Sir john Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 1999 Surpassing a 501, a 375, a 277 or a 213 takes some doing, but this humble 153 not out against Australia in Barbados was the stuff of genius. At one point West Indies had been 98 for 6 in the first innings, still 392 behind Australia, but Brian Lara's performance - nobody else on either side made 40 in the second innings - led them to 311 for 9 and an unforgettable one-wicket victory. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63839.html
zen Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Probably the best test batsman of his generation! He hardly changed his game and also went out with a bang against Pak :hatsoff:
Sir john Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Last test series where windies look strong.
SLICKR392 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 At one point West Indies had been 98 for 6 in the first innings, still 392 behind Australia, but Brian Lara's performance - nobody else on either side made 40 in the second innings - led them to 311 for 9 and an unforgettable one-wicket victory. Stunning. :hatsoff:
gakgupta Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I always debate with myself so as to who is better; sachin or lara.......my brain says sachin and heart says brain ......My ego wouldn't support as i am huge fan of sachin but i like lara
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 This was one of the finest innings I've ever seen ( i still rate the 281 better) and definitely in my top 5. But this innings cannot help but make me think of Sachin's incredible 136 against Pakistan, in the same year. One one side, you have Lara, chasing 310 odd runs at Barbados, a pitch on the bouncier side of things, against an ATG Aussie lineup boasting McGrath, Gillespie, Fleming and Warne. On the other, you have Tendulkar, chasing 271 at Chennai, a turner of a pitch, against an ATG Paki lineup of Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, with Afridi and Nadeem Khan providing able secondary spinner options. Both batsmen lead a one-man show against the odds. India were at one point 5-82, 190 runs behind and virtually dead. Tendulkar, ably supported by Mongia, dragged India towards a position of hope, going from 5-82 to 5-218 before Mongia was dismissed, just 53 runs shy of victory. At one point, WI were at 5-105, more than 200 runs behind and also virtually dead, before Jimmy Adams got together with Lara and dragged West Indies to 5-238. Both batsmen ( Lara and Tendulkar) were attacked aggressively by the two bowling sides the whole innings, knowing fully well that if they got out, they'd win the game ( as demonstrated by Pakistan's win after Tendulkar's dismissal). Both batsmen played assuredly, Tendulkar more so than Lara ( as Tendulkar gave only one chance- at 136, while Lara played and missed quite a few before he got to 10). But both of them finally wilted under the unending pressure. Tendulkar finally gave an edge to Saqlain, which was pouched up by a gleeful Wasim Akram at slips. Game over India. Lara also wilted, gave a chance at 141 (IIRC) off of Fleming's bowling. Mark Waugh of all people ( one of the foremost slippers ever) spilled a dolly. Lara went on to hit the winning runs and an epic victory was scripted. yet, this one slight difference in detail - a catch caught/catch spilled by the opposition, was the only difference between the two knocks- resulted in 153* being ranked the greatest innings ever and the 136 not even featuring in the top 100. And that was the time i lost all faith in the idea of ranking innings by some statistical parameters.
zen Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 yet, this one slight difference in detail - a catch caught/catch spilled by the opposition, was the only difference between the two knocks- resulted in 153* being ranked the greatest innings ever and the 136 not even featuring in the top 100. You are writing as if Sachin never got chances and never had the opportunity to capitalize on dropped catches in 200 tests that he played .... Lara has quite a few gems that were played in the losing cause - for example his performance in SL. Imagine where would those 100s be ranked if WI had won in SL I watched that Sachin's inning live on TV and it was a great knock. Probably one of my favorite Sachin knocks. For some reason, when the crossing line came near, he started to have cramps. That's one thing I found frustrating about Sachin that in pressure situations/games the chances of something happening (cramps, getting out, etc.) were high. For e.g. when VVS hit that 281, I felt like he could go on and on. With Sachin, you feel that he could get out anytime and thus you will find a lot of fans actually praying for him rather than enjoying his innings
Muloghonto Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 You are writing as if Sachin never got chances and never had the opportunity to capitalize on dropped catches in 200 tests that he played .... Lara has quite a few gems that were played in the losing cause - for example his performance in SL. Imagine where would those 100s be ranked if WI had won in SL I watched that Sachin's inning live on TV and it was a great knock. Probably one of my favorite Sachin knocks. For some reason, when the crossing line came near, he started to have cramps. That's one thing I found frustrating about Sachin that in pressure situations/games the chances of something happening (cramps, getting out, etc.) were high. For e.g. when VVS hit that 281, I felt like he could go on and on. With Sachin, you feel that he could get out anytime and thus you will find a lot of fans actually praying for him rather than enjoying his innings No, i am not saying any such thing. To be honest, Lara never again played an innings approaching 153* either. Those kind of innings are once in a lifetime innings and more than one is super duper lucky zone. I am talking about how that one little detail - a missed catch vs a completed catch is the difference maker between the greatest innings the world has ever seen and an innings not even being worthy of a top 100 knock. That is the point of my gripe, how ridiculous those rankings are.
