Mr. Wicket Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Are you talking about his 248*? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Very good ,carefully choosing words like ''maiden over in a test match''. well the reason Tendulkar never able to score a kind of innings which Dravid played in Rawalpindi ,or sehwag in multan ,Dravid in Adelaide and plenty more is his ''attitude '' .probably Dravid deserves such innings for his selfless attitude . serioiusly wat the hell u talking about...stick to one topic...how do dravid and sehwag's innings relate to sachin's maiden over????? and you dont deserve anything....you make it happen....and thats wat sachin did today. besides dravid is more than capable of scoring his own runs and doesnt need your sympathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandan Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I just cannot believe that one of the most wonderful knock by a batsman, scored when the team has been under such tremendous pressure, is being criticised here!!! Could you all not see the opposition's strategy? Sachin could just not go for the boundaries because of the foeld placongs and the line of bowling by the bowlers. Hari believes that Sachin could have forced for twos, but for that the bowlers were just not providing the width. What did you all want? That he tried to play big shots and perished? I'm just not able to fathom that such passionate cricket fans like fineleg didn't pick this simple strategy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riya Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 No sane person can bash such a wondeful knock .But he could have finished that in a more convincing manner than this . It was quite unexpected from a player of his class .I don't know i was confused about that . Taking a single in the first delivery and exposing a number 11 to Brett lee ,was a part of strategy ? For some reason,.i can't digest that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 I just cannot believe that one of the most wonderful knock by a batsman, scored when the team has been under such tremendous pressure, is being criticised here!!! Could you all not see the opposition's strategy? Sachin could just not go for the boundaries because of the foeld placongs and the line of bowling by the bowlers. Hari believes that Sachin could have forced for twos, but for that the bowlers were just not providing the width. What did you all want? That he tried to play big shots and perished? I'm just not able to fathom that such passionate cricket fans like fineleg didn't pick this simple strategy!! Chandan, Firstly, his knock is not being criticized in entirety. Batting when he was with RPS and I.S. is being criticized. You are wrong in assuming we are asking for a risk-free strategy. Ofcourse SRT would have had to take risks, but thats required when you are batting with a #11 tailender. If he played big shots there is a chance of quick runs, there is a chance of getting out. Thats part of the package. Assuming and letting your #11 (be it a Ntini or a Ishant.Sharma or a Kaneria) do the scoring will more often than not fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandan Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Chandan, Firstly, his knock is not being criticized in entirety. Batting when he was with RPS and I.S. is being criticized. You are wrong in assuming we are asking for a risk-free strategy. Ofcourse SRT would have had to take risks, but thats required when you are batting with a #11 tailender. If he played big shots there is a chance of quick runs, there is a chance of getting out. Thats part of the package. Assuming and letting your #11 (be it a Ntini or a Ishant.Sharma or a Kaneria) do the scoring will more often than not fail. Sorry, fineleg. But if that risk won't bring you anything, will you take it? There was no way Sachin could have hit boundaries with that field setting or line of attack. So please explain what risk he could have taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riya Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 exposing a no 11 against lee is an excellent idea when edges and hoicks were flying to the boundary. Now that he is successful u can say that ,else he was yorked by Lee ?there is a possiblity for that also . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I give up. That idiotic sachin was obviously playing to increase his average from 55.39 to 55.41 and how could we all have missed that!! Not only selfish and mean but also scared of brett lee ...as he exposed ishant to face him instead of taking him on! I say drop this coward for the rest of this series!! now this is smart.... but i wud say its pathetic tht it took u so long.... :haha::haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riya Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Now u got emotional and gave up . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I just cannot believe that one of the most wonderful knock by a batsman, scored when the team has been under such tremendous pressure, is being criticised here!!! Could you all not see the opposition's strategy? Sachin could just not go for the boundaries because of the foeld placongs and the line of bowling by the bowlers. Hari believes that Sachin could have forced for twos, but for that the bowlers were just not providing the width. What did you all want? That he tried to play big shots and perished? I'm just not able to fathom that such passionate cricket fans like fineleg didn't pick this simple strategy!! nice post mate..sachin was on 69 when our tail was exposed(assuming kumble is an allrounder not a tailender)..if he managed to add 85 to his total at the end of the day....one could easily guess that he was doing way more than just rotating the strike in the middle.....he could have easily forced for twos, provided that ozzie fielders were as sloppy as ours......but why bother taking the suicidal route in the first place....not like ozzies wudnt have sniffed sachin's urgency to remain on strike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Sorry' date=' fineleg. But if that risk won't bring you anything, will you take it? There was no way Sachin could have hit boundaries with that field setting or line of attack. So please explain what risk he could have taken?