 5. Match situation like chasing a huge target, coming back from a deficit, loss of early wickets etc. Might have missed some, but it is really difficult for me to think of a Tendulkar innings better than the 281 or 96 based on the above common sense criteria. My argument is not to show Laxman is better than Tendulkar on some stats guru filters, just that on these two occasions he took his batting to a level where Tendulkar could not.
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 No. It is about a rigid, unyielding perception. An example - For someone perceived as a 4th innings dud, his average is a mere 1 run lower than Dravid's. In the last 3 years, Dravid's 3rd and 4th innings' average is 33(1 100). Tendulkar's is 70(4 100s). Dravid's 4th innings avg against top 8 in last 3 years is a risible 27, Tendulkar's 81. Yet, no one calls Dravid a choker or Tendulkar a rock. Different batsmen are found to compare to Tendulkar using different metrics to ensure he is bested. Fact is, Tendulkar is a more complete batsman than all of his peers(Lara included). :two_thumbs_up:
CasualVisitor Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Has Tendulkar played any innings in the league of 281 and 96? No. And what do you attribute VVS's so decidedly superior fourth innings, tough-condition success to? Also, why is he not so spectacular in other scenarios?
BeautifulGame Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 IMO, as soon as you use any filter to a batsman's record ( won matches, 3-4th innings, decade of 2000 onwards etc, etc) you are being dishonest to yourself. Any batsman's career should be taken in its entirety and if something doesnt fit the regular stuff, like average, total runs, etc then its irrelavant. A batsman's job is to score run and if he does that, he has done enough. Anything else is something contrived to prove the viewpoint of the one doing the (skewed) analysis I can easily prove that Anwar is the best bat ever followed by Inzi. I just have to apply a couple of filters What a load of rubbish.If u take records as it is then Samaraweera is a better batsmen than Viv Richards and VVS Laxman nearly as good as Sachin. U need necessary filters or criteria to differentiate quality of players.
Andrew Peter Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Well if VVS can last in the most difficult conditions of Durban then why couldnt he stay on the wicket for some more time on the johannesburg track in the 4th Innings ? India could have so easily avoided a defeat there and gone on to win the series . Considering that Laxman is the better 2nd Innings player who excels on tough pitches , it should have been a cakewalk for Laxman to keep batting on a comparatively easier track of Jhb where Tendulkar got the century .
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Well I might not be the right person to answer this because I don't "perceive" Tendulkar to be some choker or poor performer in the second innings and do agree with your rating that he is the best batsman of his generation. However, that does not necessarily mean that he has also played innings as good as Laxman's 281 or 96. Obviously, he has played a lot of great innings in his career in both forms of the game but what's wrong in admitting that he hasn't been able to deliver a legendary innings like the above? Let's take some common sense criteria to judge an innings quality: 1. Difficulty of pitch and conditions 2. Strength of opposition attack 3. Batting with the tail 4. Performance of others in the match 5. Match situation like chasing a huge target, coming back from a deficit, loss of early wickets etc. Might have missed some, but it is really difficult for me to think of a Tendulkar innings better than the 281 or 96 based on the above common sense criteria. My argument is not to show Laxman is better than Tendulkar on some stats guru filters, just that on these two occasions he took his batting to a level where Tendulkar could not. I don't think any Sachin fan ( fanatics/blind worshipers..what ever we are called with affection) in his sane mind would put any of Sachin innings above Laxman's 281. 136 vs 96 is debatable though.
Deleted_User_1 Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Lax is a better clutch player than SRT and that is no knock on the little master.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now