• 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.

New Feature: The Greatest Test Innings

The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Burgey said:
Going by DOG's ratings, nearly one in ten of Bradman's test innings rates among the greatest of all time.

Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Ha ha, that's ridiculous. Class. Of. His. Own.

Graeme Pollock with better than one in every 15 of his is bloody impressive too.
 
H

hang on

State Vice-Captain
weldone 'conceded' that the indian bowling was better than the pak bowling? really!? must have missed that one, though i doubt it. the only person who mentioned that is u.

also, as i mentioned earlier, the indian bowling figures might have something to do with the fact that they were bowling to batsmen who were not as good as the indian ones. (additionally, wasn' t the pak attack taking wickets throughout both indian innings as opposed to the the indian bowlers taking wickets in heaps towards the end, after enough damage had been done? i seem to recall that prasad took a clutch of wickets long after pak had already made the game difficult for the indians....attributable, one could argue, to the usual pak collapses as much as his great skill as a fastman.)

also, to use a slightly different illustrative example regarding quality of attacks -- while steyn might not have had the best figures in the recent oz saf series, would u say that the australians or any other team, for that matter, would rather face steyn or other bowlers, say cummins or an. other, more often than not? quality is quality, especially if it involves people of the level of akram and co., who were still capable of magic spells.

the spells that waqar bowled where he took 2 wickets...of the openers..... for not too many runs in the second innings, the innings in question when tendulkar scored the 100, gainsays your assertion that he was just, what was it again, 'rank'.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
hang on said:
weldone 'conceded' that the indian bowling was better than the pak bowling? really!? must have missed that one, though i doubt it. the only person who mentioned that is u.

also, as i mentioned earlier, the indian bowling figures might have something to do with the fact that they were bowling to batsmen who were not as good as the indian ones. (additionally, wasn' t the pak attack taking wickets throughout both indian innings as opposed to the the indian bowlers taking wickets in heaps towards the end, after enough damage had been done? i seem to recall that prasad took a clutch of wickets long after pak had already made the game difficult for the indians....attributable, one could argue, to the usual pak collapses as much as his great skill as a fastman.)

also, to use a slightly different illustrative example regarding quality of attacks -- while steyn might not have had the best figures in the recent oz saf series, would u say that the australians or any other team, for that matter, would rather face steyn or other bowlers, say cummins or an. other, more often than not? quality is quality, especially if it involves people of the level of akram and co., who were still capable of magic spells.

the spells that waqar bowled where he took 2 wickets...of the openers..... for not too many runs in the second innings, the innings in question when tendulkar scored the 100, gainsays your assertion that he was just, what was it again, 'rank'.
Click to expand...
if you think he was not rank, it again shows you have only read statsguru and not watched the game. There are a lot of times a bowler bowls rank and picks up far more than just two wickets.


And secondly, Prasad took 6 for how many? You are making it as though he took 6 for 150. He took wickets at a critical situation coz otherwise India would have had to chase a HUGE score. He made the win possible, so again, it shows you have been reading scorecards than watching the game. Watching it live, it was obvious what an important spell of bowling it was. The reports called it "matchwinning" that night. So much for context... And yes, Prasad was skillful when it comes to bowling on those tracks. You don't have to be a "fastman" to do that, as has been amply proved over so many years.. FTR, Prasad did not take wickets towards the end. The end came COZ Prasad took those 6 wickets. He got them in 10 overs or so for 30 odd runs IIRC..


Yeah, the only reason Indian bowlers got wickets is Pak batsmen playing bad but of course, Indians can never play bad shots. So obviously Pak bowlers were bowling much better. On the one hand, you use stats (that weldone gave) to show Pak bowlers were better and on the other, you ridicule when I show you the same stats to indicate how India did indeed have the better bowlers over those two tests.. Talk about shifting goal posts. Anyways I wanted to end this with the last post, but I thought the point about Akram might lead to a more meaningful discussion. But obviously, it hasn't. Good Day to you. There is a reason the innings is rated where it is by most people and that is fair enough AFAIC.



On another note, DoG, how do Sachin's Perth and Old Trafford efforts rate? And the Bloemfontein one.. First day track, 60/4, Pollock in form.. Think it was a good enough knock to break 15?
 
Last edited:
NasserFan207

NasserFan207

International Vice-Captain
Would be interesting to see a list like this for bowling performances.

Also DOG, are pitch conditions taken into account at all? (I guess not since they would be hard to measure into a formulae like this)
 
H

hang on

State Vice-Captain
honestbharani said:
if you think he was not rank, it again shows you have only read statsguru and not watched the game. There are a lot of times a bowler bowls rank and picks up far more than just two wickets.


And secondly, Prasad took 6 for how many? You are making it as though he took 6 for 150. He took wickets at a critical situation coz otherwise India would have had to chase a HUGE score. He made the win possible, so again, it shows you have been reading scorecards than watching the game. Watching it live, it was obvious what an important spell of bowling it was. The reports called it "matchwinning" that night. So much for context... And yes, Prasad was skillful when it comes to bowling on those tracks. You don't have to be a "fastman" to do that, as has been amply proved over so many years.. FTR, Prasad did not take wickets towards the end. The end came COZ Prasad took those 6 wickets. He got them in 10 overs or so for 30 odd runs IIRC..


Yeah, the only reason Indian bowlers got wickets is Pak batsmen playing bad but of course, Indians can never play bad shots. So obviously Pak bowlers were bowling much better. On the one hand, you use stats (that weldone gave) to show Pak bowlers were better and on the other, you ridicule when I show you the same stats to indicate how India did indeed have the better bowlers over those two tests.. Talk about shifting goal posts. Anyways I wanted to end this with the last post, but I thought the point about Akram might lead to a more meaningful discussion. But obviously, it hasn't. Good Day to you. There is a reason the innings is rated where it is by most people and that is fair enough AFAIC.