zen Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I am talking about how that one little detail - a missed catch vs a completed catch is the difference maker between the greatest innings the world has ever seen and an innings not even being worthy of a top 100 knock. That is the point of my gripe, how ridiculous those rankings are. True, but that's how games are decided too. If I am not wrong, Kapil also gave a difficult chance in the 90s on his way to that 175* (Greatest ODIs innings by an Indian). Talking about ODIs, Sachin was dropped in one of the two (or may be both) great innings he played in Sharjah against Aus. In one game, even though Ind lost, it qualified for the final because of that Sachin inning and that inning (143?) is still rated amongst the best. Ranking inning can be tricky but at the end of the day what matters is how your team and fans feel about the performances
zen Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 PS talking about great innings (esp. one man shows), this inning by Dave Houghton should rank amongst the best too --> 142 vs NZ - 1987 World Cup Unfortunately Zim lost by 3 runs chasing 243 to win. Houghton made 142 of 239!
Muloghonto Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 True' date=' but that's how games are decided too. If I am not wrong, Kapil also gave a difficult chance in the 90s on his way to that 175* (Greatest ODIs innings by an Indian). Talking about ODIs, Sachin was dropped in one of the two (or may be both) great innings he played in Sharjah against Aus. In one game, even though Ind lost, it qualified for the final because of that Sachin inning and that inning (143?) is still rated amongst the best. Ranking inning can be tricky but at the end of the day what matters is how your team and fans feel about the performances[/quote'] I am not disputing that. I am just disputing the scale of it. " Vae Victus" as the saying goes- the system rewards winners, as it should. There is no denying that a successful innings deserves more props than an unsuccessful one, even if the sole criteria for success was the opposition bolloxing it up when they had the chance as opposed to a perfect opposition that capitalizes on any chances it gets. Make no mistake, i am not saying that Tendulkar's innings should be considered greater than Lara's or even, as great. What i am saying is, the disparity is inexplicable. Had Tendulkar not gotten out, even if he had not added a single run to the tally (say Joshi swung his bat, hit a few sixes and the game is over), then his innings would undoubtedly be ranked in the top 10 innings ever played. As i noted in the comparison above, the only difference in circumstances of Lara and Tendulkar's innings was that Laras was at marginally tougher conditions ( moderately pace friendly conditions facing 3 awesome pacers as opposed to genuinely spinner friendly conditions facing one amazing spinner and two competent ones) and most importantly, the opposition spilled his catch in the closing minutes of the game. This one act- that the opposition dropped a dolly off of Lara in the last minutes of the chase while they did not for Tendulkar- being of such import that it is the difference between #1 and #100, is inexplicable and points to a system that is significantly flawed.
Sachinism Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I am not disputing that. I am just disputing the scale of it. " Vae Victus" as the saying goes- the system rewards winners, as it should. There is no denying that a successful innings deserves more props than an unsuccessful one, even if the sole criteria for success was the opposition bolloxing it up when they had the chance as opposed to a perfect opposition that capitalizes on any chances it gets. Make no mistake, i am not saying that Tendulkar's innings should be considered greater than Lara's or even, as great. What i am saying is, the disparity is inexplicable. Had Tendulkar not gotten out, even if he had not added a single run to the tally (say Joshi swung his bat, hit a few sixes and the game is over), then his innings would undoubtedly be ranked in the top 10 innings ever played. As i noted in the comparison above, the only difference in circumstances of Lara and Tendulkar's innings was that Laras was at marginally tougher conditions ( moderately pace friendly conditions facing 3 awesome pacers as opposed to genuinely spinner friendly conditions facing one amazing spinner and two competent ones) and most importantly, the opposition spilled his catch in the closing minutes of the game. This one act- that the opposition dropped a dolly off of Lara in the last minutes of the chase while they did not for Tendulkar- being of such import that it is the difference between #1 and #100, is inexplicable and points to a system that is significantly flawed. Its a very valid point. The same reason I, and many others rate Tendulkar's 90 odd vs Pakistan at Centurion very highly. He got out with quite a way to go, Dravid and Yuvraj finished it off, had India managed to lose that match, would that innings be rated so highly?
velu Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 This thread has potential :agree: waiting for MTCs entry to give my unbiased opinion
Sir john Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 i dont watched this series but remember following series in newspapers nd i listened next pak windies 1999-00 tour by radio lara always played with full potenial nd never changed his gears. both series was great series
.svg.png.5ab3ce86b8af4a762132502c85a350db.thumb.png.8a4574a4556391f1df10aa68196a2ab0.png)
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