Sachin=GOD Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Hr got a triple century against SA when Shaun Pollock and Allan Mcdonald were still there and Kallis was in his prime and many other great retired SA players. :hmmm:
vamos_rafa Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Hr got a triple century against SA when Shaun Pollock and Allan Mcdonald were still there and Kallis was in his prime and many other great retired SA players. So? Is getting a triple century the sole criteria of a batsman being great?
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 So? Is getting a triple century the sole criteria of a batsman being great? Not many batsmen get triple centuries. Even great batsmen have failed to get that 300 score.
Sachin=GOD Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Not many batsmen get triple centuries. Even great batsmen have failed to get that 300 score. So? a batsman doesn't become great simply by scoring a triple hundred while a great batsman doesn't become ordinary simply because he has not scored a triple hundred.
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 So? a batsman doesn't become great simply by scoring a triple hundred while a great batsman doesn't become ordinary simply because he has not scored a triple hundred. But that doesn't mean you can discredit the players who have gotten triple centuries. A bad player can never score a 50 much less a triple century.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 But that doesn't mean you can discredit the players who have gotten triple centuries. A bad player can never score a 50 much less a triple century. Akram scored 257* once which is higher than Tendulkar's highest score.
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Akram scored 257* once which is higher than Tendulkar's highest score. Wasim Akram?
Ultimate_Game Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Wasim Akram? Yup, the same one who averages in teens but has a high score of 257* IIRC
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Yup' date=' the same one who averages in teens but has a high score of 257* IIRC[/quote'] Oh ok. It was against Zimbabwe in 96. He scored against a minnow. Plus he wasn't a poor tailender. He could bat. Like Shane warne. Much similar to ashwin. He wasnt an actual all rounder but a hitter/slogger.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Oh ok. It was against Zimbabwe in 96. He scored against a minnow. Plus he wasn't a poor tailender. He could bat. Like Shane warne. Much similar to ashwin. He wasnt an actual all rounder but a hitter/slogger. Zim attack of 90s was better than some of the bowling attacks these days. Point being a one-off knock doesn't mean he's great player. Even Agarkar has a 100 at Lord's while Tendulkar doesn't. It's not a handful of big score which makes someone great but consistency.
vamos_rafa Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Not many batsmen get triple centuries. Even great batsmen have failed to get that 300 score. Wait a minute. Gayle has a lower average than Kalicharan(since you picked his avg). Also, Gayle is neither an impact player in tests, his SR is 59. Yes, it's great that he has a 300 but that does not make him greater than so many players.
The Outsider Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 OP came, OP saw, OP conquered with his 2 post trolling leading to a burgeoning thread.
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Zim attack of 90s was better than some of the bowling attacks these days. Point being a one-off knock doesn't mean he's great player. Even Agarkar has a 100 at Lord's while Tendulkar doesn't. It's not a handful of big score which makes someone great but consistency. Gayle is consistent. He's scored 2 triple centuries. 12 centuries and 54 fifties.
Crookbond Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Oh ok. It was against Zimbabwe in 96. He scored against a minnow. Plus he wasn't a poor tailender. He could bat. Like Shane warne. Much similar to ashwin. He wasnt an actual all rounder but a hitter/slogger. The same Zimbabwe won a Test series against Pakistan.
Era of Gold Posted March 16, 2013 Author Posted March 16, 2013 Do you need a triple to be great? No. Does having a triple make you great? No. But when we're having a debate about the greatest of all time, things like that matter.
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 The same Zimbabwe won a Test series against Pakistan. Against a pak team that was undergoing reforms.
Crookbond Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Against a pak team that was undergoing reforms. which means Wasim Akram's century was a great deal. He is better than Tendulkar.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Gayle is consistent. He's scored 2 triple centuries. 12 centuries and 54 fifties. 3 Ws and the "black" Bradman to go with Richards, Haynes, Greenidge, Lara and Lloyd.
SLICKR392 Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 Do you need a triple to be great? No. Does having a triple make you great? No. But when we're having a debate about the greatest of all time, things like that matter. No, it does not.
I6MTW Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 which means Wasim Akram's century was a great deal. He is better than Tendulkar. If that was true then Matthew Hayden>>Tendulkar.
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