sachins 97 against pakistan in wc 2003

[skv.sagar]

hi
i want to remind u about sachins 97 against pakistan in wc 2003 its stupendous and simply superb and it showed the real master to pak trio wasim waqar and the last shoib.
wat do u feel?!!!

 

[Dasa]

I also feel it was stupendous.

 

[Swervy]

is this not the innings that Richard doesnt rate as brilliant, because he gave a chance???


but yeah, if memory serves me correctly, it was a gem

 

[Richard]

The most salient feature of that innings was a simple catch given to Abdur Razzaq on 47.

A stupendous 47 it may have been, but it wasn't as good as it's made-out.

 

[Evermind]

absolutely stupendous!

 

[Nishant]

it was a really good innings! But are u hoping that he'll do the same this time around or what? (just trying to figure out the point of the thread)

 

[Richard]

If he does the same this time around it's likely to be remembered as a pretty 40-odd, because it's highly unlikely he'll get missed again in the same circumstances.

 

[Sanz]

hi
i want to remind u about sachins 97 against pakistan in wc 2003 its stupendous and simply superb and it showed the real master to pak trio wasim waqar and the last shoib.
wat do u feel?!!!

It was 98. And Richards does say stupid things all the time and here he proves it with his first post in this thread, because ...

a. It was not a simple catch
b. It was not the most salient feature of the inning
c. Second chance theory is stupid.

 

[Richard]

a. It was not a simple catch

It was a catch that any fool should take.

b. It was not the most salient feature of the inning

It was.

c. Second chance theory is stupid.

No-one here has ever mentioned such a thing.

 

[Sanz]

It was a catch that any fool should take.

There is a difference between should and Could. You clearly have no idea (as always) of what you are talking about.

 

[adharcric]

 

[C_C]

No-one here has ever mentioned such a thing.

Are you this much in denial or is this your idea of sarcasm ???
2nd chance theory is bollocks and its been explained to you many times why it is so.

 

[C_C]

There is a difference between should and Could. You clearly have no idea (as always) of what you are talking about.

Problem is when someone talks about 'should've could've might've', they usually are losing touch with reality where those words have very little value.

 

[Sanz]

No-one here has ever mentioned such a thing.

No-one=Richard ?

 

[RolledOver]

hi
i want to remind u about sachins 97 against pakistan in wc 2003 its stupendous and simply superb and it showed the real master to pak trio wasim waqar and the last shoib.
wat do u feel?!!!

Great innings by one of the greatest in modern time, who had to combat,Akhtar, Pakistan team and nandrolone in the match to win the game for India.

Umar Gul and Rana should be prepared from the same treatment, but not necessarily by the same player

 

[Dasa]

Great innings by one of the greatest in modern time, who had to combat,Akhtar, Pakistan team and nandrolone in the match to win the game for India.

Umar Gul and Rana should be prepared from the same treatment, but not necessarily by the same player

Seriously, give it a rest with the anti-Pakistani crap.

 

[Richard]

No-one=Richard ?

Nope, no-one has ever mentioned in seriousness anything known as a "second-chance" theory.

 

[Richard]

Problem is when someone talks about 'should've could've might've', they usually are losing touch with reality where those words have very little value.

Might belongs in a very different place from should and could.

 

[Richard]

Are you this much in denial or is this your idea of sarcasm ???
2nd chance theory is bollocks and its been explained to you many times why it is so.

Except I've never promulugated such a theory...

 

[Richard]

There is a difference between should and Could. You clearly have no idea (as always) of what you are talking about.

I've far more of an idea than you, chum...