tendulkar not a match winner>>Imran

[marc71178]

The way you are arguing, if someone made all 200 runs and took all ten wickets you would still say, but he needed the fielders to field the ball otherwise it would have been all four runs, and the runner to run between the wickets. :rolleyes:

ROFLMAO!

 

[Richard]

ROFLMAO!

??????????

 

[Richard]

Erm in that era, a team chasing 230 would do well to win.

You seem extremely adverse to allowing individuals to take any credit.

No, quite the opposite - cricket is a team game played by individuals. You cannot credit a team for doing something well - you can only credit an individual, or a group of individuals for doing something well together (although the best I can think of is a three-man juggled catch or a two-man boundary stop)
I am simply adverse to the term match-winner - it muddies the waters and is simply an attempt to disfigure figures. By saying "Lara's more of a matchwinner than Tendulkar" people are trying to prove something that is disproved by the difference of 5 in their averages.
Contributions to matches, whether winning or drawing, are very rarely not summed-up by averages.

 

[Richard]

Erm in that era, a team chasing 230 would do well to win.

Even so, it was perfectly possible, however unlikely, for England to chase it down.
Had they done so Richards' innings could not accurately be described as "match-winning".

 

[Richard]

buddy, match winning means if it was anyone else apart from Richards playing for WI that day, the way the batsmen played, WI would have barely made 150.

Also, as far as bowling is concerned, first of all if it was not for Richrads a paltry total would have been quite manageable, the bowling did not seem that exceptional that day.

And another way of looking at it, most bowling attacks in the world that day could have defended such a big total.

Match winning does not mean, he could play and win alone against a team of eleven. But it means if that person was replaced by another performer with a performance similar to other team members that day, how would the team have fared. That guys unique impact on the game. Ofcourse if he is a batsman he would require some bowling to win the match.

The way you are arguing, if someone made all 200 runs and took all ten wickets you would still say, but he needed the fielders to field the ball otherwise it would have been all four runs, and the runner to run between the wickets. :rolleyes:

Yes, exactly! The point is no-one can make such a contribution to a match as the phrase "match-winning" suggests.
The point is not that Richards' innings was any less good than anyone says, simply that it and anything else cannot be accurately described as "match-winning".
The only way someone can be described as a match-winner is if they've bowled, caught-and-bowled or trapped lbw all 10 batsmen, then scored every run in boundaries without anyone else facing a ball.
Once, for instance, for a laugh, we at my old club Ponteland decided to play a match, a proper, scored match, where one bowler bowled every delivery (6 legit. balls which got 3 bowleds and 3 c&bs, 4 no-balls off which he ran the non-striker out) and then hit the one ball he received for six to win the match. Then he could describe himself as a match-winner.

 

[Craig]

??????????

Richard,

ROFLMAO means R- Rolling O- On F- Floor L- Laughing M- My A- Arse O- Off

If you want to know anymore abbrevations used in forum typing, just give me your e-mail adress as I have a whole heap of them saved on my computer.

 

[Richard]

Thank you, Craig.
I consider myself enlightened.

 

[marc71178]

??????????

Roy made a good point about your opinion.

 

[Richard]

Roy made a good point about your opinion.

Yes - and I didn't understand what you meant by ROFLMAO. I was asking if someone would tell me what it stood for, and Craig kindly told me.
If you take a look, I think rG has a good point.

 

[iamdavid]

Richard,

ROFLMAO means R- Rolling O- On F- Floor L- Laughing M- My A- Arse O- Off

If you want to know anymore abbrevations used in forum typing, just give me your e-mail adress as I have a whole heap of them saved on my computer.

IMO , I got a feeling it's something obvious??

 

[luckyeddie]

So - if Holding, Garner and co. (Richards included) had bowled tripe and England had chased down the 273, would the 183* have been a matchwinning performance then?
No, it wouldn't.

I've heard of splitting hairs, but you are taking it to ridiculous proportions.

The phrase exists in general parlance, and Richards' knock is probably accepted by 99.9% of cricket lovers as a 'match-winning' one.

If there were no such thing as a 'match-winning' performance as you surmise, it's hardly likely that the term would exist.

 

[Richard]

I've heard of splitting hairs, but you are taking it to ridiculous proportions.

The phrase exists in general parlance, and Richards' knock is probably accepted by 99.9% of cricket lovers as a 'match-winning' one.

If there were no such thing as a 'match-winning' performance as you surmise, it's hardly likely that the term would exist.

Look, ed, I'm a hair-splitter, I can't stand inaccurate things that could be more accurate. I hate it when people write things like:
Vaughan
Trescothick
Butcher
(etc.)
or any other opening partnership with the opener that always faces first put down at number-two.
Don't ask me why, it just really gets on my nerves. I once met some guy who hated people writing "dont" and "Ive" etc.
As for "match-winning", the fact that it's a term accepted by 99.99% of cricket-lovers is even more infuriating, as I've explained why I think it's an inaccurate one.
Match-turning is fine, but match-winning further muddies already translucent waters.

 

[Legglancer]

Look, ed, I'm a hair-splitter, I can't stand inaccurate things that could be more accurate. I hate it when people write things like:
Vaughan
Trescothick
Butcher
(etc.)
or any other opening partnership with the opener that always faces first put down at number-two.
Don't ask me why, it just really gets on my nerves. I once met some guy who hated people writing "dont" and "Ive" etc.
As for "match-winning", the fact that it's a term accepted by 99.99% of cricket-lovers is even more infuriating, as I've explained why I think it's an inaccurate one.
Match-turning is fine, but match-winning further muddies already translucent waters.

