What is the best century at Chepauk?

[Lord]

dean jones was vomitting and made a 100 was that in chennai ?

yes. Border almost bullied him into completing the innings :cantstop:

yes.Border was asked by Manju about that n he said that all he told Deano was 'Dont Worry,go off .We'll get a tough Queenslander guy in.the next guy was a Queenslander' So Deano just batted on for pride:giggle: Deano ended up in hospital after that AFAIK

[StatsRock]

Sunny 236 came after India were reduced to nought for two and 5/92. The bowling attack was formidable. It is not just a 4th day knock' date=' India could have faced follow on and innings defeat without that knock. Marshall was at his deadly best and tried his best to dismantle Gavaskar but Gavaskar would not budge.[/quote'] I dont disagree that SMG came in at 0/2 to face the new ball(I was listening to the commentary). But then, it was the kind of pitch where only the new ball can make an impact. 1 of the 92/5 was Yadav. If you play yourself in, you will make a big score. Which is why Roberts and Holding took 1-166(Holding got 30w in the other 5 tests). For a threatening pitch, look at the totals at Calcutta/Ahmedabad of that series. An innings defeat against WI's 313 would require scores under 155 both innings, no way on that pitch where roughly 250/3 was scored on Day 5.

[Crookbond]

Tendulkar 136 vs Pakistan. I don't think any of the other innings were as good as that one.

[Marut]

I dont disagree that SMG came in at 0/2 to face the new ball(I was listening to the commentary). But then, it was the kind of pitch where only the new ball can make an impact. 1 of the 92/5 was Yadav. If you play yourself in, you will make a big score. Which is why Roberts and Holding took 1-166(Holding got 30w in the other 5 tests). For a threatening pitch, look at the totals at Calcutta/Ahmedabad of that series. An innings defeat against WI's 313 would require scores under 155 both innings, no way on that pitch where roughly 250/3 was scored on Day 5.

I was listening to the commentary as well. Incidentally, I happened to live in Tamil Nadu (at Madurai) at that time and this particular match was widely publicized a month in advance, and the TNCA even distributed scoresheets in every house in our cricket crazy colony and I was meticulously marking the score card ball by ball by listening to the radio commentary. Nostalgic days, eh? Agree that new ball was difficult to face, but it was not the kind of pitch you could get your eye in easily. From 0/2 India could have recovered to a score better than 92/5 because the scoring rate was not fast and the new ball effect would have weaned off by the 20th over, with India only about 50 odd on the board. But they still lost plenty of wickets from there and were precariously placed at 5/92. Only Gavaskar and Shastri could put up a fight. Shastri during those days was a gritty fighter (remember his becoming the champion of champions in Australia?). Kirmani's innings came at a time when WI bowlers had probably become too tired as Gavaskar sent them on a leather hunt for 120 overs. Marshall is not the kind of bowler you can actually settle against, whatever your stay at the crease, regardless of the wicket, and he was a well established bowler in 83/84. He is a danger to any batsman at any point of time whatever the match condition. WI bowlers some times hunt in a pack and sometimes in isolation, so I would not read much into the poor figures of Roberts and Holding. Had one of Roberts or Holding run into the same form as Marshall, India would have been dismissed cheaply, like they were at Ahmedabad or Calcutta. Gavaskar was just brilliant during that test, survived a few early scares though. 451/8 was not an unusually high Indian score during that series, India had made 464 and 463 earlier at Delhi and Mumbai. At Mumbai Holding took a 5fer while other bowlers were not successful. At Delhi, Holding took four wickets while Marshall and Davis went without wickets. As I said, you cannot read much into the poor figures of Holding at Chennai. Gavaskar's 236 was brilliant because the next highest score was only 72 and five Indian batsmen got digit scores - so it was no means a pitch or of bowlers where you can flourish without lots of application. And if I remember right, Sidhu nearly got dismissed twice by Marshall when he arrived at the crease, that would have been horrible (0/3) if it had happened.

[vvvslaxman]

Those days there were no bouncer restrictions. They targeted Kirmani instead of Sunny. They keot on bowling bouncers to him. He was so short that he didn't have problem ducking incessantly.

[panther]

Tendulkar 136 vs Pakistan. I don't think any of the other innings were as good as that one.

Afridi was better.

[putrevus]

Afridi was better.

it sure was lot better.

[Muloghonto]

My top centuries from Chepauk: 1. Tendulkar's 136 against Pakistan, which is possibly one of the top 3 knocks Tendy has played in Test cricket. 2. Gavaskar's 236 vs Marshall, Holding & Roberts. 3. Sehwag's 155 vs McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Kasprowicz 4. Dean Jones' 210 5. Sehwag's 319 vs Steyn, Morkel & Ntini

[Crookbond]

Afridi was better.

No.

[adi B]

viru`s 319,martyn`s 100 were the best

[putrevus]

Kapil Dev's 119 in the tied test was the best innings given the state of the match.After being pummeled for 574 and coming to crease at 200 odd for five wickets and losing his last recognized batsman soon. He batted with tail and those days Indian tail rarely wagged added almost 150 runs with the tail.

[skindia]

murali vijay's century in IPL is best.

[panther]

No.

Typical Indian bias

[Crookbond]

Typical Indian bias

Typical Pakistani denial.

[coffee_rules]

Bhogle spoke about a 97* from GRV against WI in 1975 being the best ever on this pitch, Dhoni's innings compared to that.

