Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
If I remember correctly, Saeed Anwars 190 odd was against a team which is barely above club standard.....:rolleyes:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Agarkar Century Argument, again...
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
- Status
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
A chanceless century when the team was already doomed to defeat, the bowlers weren't needing to try 100% and there absolutely no pressure - wow!Choora said:But a greater joke is that none other than Ajit Agarkar scored a chanceless hundred against England at their own back yard
As AA's biggest fan on this forum, even I have to say that innings was not a result of good batsmanship.
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
Well that's a good comeback on the Jayasurya comment anyway.
Anyhow, if Laxman had stayed, given Agarkar's performance, India may have pulled one out of the hat.. so it's not that Agarkar's performance was without merit in the context of the match. All results were still possible.
Anyhow, if Laxman had stayed, given Agarkar's performance, India may have pulled one out of the hat.. so it's not that Agarkar's performance was without merit in the context of the match. All results were still possible.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
No mate, that was one (admittedly rather flukey) 100 scored when the pressure was off. The real joke is that India have had 2 scores of 180+ scored against them when the pressure was on!Choora said:But a greater joke is that none other than Ajit Agarkar scored a chanceless hundred against England at their own back yard
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
Yeah two hundreds by two of the top ODI players of the last decade and bit.
Jayasurya actually slammed a double or something in England to win a one off test against you at home!
"hardly a chanceless knock"
How lame. What were the English team doing not taking the chances?
Incidentally, for such an attacking knock (what, were tehre 16 fours? I dont remember), it was quite chanceless.
Agarkar and Laxman took the score to around 300 from 170/6.
I didnt think when Agarkar got in that we'd win at all.
But considering the manner in which they creamed the attack, and how Agarkar got a ton, Laxman should have made a double! That would have been one of the most terrific wins in recent times for us, though the attack was substandard.
Anyhow, if we're trying to decide which attack sucks, from the innings of Jayasurya, Anwar, and Agarkar (though I dont understand why we're doing that :rolleyes: ) then surely England is the deserved winner.
Aussies got this guy for something like 6 ducks and he scores a century against England in England! That's gotta count for more than two of the best ODI players ever (with 30 odd centuries between them in ODIs alone) scoring big tons against us.
Jayasurya actually slammed a double or something in England to win a one off test against you at home!
"hardly a chanceless knock"
How lame. What were the English team doing not taking the chances?
Incidentally, for such an attacking knock (what, were tehre 16 fours? I dont remember), it was quite chanceless.
Agarkar and Laxman took the score to around 300 from 170/6.
I didnt think when Agarkar got in that we'd win at all.
But considering the manner in which they creamed the attack, and how Agarkar got a ton, Laxman should have made a double! That would have been one of the most terrific wins in recent times for us, though the attack was substandard.
Anyhow, if we're trying to decide which attack sucks, from the innings of Jayasurya, Anwar, and Agarkar (though I dont understand why we're doing that :rolleyes: ) then surely England is the deserved winner.
Aussies got this guy for something like 6 ducks
and he scores a century against England in England! That's gotta count for more than two of the best ODI players ever (with 30 odd centuries between them in ODIs alone) scoring big tons against us.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Lame? I watched the entire innings and he just kept on edging the ball over the slips...so I suppose that makes it chanceless because he edged it too high? Come on. It was hardly a classic innings, he chanced his luck and it paid off, fair enough to him, the pitch was a belter.
Sometimes you can just come across a guy who pulls off a good score and you can't work out how to get him out, it happens, that was one of those innings. It shows how much England were in control by the fact that it was still an easy win. If you want a pretty much chanceless innings under huge pressure in a loosing cause then take off your rose tinted glasses and look up a certain Nathan Astle. 222 off 153 balls! To top it off he played it on a green-top against quality swing bowlers. AA played his on a dead pitch against knackered bowlers including Flintoff who was carrying a groin injury. I don't see the Kiwis gloating about that innings. The fact is that they still lost the match. Anyway we were too in awe of Astle's innings to comment on anything else.
Sometimes you can just come across a guy who pulls off a good score and you can't work out how to get him out, it happens, that was one of those innings. It shows how much England were in control by the fact that it was still an easy win. If you want a pretty much chanceless innings under huge pressure in a loosing cause then take off your rose tinted glasses and look up a certain Nathan Astle. 222 off 153 balls! To top it off he played it on a green-top against quality swing bowlers. AA played his on a dead pitch against knackered bowlers including Flintoff who was carrying a groin injury. I don't see the Kiwis gloating about that innings. The fact is that they still lost the match. Anyway we were too in awe of Astle's innings to comment on anything else.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
As for England having a substandard attack...let me remind you of the performances by some of your "star" bowlers in that series:
Harbhajan: 12 wickets at 34.16
Kumble: 14 wickets at 36.00
Zaheer: 11 wickets at 43.90
AA: 8 wickets at 61.00
Nehra: 5 wickets at 63.80
Quality attack??? I think not...
