Lurker Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 So you want a 4th Innings 100 and you want SRT to carry his bat ... is that your definition of a classy knock ? If so you can take away VVS and KP from that list right now ... if not pls clarify. PS: This is not a rhetorical post ... I just want to convert it into a stat. BB arent you doing the cardinal danger here? Class and stats rarely go together. A classy innings is more a semblance of guts, scoring at the time when needed, leading your team to victory, inspiring your team to do the unthinkable. How would you put it in stats? xxx
Bumper Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 So you want a 4th Innings 100 and you want SRT to carry his bat ... is that your definition of a classy knock ? If so you can take away VVS and KP from that list right now ... if not pls clarify. PS: This is not a rhetorical post ... I just want to convert it into a stat. Not really. This is not something u can get stats for. How do you quantify pressure or the odds faced by the batsmen ? KP's 158 won England the Ashes. Laxman's 281 helped us turn around the series. Both defied all probability (the latter faced bigger odds). Dravid's 233 faced similar odds. If Tendulkar has played such a knock, in his career, we dont have to look for it. It will stare at your face. Unfortunately he doesnt have any. But he had plenty of opportunities to repair that blot in his career, tho. The fact that he hasnt done it, in such a long career, cannot be a coincidence. It tells me something about this man's character.
Lurker Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 ^^ Hmm I personally find the two - stats and class - not tangible together so not sure if I can really give you any requirements. Plus I dont want to give you anything for the heck of it as it would involve work on your part. Lets see if someone else gives you some pointers.
The Outsider Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Pietersen's 158 at the Oval is not fit to shine the boots of Tendulkar's 136 at Chennai.
Bumper Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 KP's 158 won England the Ashes. As for quanitification, i dont know how to quantify the pressure & odds factor. I guess the best way to do this would be to look at series defining/match defining 50s & 100s score card by score card. I dont think this can be automated.
The Outsider Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Didn't Tendulkar's 155* win India the "Ashes" or his 123 again win us the "Ashes"?
Ram Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Bumper, Consider this situation. If either Joshi or Kumble or Srinath got India the runs reqd for the victory in chennai test , would you have found it ok if i added sachin's 136 along with Lara's 153 and Laxman's 281 ?
Bumper Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 We've been thru all this many times before. 136 has all the qualifications for a "classy" knock, but falls short. It would have been great if we won/saved the test or the series. A (failed) job half done = NOT done
Ram Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 The point i was trying to make was , If healy had held on to that catch or any of the Indian tail enders made those 12 runs , then we wouldnt be talking on the lines we do now. Essentially , we have allowed the powers of fate/luck to decide the legacy of batsman.
Bumper Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Didn't Tendulkar's 155* win India the "Ashes" or his 123 again win us the "Ashes"? 155, 123 pale in significance compared to other knocks i listed. Where is the degree of difficulty ? 155: 1) Aussie team has been beaten to pulp in India for 30 odd years. Losing a test to them more than winning it would be the surprise. The odds are no where near comparable 2) Atleast if the bowling attack were good, the degree of difficulty would be comparable. 155 was against a no-namer attack 3) Am not sure 155 was a dig-us out of a hole knock. I believe it came on the back of a great start. So even the pressure factor is not comparable. 123: One word. West Indies, muahahaha! They are only better than the Bangladesh & Zimbabwe. The degree of difficulty is hardly comparable
Bumper Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Bumper, Consider this situation. If either Joshi or Kumble or Srinath got India the runs reqd for the victory in chennai test , would you have found it ok if i added sachin's 136 along with Lara's 153 and Laxman's 281 ? Ifs and buts dont work in a 20 year career spanning 140 tests. Are u telling me that Tendulkar is so unlucky that he has been unfairly denied more no. of games, his due victory than anyone else ? A great player would have found a way to win a game inspite of these limitations ? Help me out here, does Dravid play for a diff team ? How did he end up with those great knocks ?
The Outsider Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 It's futile Sriram. Some posters here have bought into the media hype and definition of a "matchwinner" and forgotten the essence of a team sport. They also seem to have lost grasp of the simple concept of causality ie. when a batsman is batting he does not know the result of the match beforehand. That mentions are made of Ponting's 117 and Inzamam's 138 as matchwinning knocks and Tendulkar's 248 and twin centuries are cast aside as minnow bashing is sacrilege. If Ponting and Inzamam or their team mates had shown an aptitude for a fight earlier they would not have had to play those innings with their a$$ on fire. I find it pretty funny how people find the idea of first lighting a rocket up your a$$ and then jumping into a pond a greater achievement than not having allowed that rocket to light up at all.
Ram Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 Ifs and buts dont work in a 20 year career spanning 140 tests. Are u telling me that Tendulkar is so unlucky that he has been unfairly denied more no. of games' date=' his due victory than anyone else ? A great player would have found a way to win a game inspite of these limitations ? Help me out here, does Dravid play for a diff team ? How did he end up with those great knocks ?[/quote'] Fair point. Agree with what you say.
The Outsider Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 123: One word. West Indies, muahahaha! They are only better than the Bangladesh & Zimbabwe. The degree of difficulty is hardly comparable Didn't know McGrath, Gillespie, and Warne play for the West Indies. 155: 1) Aussie team has been beaten to pulp in India for 30 odd years. Losing a test to them more than winning it would be the surprise. The odds are no where near comparable Just because England have been cr@pping against Australia takes away from the knock? 2) Atleast if the bowling attack were good, the degree of difficulty would be comparable. 155 was against a no-namer attack Again causality. Warne was not a big but huge name before that tour and there was the talk of him destroying India on spinning tracks. That he could never come close to doing it, is a lot of credit to that knock 3) Am not sure 155 was a dig-us out of a hole knock. I believe it came on the back of a great start. So even the pressure factor is not comparable. We were trailing by 80-90 runs on the first innings in a low scoring match.
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