Buddy, I dont mean tobe offensive but I clearly think you need some psychological evaluation as you are clearly missing the point !:rolleyes:

Hey lucky ..... what about match losing performances ? personnaly for me the 1999 WC final comes to mind where Allen Donald Messed up totally !

 

[Neil Pickup]

No, Klusener shouldn't have started running...

Roy, I believe the scenario you talked of happened in a Scottish Minor County match in the 1930s. A Bermudan Professional playing for Aberdeenshire took all the wickets and made all the runs...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It was completely Klusener's fault.

 

[Richard]

Klusener turned that match twice (and it had twisted and turned enough already); he cut 16 off 8 balls to 1 off 4, then he messed it all up by running when he shouldn't have.
The match, and with hindsight of Pakistan's play in the final, the whole Cup, was in his hands, and he chucked it away.
I have nightmares about it to the day.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Dont we All:!( :!( :!(

 

[Top_Cat]

Look, ed, I'm a hair-splitter, I can't stand inaccurate things that could be more accurate. I hate it when people write things like:
Vaughan
Trescothick
Butcher
(etc.)
or any other opening partnership with the opener that always faces first put down at number-two.
Don't ask me why, it just really gets on my nerves. I once met some guy who hated people writing "dont" and "Ive" etc.
As for "match-winning", the fact that it's a term accepted by 99.99% of cricket-lovers is even more infuriating, as I've explained why I think it's an inaccurate one.
Match-turning is fine, but match-winning further muddies already translucent waters.

And the hair just keep on getting thinner.......

Dude, I'm a professional chemist (analytical chemistry was my specialty) and Ed was a physicist. You don't get more pedantic than guys like us. I've had arguments with people over whether Linux is pronounced "lin-ux" or "line-ux"; I've had arguments with other chemists over whether I put 0.0002g or 0.00021g in a standard solution; I've abused biochemists for mispronouncing the word 'ligand' (they say 'lye-gand' and us chemists say 'ligg-nd').

Even with all that in mind I'd never take the position that you're taking in that Viv's innings was a 'match-turning innings' and not a 'match-winning innings'. Unless Viv took all twenty wickets in the match, scored all the runs and took all the catches, of course he merely contributed to the win but it was such big contribution to the win, I think we can safely say that 'match-turning' and 'match-winning' are one and the same.

I suppose next you'll say that he didn't deserve 189* because Michael Holding batted well above that expected of a number 11 and so Viv didn't 'deserve' the last 50 of his runs...............

 

[gibbsnsmith]

And the hair just keep on getting thinner.......

Dude, I'm a professional chemist (analytical chemistry was my specialty) and Ed was a physicist. You don't get more pedantic than guys like us. I've had arguments with people over whether Linux is pronounced "lin-ux" or "line-ux"; I've had arguments with other chemists over whether I put 0.0002g or 0.00021g in a standard solution; I've abused biochemists for mispronouncing the word 'ligand' (they say 'lye-gand' and us chemists say 'ligg-nd').

Even with all that in mind I'd never take the position that you're taking in that Viv's innings was a 'match-turning innings' and not a 'match-winning innings'. Unless Viv took all twenty wickets in the match, scored all the runs and took all the catches, of course he merely contributed to the win but it was such big contribution to the win, I think we can safely say that 'match-turning' and 'match-winning' are one and the same.

I suppose next you'll say that he didn't deserve 189* because Michael Holding batted well above that expected of a number 11 and so Viv didn't 'deserve' the last 50 of his runs...............

ROFLMAO

 

[Richard]

And the hair just keep on getting thinner.......

Dude, I'm a professional chemist (analytical chemistry was my specialty) and Ed was a physicist. You don't get more pedantic than guys like us. I've had arguments with people over whether Linux is pronounced "lin-ux" or "line-ux"; I've had arguments with other chemists over whether I put 0.0002g or 0.00021g in a standard solution; I've abused biochemists for mispronouncing the word 'ligand' (they say 'lye-gand' and us chemists say 'ligg-nd').

Even with all that in mind I'd never take the position that you're taking in that Viv's innings was a 'match-turning innings' and not a 'match-winning innings'. Unless Viv took all twenty wickets in the match, scored all the runs and took all the catches, of course he merely contributed to the win but it was such big contribution to the win, I think we can safely say that 'match-turning' and 'match-winning' are one and the same.

I suppose next you'll say that he didn't deserve 189* because Michael Holding batted well above that expected of a number 11 and so Viv didn't 'deserve' the last 50 of his runs...............

I'd say the preparation of standard solutions, and the suchlike as whether the basic solution should go in the burette or the acidic one, is very similar. As long as the solution is labelled properly (ie 2.1x10-4Molar or 2.0x10-4Molar) it doesn't matter what it is. You can still titrate it. Likewise, alkilis attack glass and so you don't leave them in a burette for too long otherwise they (the burettes) won't make accurate measurements.
"Match-winner" is an inaccurate phrase as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't say it's any more pedantic to quibble over it's use than to argue over important chemical or physics-related (and no, I'm not claiming that just because I did them both at AS-level I know more than you or ed) subjects.
And as for the subject of Holding batting for longer than might be expected, you can't go being silly like that. Chances are transparent and obvious; if you give a chance, you should be out. But you can't go "if"ing and "what if"ing. A chance is a simple thing. Average stays at the crease are quite another (and I don't even know what Holding's average ODI stay at the crease was, in either minutes or balls).