[vvvslaxman]

Bhogle spoke about a 97* from GRV against WI in 1975 being the best ever on this pitch' date=' Dhoni's innings compared to that.[/quote'] Yes It is one of the most highly rated Test innings by an Indian.

[The Outsider]

Yes It is one of the most highly rated Test innings by an Indian.

If I am not wrong it's the highest ranked non hundred innings in the Wisden rankings.

[StatsRock]

I was listening to the commentary as well. Incidentally' date=' I happened to live in Tamil Nadu (at Madurai) at that time and this particular match was widely publicized a month in advance, and the TNCA even distributed scoresheets in every house in our cricket crazy colony and [b']I was meticulously marking the score card ball by ball by listening to the radio commentary. Nostalgic days, eh?

Full marks to you for sincerity! Oh yeah, I remember the ad in the Hindu showing the ticket rates for the various gates and stands at Chepauk. I was playing gully cricket on Day 4 morning and the commentary from the houses reached on to the street. Nostalgia indeed, Sir! I remember Sidhu taking 2 off the first ball coming in at 0/2 and also the incident when Winston Davis was hit by a stone.

But they still lost plenty of wickets from there and were precariously placed at 5/92. Only Gavaskar and Shastri could put up a fight.

I still think that having Day 1 rained off took the pressure off India. They basically made 193/2 on Day 4 and one of the wicket was the NW - so I dont think Windies fancied their chances a lot on Day 4. If you remember the Kanpur/Ahmedabad/Calcutta defeats, Windies were running through the Indian 2nd innings on Day 4 instead of looking at a first innings score of 200/5. I agree Day 3 evening and Day 4 morning sessions were tough but after lunch on Day 4, India were out of danger, with Gavaskar around ~70 not out.

Marshall is not the kind of bowler you can actually settle against' date=' whatever your stay at the crease, regardless of the wicket, and he was a well established bowler in 83/84. He is a danger to any batsman at any point of time whatever the match condition.[/quote'] That I agree with. If you check the 1989 Sydney Test which Windies lost comprehensively, he had 5-29 off 31 overs in Aus' innings of 401 - mind boggling!!! Windies had run through an Indian innings in 30 or 60 ovs in that 83-84 series but it was very much a remote possibility from Day 4 onwards on that Chepauk test as they'd scored only 313 when they batted. Roberts retired after this Test. He wasnt selected for the first 4 tests due to some issues with the selectors. At Calcutta he took 4w but they were all lower order wickets.

[Muloghonto]

Typical Indian bias

:haha::haha:

[Muloghonto]

I still think that having Day 1 rained off took the pressure off India. They basically made 193/2 on Day 4 and one of the wicket was the NW - so I dont think Windies fancied their chances a lot on Day 4. If you remember the Kanpur/Ahmedabad/Calcutta defeats, Windies were running through the Indian 2nd innings on Day 4 instead of looking at a first innings score of 200/5. I agree Day 3 evening and Day 4 morning sessions were tough but after lunch on Day 4, India were out of danger, with Gavaskar around ~70 not out. That I agree with. If you check the 1989 Sydney Test which Windies lost comprehensively, he had 5-29 off 31 overs in Aus' innings of 401 - mind boggling!!! Windies had run through an Indian innings in 30 or 60 ovs in that 83-84 series but it was very much a remote possibility from Day 4 onwards on that Chepauk test as they'd scored only 313 when they batted. Roberts retired after this Test. He wasnt selected for the first 4 tests due to some issues with the selectors. At Calcutta he took 4w but they were all lower order wickets.

I still think you are doing Gavaskar a disservice here. First off, Gavaskar and a few other Indians had an interesting relationship with the west Indies team- he wasn't well liked by them ( Vengsarkar was another one) and this lead to some interesting personal duels between the two sides. I've met a few of the former West Indian greats and its quite clear that they held Gavaskar in high professional regard, with often the opposite in personal regard. As such, you can bet your bottom dollar that when Gavaskar was onfield, Holding or Roberts didnt quite give up trying, regardless of match situations. Same applied for Vengsarkar too, particularly when Marshall was bowling. In anycase, the 'fearsome-foursome' tag of the caribbean bowling attack is largely a myth. Yes, they were, easily, the best pace bowling attack to take the field for the better part of the 70s and through the 80s but their 'greatest five' of that period- Holding,Roberts,Garner,Marshall and Croft played less than 10 tests together. As such, comments such as 'roberts was off his best' is neither here or there- the WI bowling attack evolved as such: Roberts being the lone ranger (the Clive Lloyd spin years)---> Roberts and Holding being a formidable pair, backed up by such quality players as Holder and Julien---> Rise of Croft and Holder-----> rise of Marshall. Between the rise of Holder & Croft to the rise of Marshall period ( 78-81), Roberts declined, shortly thereafter Holding declined and then Marshall-Garner ruled the roost for a few years with able backup from Walsh followed by Ambrose. The rise of Bishop lead to premature retiring of Marshall. Anyways, to cut a long story short, the point is, WI bowling attack was consistently world class throughout 1975/76-1999 period. For most of that time, especially through 1979-early 1990s, WI were clearly the best bowling attack of their time and one of the greatest ever fielded. But they never were 4 alltime great bowlers at their peak bowling away with ruthless passion- that is a bit 'overblown' part of the story.