[/quote'] Even the commentators were saying this Chandan: The worlds best batsman is letting the tailenders face the likes of Lee and S.Clark and MJ. That did not sound right at all, and the Aus commentators were correct in saying this. The risk that SRT shud have taken is to go over the top of the fielders (it was an in-out field). Such field can be there in ODIs and risks can and have been taken. Not like this is some out-of-the-world never seen before field setting by Ponting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riya Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 yes' date=' since i am a coward like sachin.[/quote'] when i was starting to live what were ur comments ? Now dear oh dear .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 He kept getting off the strike on ball 1 or 2 of the overs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riya Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 He kept getting off the strike on ball 1 or 2 of the overs. It was all part of a plan ,we are idiots ,so couldn't find that out .Leave it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandan Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Even the commentators were saying this Chandan: The worlds best batsman is letting the tailenders face the likes of Lee and S.Clark and MJ. That did not sound right at all, and the Aus commentators were correct in saying this. The risk that SRT shud have taken is to go over the top of the fielders (it was an in-out field). Such field can be there in ODIs and risks can and have been taken. Not like this is some out-of-the-world never seen before field setting by Ponting! Goodness me!! You think he could have gone over the top of the fielders with bowlers bowling that line and fielders on the boundary? Yes. the world has never seen a player going over the top of the fielders with that field placing, unless the player was totally insane. If the Australian commentators were saying this, then I'm glad that I don't have the Channel 9 feed so that I don't have to put up with their idiotic views. Harsha was surprised just a little in the beginning but he saw the light quickly. Unfortunately, you still can't see the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 ok chandan. if u want to think that way, then we'll agree to disagree. More often than not, u defend our players' actions. Maybe u trust them too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunny Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It's easy to say in hindsight that it was all a part of the strategy. Here's something that happened. i) IS had to play out 3 balls. He did but he played and missed a one showing some vulnerability. Then SRT takes a single off the 2nd ball of the next over. IS survives 3 balls and then edges one that falls short of the 1st slip. Another sign of vulnerability. Cricinfo commentator suggests that IS is looking really vulnerable out there. But, SRT decides to show faith in IS. Ok accepted he knows more about IS's batting. ii) SRT takes a single of the first ball this time. IS takes a single of the 2nd ball. Now it's the fifth ball of the over and the fielders come inside the circle. Isn't this the time to score a 4 (or at least try and score a boundary?) SRT already knows that he is gonna take a single of the first ball next over and IS will anyway have to bat 5 balls. So, why not go for a 4 now? Don't slog but show some intent. iii) Now IS has hit some 4s against Lee and Clark. So he has got some "confidence". Hogg comes on. Now, SRT decides that IS isn't good enough to play against Hogg so refuses a single. So, why not attack Hogg? Don't go for a six, but couldn't he try to hit a sweep instead of defending 5 balls in a row? There was a chance one such shot could fetch him a couple or a 4. SRT was bullheaded on not falling to Aussies' plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Maybe Chandan can rewind and watch some of the things you mentioned above ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Even the commentators were saying this Chandan: The worlds best batsman is letting the tailenders face the likes of Lee and S.Clark and MJ. That did not sound right at all, and the Aus commentators were correct in saying this. The risk that SRT shud have taken is to go over the top of the fielders (it was an in-out field). Such field can be there in ODIs and risks can and have been taken. Not like this is some out-of-the-world never seen before field setting by Ponting! buddy as the great one himself mentioned....it was easier for the tailenders to capitalize in the given scenario...had sachin performed his all too predictable cameo he would have been long gone trying to slog first 3-4 deliveries of every over and desperately trying to steal a single from the remaing deliveries.......in addition tailenders wud have served more as anxious survivors to defend watever comes their way rather than contribute anything with their bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandan Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Maybe Chandan can rewind and watch some of the things you mentioned above ^ I have watched every ball since lunch and everything is crystal clear in my head. I just don't need to rewind it. I was a littled puzzled in the beginning, but understood very quickly what was happening. I suppose you'll understand these things well too after watching cricket for few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts