Tendulkar 200* Vs Sehwag 219

[Precambrian]

but cant he make more than 9 runs out of that 9 balls... also Why Dhoni played most balls..he knows pretty well when Sachin will Slowdown when going towards a milestone so he just wanted as much as run possible.. i value Dhoni's opinion more than you :winky:

I gather dhoni made this opinion of his over phone to u? or was it via email? coz I couldn't recollect this particular opinion of his in the newspapers

[bulbul]

I gather dhoni made this opinion of his over phone to u? or was it via email? coz I couldn't recollect this particular opinion of his in the newspapers

Snail mail....

[bulbul]

When facts and stats dry up' date=' you have no other option than to resort to smilies.[/quote'] what facts...you first made stat which suits you...i showed a counter stat...then u started to blame me and go back again to the Superior bowling again... what else i do?

[Precambrian]

Sehwag faced better bowling attack than Sachin ICC ranking points WI bowlers yesterday http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/ranking/odi/bowling/ Rampaul=631 Roach=587 Sammy=512 Total rating points =1730 SA bowlers on that day: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/d...h=02&year=2010 Steyn=615 Kallis=476 Langeveldt=540 Total= 1631

Going by your exact logic: Total rating points of the seven bowlers used by WI in the match - 587 (Roach) + 631 (Rampaul) + 512 (Sammy) + 401 (Andre Russell) + 128 (Sunil Narine) + 391 (Pollard) + 374 (Samuels) = 3024 Average rating = 3024/7 = 432 (4 out of the 7 bowlers used are not in the top 100, and they bowled 28 overs among themselves). (Viru faced those 'Not in the Top 100' bowlers for 26.3 overs, and faced Roach+Sammy+Rampaul for 20 overs only). Total rating points of the bowlers used by SAF in that match - 615 (Steyn) + 465 (Parnell) + 462 (Van der Merwe) + 540 (Langeveldt) + 325 (Duminy) + 476 (Kallis) = 2883 Average rating = 480.5 (Also, out of the 6 bowlers used, 5 were in the Top 10 players that week bowling 45 overs among themselves) So, see who had a better bowling strength? (I also wonder why you measured bowling strengths by picking 3 bowlers each randomly rather than choosing the whole unit)

:two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

[Precambrian]

Snail mail....

Yeah suits as well...

[Magneto]

Very Correct . He was deliberately trying to keep Sachin away from the strike ' date=' hitting boundaries here and there during initial balls of the over and taking singles on the last ball to keep the strike . Only when Amla saved a certain boundary in the last over Sachin got the strike back .[/quote'] And in the 48th over, he played 4 balls of Langeveldt scoring only 2. :mad: Good he connected some of the balls in the last 2, otherwise ... :mad: :mad: He was just standing and slogging ... and played SIX dot balls in the last three overs. :omg:

[Magneto]

what facts...you first made stat which suits you...i showed a counter stat...then u started to blame me and go back again to the Superior bowling again... what else i do?

I am not blaming you or anyone :-) I am just saying that a sample of 20 balls in an innings of about 150 balls is more fair. People will naturally slow down when they see an obstacle, and different people will have different obstacles. Anyway, all this anti-Sachin heat is turning me into an srt-fanatic, which I don't wish to become. I just wish to retain my objectivity and watch the game. (Let me now sit back and appreciate a brilliant Younis Khan century under trying circumstances). :beach:

[vvvslaxman]

You should rather compare economy rates of bowlers if that's of any use. If we have to compare bowling, against SA, Sachin faced 45 overs from 5 bowlers who were ranked in the Top 100 then (and 5 overs from Duminy who wasn't in the Top 100) Here, against WI, Sehwag faced just 20 overs from 3 bowlers who are ranked in the Top 100 (and 26.3 overs from Pollard, Narine, Samuels and Russell who aren't in the Top 100) Basically, Sehwag butchered 4 hapless bowlers throughout who aren't in the TOP 100 in a world where international cricket is played by about 150 people in a year. :P

I agree.. Sachin faced a better attack. But don't undermine Sehwag's innings because of attack. Roach was seriously quick. Also Viru laid the same South African attack to waste in Chennai in Tests.

[b555]

lol this is the only place where people would argue which 200 is better for god sake, other countries don have batsmen who have hit 175 or even 150 for that matter

[b555]

lol damn I forgot

2nd time i am seeing u forgetting things :P

OK then I'd say: Saeed Anwar inng was more faataastic than 200 & 219 B->

ya ya we all know it

[Magneto]

I agree.. Sachin faced a better attack. But don't undermine Sehwag's innings because of attack. Roach was seriously quick. Also Viru laid the same South African attack to waste in Chennai in Tests.

These POVs are for the anti-Sachin brigade. Look at my Viru's 250 prediction :yay: in the match thread. We all know that Viru is indeed the Rajnikant of cricket.

[bulbul]

These POVs are for the anti-Sachin brigade. Look at my Viru's 250 prediction :yay: in the match thread. We all know that Viru is indeed the Rajnikant of cricket.

even what we wrote also for Sachin Fanatics....Nothing against Sachin :giggle:

[Magneto]

even what we wrote also for Sachin Fanatics....Nothing against Sachin :giggle:

So basically it's now about non-fanatics taking sides and fighting it out, as the fanatics sit back and watch Wah!

[bulbul]

So basically it's now about non-fanatics taking sides and fighting it out, as the fanatics sit back and watch Wah!

:giggle:

[zen]

Sachin - 180 to 200 (16 Balls) Sehwag - 180 to 200 (9 balls) next set of numbers plz :winky:

190 to 200 :P

[akshayxyz]

From 168 to 201, Sehwag scored 33 of 20 balls . From 168 to 200, Sachin scored 32 of 19 balls. Almost identical stats, but we still prefer to see it a little differently.

Sachin - 180 to 200 (16 Balls) Sehwag - 180 to 200 (9 balls) next set of numbers plz :winky:

So - that means Sehwag 'slowed' down from 168-180...explain?.. there have to be such windows of high and slow strike rates in such a long innings - you can't just keep hitting every ball...also, do you realize that fielding team also puts extra effort in restricting boundaries near such milestones. Overall - I do not see much difference between the two innings - SRT's was pure chance-less knock, and Sehwag's was as daring as always. and I have mentioned earlier - in terms of brutality, Shane Watson's 185* is miles ahead of both of these.

[akshayxyz]

When facts and stats dry up' date=' you have no other option than to resort to smilies.[/quote'] that has always been the story, people start with some ridiculous imaginary claims/comparisons, and when presented with cold hard facts, they either resort to smilies or some other ridiculous ****...

[Jersey #10]

and I have mentioned earlier - in terms of brutality, Shane Watson's 185* is miles ahead of both of these.

This. Shane Watson's inning was totally brutal. Sehwag got many boundaries from fluke/cheap shots over several occasions. Again, Thanks Sammy:dance: The ground was super small too. The hits which seemed to have gone too high but didn't have distance were landing 20 rows back :haha: cut, edge, in the air ...everything was going to the boundary in Sehwag's case. He could have closed his eyes and he would have made that 219 on that day. It was just meant to be.

[zen]

Sachin fanboyz :facepalm: we are comparing 200 vs 219 but now a new argument is being put in desperation 185* more brutal than 219, thus 200 > 219 :hysterical:

[akshayxyz]

Sachin fanboyz :facepalm: we are comparing 200 vs 219 but now a new argument is being put in desperation 185* more brutal than 219, thus 200 > 219 :hysterical:

abey dhakkan, did u even watch that innings? 15 4s and 15 6s...185 off 96 balls!, while *chasing* a total of 229. Only a retard like you can undervalue such an innings. That was the innings of the attitude - "who is next!".