That series ended a long time ago, it ended a draw so no one won. We have gone over and over this enough times for it to become mind-numbing. Every time we have come to the conclusion that AA chanced his arm and it came off, and fair play to him, that both attacks suffered, that both teams were basically neck and neck but with England slightly ahead on the bowling front.
If you guys keep feeling the need to pull out AA's innings whenever the Indian team is questioned then oh dear, it was not even a turning point of a game, England still won the game comfortably. If that is all you can come up with then seriously don't bother. But if you want to play then I could mention Andy Flower who plays for little Zimbabwe but averages 94.83 from 9 Tests and 41.16 from 35 ODIs against guess who...
Just leave this boring repetitive arguement alone, it's been done again and again and again...
Harbhajan: 12 wickets at 34.16
Kumble: 14 wickets at 36.00
Zaheer: 11 wickets at 43.90
AA: 8 wickets at 61.00
Nehra: 5 wickets at 63.80
Quality attack??? I think not...
That series ended a long time ago, it ended a draw so no one won. We have gone over and over this enough times for it to become mind-numbing. Every time we have come to the conclusion that AA chanced his arm and it came off, and fair play to him, that both attacks suffered, that both teams were basically neck and neck but with England slightly ahead on the bowling front.
If you guys keep feeling the need to pull out AA's innings whenever the Indian team is questioned then oh dear, it was not even a turning point of a game, England still won the game comfortably. If that is all you can come up with then seriously don't bother. But if you want to play then I could mention Andy Flower who plays for little Zimbabwe but averages 94.83 from 9 Tests and 41.16 from 35 ODIs against guess who...
Just leave this boring repetitive arguement alone, it's been done again and again and again...
Last edited:
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
ha look who's talking.
How did this arguement come up in the first place?
When people were discussing Bangladesh's and Kenya's attacks, you chaps came up with Jayasurya's and Anwar's knocks against India to say Indian attack is as good as a club side's :rolleyes:
I just used your own arguement. If what you said is true, then England's attack is truly substandard isnt it? Afterall Duckarkar as some call him hit a century in England against England? And in a test match?
If two of the best ODI players of the last decade scoring big knocks against us means we are as good as a club side, England should give up cricket.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And fair play to Agarkar? Then why use the arguement that the knock was chancy in the first place?
:rolleyes:
Neck and neck but slightly ahead on bowling front.. Sure. It's like figuring out which hippopotamus is thinner as far as that bowling in that series is concerned!
England were a better side till Indian batsmen got going that series. After that they didnt have many answers. So I guess you won part of the game and we won another part. Luckily the result reflects that appropriately. And the overall result that we beat you 1-0 and drew 1-1 is also a just reflection of the strengths of the two sides in test cricket.
It's a couple of you guys that are boring and repetitive.
How did this arguement come up in the first place?
When people were discussing Bangladesh's and Kenya's attacks, you chaps came up with Jayasurya's and Anwar's knocks against India to say Indian attack is as good as a club side's :rolleyes:
I just used your own arguement. If what you said is true, then England's attack is truly substandard isnt it? Afterall Duckarkar as some call him hit a century in England against England? And in a test match?
If two of the best ODI players of the last decade scoring big knocks against us means we are as good as a club side, England should give up cricket.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And fair play to Agarkar? Then why use the arguement that the knock was chancy in the first place?
:rolleyes:
Neck and neck but slightly ahead on bowling front.. Sure. It's like figuring out which hippopotamus is thinner as far as that bowling in that series is concerned!
England were a better side till Indian batsmen got going that series. After that they didnt have many answers. So I guess you won part of the game and we won another part. Luckily the result reflects that appropriately. And the overall result that we beat you 1-0 and drew 1-1 is also a just reflection of the strengths of the two sides in test cricket.
It's a couple of you guys that are boring and repetitive.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
Yes, it's me, Rik.full_length said:
Choora mentioned AA's innings as he has a history of doing
Ok, maybe I exaggerated it a bit but 180+ is a huge score and would have to contain a lot of boundaries. And where do boundaries come from? That's right...good shots and poor bowling.
No because you seem to forget I mentioned that sometimes you come across some guy who just plays an innings in which you just can't get him out. England won the game anyway, which is something you can't seem to accept.
Have you suddenly turned into Navjot Sidhu?
Because it was chancy but he pulled it off. A century is a fine achivement and well done to him for scoring it, but the constant mentioning of it as a superb innings that made fun of England is not only pure rubbish, it's also taking the gloss off the fact that he managed the feat.
No it means that India's batting was slightly better whilst England's bowling was slightly better. India's bowlers suffered a hammering by Vaughan, Dravid kept out some quite impressive bowling in the last few tests to score a very impressive 100 and 200. Then there is Tendulkar's 193 which helped India win at Leeds. So overall England's bowling was slightly better than India's but India's batting was slightly better than England's, as befits a drawn series.
No mate, the fact that England lost 1-0 in India is not a fair result of how the team played. Any team missing their best batsman and wicketkeeper and bowler is going to struggle. The fact that England played out of their skins and gave India a hard time in the last 2 tests with a rookie keeper, pace attack and 2nd spinner just shows that 1-0 was not a true result. The score of 1-1 in England was fair, but other than that victory at Leeds I can't really say I noticed India being in front. In fact the drawn games were exactly that, a stalemate in which neither team could get the better of the other. Just think what would have happened if Vaughan was in the form he is now, when he was in India...we didn't even have his runs to help us then...
I rest my case. You just can't leave this arguement alone can you? So when I find fault with it you have to go off an insult some of the members. I can't say it surprises me, as it's happened every single time this arguement has taken place.
Last edited:
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Still needed 568 though!full_length said:
And if you didn't think that, why did you say that when he was there all results were possible?
Oh, and a small point, reviewing this thread, Anwar was brought up by a West Indian, yet Choora refers back to that innings against England in a pressureless situation (unlike opening in an ODI)
Bazza
International 12th Man
...and somewhere I noticed Jayasuriya's innings in a test match against us. Well
A) That was in 1998, and of that side, only Butcher and Stewart remain (Butcher of course had an 18 month gap in there somewhere).
B) The pitch if you did not see that match (which appears to be the case) was a belter, disintegrating into a dusty turner. A bit like a typical Sri Lankan/Indian pitch in fact.
C) We're talking about ODIs here. The World Cup. Ring any bells?
"Aussies got this guy for something like 6 ducks and he scores a century against England in England! That's gotta count for more than two of the best ODI players ever (with 30 odd centuries between them in ODIs alone) scoring big tons against us."
Again how long ago since he got those ducks. He's described as an all rounder, so it's not unreasonable to expect him to get a few runs occasionally. Personally I think Saqlain Mushtaq is the worst batsman to get a test century, but lets try and stay on topic shall we?
"But considering the manner in which they creamed the attack, and how Agarkar got a ton, Laxman should have made a double! That would have been one of the most terrific wins in recent times for us, though the attack was substandard."
WOW I was wrong, Indian supporters really have been brainwashed into thinking their side can win every game and is the best on the planet. Agarkar got a ton because nobody cared. And they still don't. Outside India at least.
Laxman should have made a double? In that case Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Sehwag should have all got triples, and therefore it was a terrible performance by India not to get 1500+.
That would have been one of the most terrific wins in recent times for you? If anyone scored 568 to win a test match from 170-6, it would be the greatest run chase of all time. By a country mile. I mean 406 I think is the best ever score to win, and I don't think that was done from 170-6.
Face it England outplayed you in India and in England and you did well to come out of both series with anything. We even prepared helpful pitches for you and you still struggled. Well what more do you want?
A) That was in 1998, and of that side, only Butcher and Stewart remain (Butcher of course had an 18 month gap in there somewhere).
B) The pitch if you did not see that match (which appears to be the case) was a belter, disintegrating into a dusty turner. A bit like a typical Sri Lankan/Indian pitch in fact.
C) We're talking about ODIs here. The World Cup. Ring any bells?
"Aussies got this guy for something like 6 ducks and he scores a century against England in England! That's gotta count for more than two of the best ODI players ever (with 30 odd centuries between them in ODIs alone) scoring big tons against us."
Again how long ago since he got those ducks. He's described as an all rounder, so it's not unreasonable to expect him to get a few runs occasionally. Personally I think Saqlain Mushtaq is the worst batsman to get a test century, but lets try and stay on topic shall we?
"But considering the manner in which they creamed the attack, and how Agarkar got a ton, Laxman should have made a double! That would have been one of the most terrific wins in recent times for us, though the attack was substandard."
WOW I was wrong, Indian supporters really have been brainwashed into thinking their side can win every game and is the best on the planet. Agarkar got a ton because nobody cared. And they still don't. Outside India at least.
Laxman should have made a double? In that case Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Sehwag should have all got triples, and therefore it was a terrible performance by India not to get 1500+.
That would have been one of the most terrific wins in recent times for you? If anyone scored 568 to win a test match from 170-6, it would be the greatest run chase of all time. By a country mile. I mean 406 I think is the best ever score to win, and I don't think that was done from 170-6.
Face it England outplayed you in India and in England and you did well to come out of both series with anything. We even prepared helpful pitches for you and you still struggled. Well what more do you want?
First of all, Agarkar WAS described as an allrounder long ago, now he can be atmost described as a handy batsmen.Bazza said:
Also Ajit happens to posses record number of ducks as far as Indian cricketers are concerned, it was just a case of one bad series against Australia! And yeah we can expect a few runs from Ajit, but 100 n.o is hardly few!!
Look who's talking, you and your other mates have a history at having a go after Indian bowling, yes i had mentioned Ajit's ton that he scored against England on previous occasion too, to restore some sanity and remind you that Englan'd too doesn't have a potent attack.And who is obsessed with Ajit on this forum? certainly not Indian fans, its none other than you people..Ohh now i know why? after that Ton you people can't get Ajit off ur mindRik said:
- Status