On another note, DoG, how do Sachin's Perth and Old Trafford efforts rate? And the Bloemfontein one.. First day track, 60/4, Pollock in form.. Think it was a good enough knock to break 15?
Click to expand...

what self serving pap! u came into this argument when i pointed out to someone else that afridi's knock wasn't better than tendulkar's. and that playing akram and co. was a different kettle of fish to playing srinath and co.

i never once said that the indians did not also play bad shots. where did u get that from? your usual hysterical take on things? similar to misrepresenting other people's points of view - weldone's in this case. for your information, i followed the match on cricinfo. and i watched all of the match later when i borrowed the tapes from an indian chum of mine.

waqar wasn't great but he was hardly rank. and secondly, akram was bowling very well. no two ways about that. not being able to bowl those kinds of balls - the ones to dravid - at will or with the frequency with which he used does not mean that he was easy to hit, something that u seem to suggest for some odd reason when u claim that he was easy to score of.

additionally, the prasad point - wickets in a clutch at the end - was to show that the pakistani bowlers did not have to take 6 wickets at a time in order to have bowled well. they took wickets uniformly throughout the indian innings, something that u, in your hysterical defensiveness, fail to understand. yet again. but i am ceasing to be surprised by it now.

once again, the genesis of this unfortunate riff was your misconstrual of my ranking of his innings (the claim about blatantly wanting to make the innings more than it was...yet another example of an hysterical assertion in one of your comments). i just wanted to say that this innings was an excellent one and certainly better than afridi's. not that it was his greatest knock. or even necessarily a legendary one. but one that couldn't be brushed aside with a blithe 'afridi's was much better'.

and stop thinking that u are the only one who has ever watched a game of cricket live or spoken to some cricketers. your statements on here give the lie to your claim that u have actually watched that match.
 
Last edited:
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I dunno.. apparently Waqar bowled this good spell that me and all the match reports totally missed. I mean, on the 3rd day last session, there was little else to write about. You would have thought at least someone would mention it.. :)
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
hang on said:
what self serving pap! u came into this argument when i pointed out to someone else that afridi's knock wasn't better than tendulkar's. and that playing akram and co. was a different kettle of fish to playing srinath and co.

i never once said that the indians did not also play bad shots. where did u get that from? your usual hysterical take on things? similar to misrepresenting other people's points of view - weldone's in this case. for your information, i followed the match on cricinfo. and i watched all of the match later when i borrowed the tapes from an indian chum of mine.

waqar wasn't great but he was hardly rank. and secondly, akram was bowling very well. no two ways about that. not being able to bowl those kinds of balls - the ones to dravid - at will or with the frequency with which he used does not mean that he was easy to hit, something that u seem to suggest for some odd reason when u claim that he was easy to score of.

additionally, the prasad point - wickets in a clutch at the end - was to show that the pakistani bowlers did not have to take 6 wickets at a time in order to have bowled well. they took wickets uniformly throughout the indian innings, something that u, in your hysterical defensiveness, fail to understand. yet again. but i am ceasing to be surprised by it now.

once again, the genesis of this unfortunate riff was your misconstrual of my ranking of his innings (the claim about blatantly wanting to make the innings more than it was...yet another example of an hysterical assertion in one of your comments). i just wanted to say that this innings was an excellent one and certainly better than afridi's. not that it was his greatest knock. or even necessarily a legendary one. but one that couldn't be brushed aside with a blithe 'afridi's was much better'.

and stop thinking that u are the only one who has ever watched a game of cricket live or spoken to some cricketers. your statements on here give the lie to your claim that u have actually watched that match.
Click to expand...
Didn't you say Prasad took wickets towards the end of the Pak innings? all 6 of them? If there were 6 wickets to go, how was it anywhere near the end? And you are blaming me for not watching the game when I tell you things based on what I watched AND based on the stats of the game and the series... You have just got it in your head that Sachin came up against this great attack when the fact is it was a pretty poor attack in the first place. Just take a look at the no. of rank shots INdia played to get out to understand how ordinary that bowlling line up was.


I am not even gonna reply to your other points as I feel things have gone far enough.
 
H

hang on

State Vice-Captain
honestbharani said:
Didn't you say Prasad took wickets towards the end of the Pak innings? all 6 of them? If there were 6 wickets to go, how was it anywhere near the end? And you are blaming me for not watching the game when I tell you things based on what I watched AND based on the stats of the game and the series... You have just got it in your head that Sachin came up against this great attack when the fact is it was a pretty poor attack in the first place. Just take a look at the no. of rank shots INdia played to get out to understand how ordinary that bowlling line up was.


I am not even gonna reply to your other points as I feel things have gone far enough.
Click to expand...
didn't once say that he took all his wickets at that point. though, if i did, i am wrong and misspoke. again, u are nitpicking.....one can quite correctly refer to the end of an innings separately from the wickets issue.....it could be based on the time and the number of overs. for example, when india collapsed in the second test this past summer losing their last 6 wickets in double quick time, surely it was ok to refer to the last hour of their batting as the end of the innings.

it was not a poor attack that india played. it wasn't one at its peak, but it certainly was not a poor one. and certainly not one that was inferior to the indian attack. i repeat, yet again, that i am not on a crusade to anoint tendulkar's innings as something that it is not (a motive that u seem to have ascribed to me for some odd reason, to judge by some of your comments). but i am not, at the same time, going to sit tight while people blithely dismiss it with asinine comments (not yours, but the original one) of the sort that i had initially responded to when i said that tendulkar played a better attack than afridi. (without even needing to mention that the match situation and the 4th innings element were also factors that elevated his innings above that of afridi's).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top