Biggest chokers of all time!

[Choora]

Gavaskar accuses India


Ganguly is down and out
Indian cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar has lambasted the team as being the biggest chokers in the game.
India were hammered in the VB Finals against Australia, losing the second game by a humiliating 208 runs.

Gavaskar, writing in a newspaper column, said: "So ordinary and unedifying was the sight of the batsmen getting dismissed regularly that the tag of 'chokers in crunch matches' now belongs to them and not South Africa, who had monopolised it for a long time now."

India's top six batsmen managed just 74 runs during their seven-wicket defeat in the first final at Melbourne on Friday, and contributed only 51 in the second on Sunday.

"India's top order had been softened in Perth and hadn't recovered at all," Gavaskar wrote in the Hindustan Times.

South Africa have a reputation for caving in particularly against Australia, the most famous occasion being the 1999 World Cup semi-final when they looked certain to win but failed in the final over.

India's spineless batting against the hosts in the one-dayers took much sheen away from their performances in the preceding four-Test series, where they confounded critics with a creditable 1-1 draw.

 

[FRAZ]

Honestly speaking , Gavaskar got some point .

 

[masterblaster]

I agree with Gavaskar, as much as it hurts to say it.
We're often quite brilliant in preliminary rounds but quite ordinary when it comes to finals.

We're not far off, but its still a way to get there.

 

[Tim]

I think fitness was a key factor in the end also. In my opinion when it comes to fitness, India are short of the mark in that area.

 

[Don Ricardo]

With all due respect, i really cant see how the indians can be called 'chokers'- they are simply not good enough to outdo Australia, thats all. People say they are competitive with Australia and all this, but the simple fact is that they have only beaten Aus about twice in their last dozen games or so.

South Africa imo are the real chokers because they seem to find an uncanny knack of losing games (or tying them ) against australia when they are dominating and should really be winning them. The 2 finals losses in the CUB series in 97-98 when sth africa had won all 5 previous games against aus, as well as the world cup 99 double-capitulation, is clear evidence of this. Whether this trend will continue as the team undergoes generational change remains to be seen, but in the recent past the proteas are by far the most adept at taking the gas.

 

[Don Ricardo]

MR Ricardo I know you are right but , you know what I have been trying to speak the truth on this site for quite a few weeks and what I got , Warnings.... Iam inflamatory labeled , So please try to say yes when ever you see any BS from any country which has a large population and you know what in democratic sites like this majority matters not the truth . Thanx

If your other posts contain the same tone of simply trying to get up the indian fans' noses for no reason it does not surprise me that you are censured.

Stick to the topic and talk some sense.

 

[Pratters]

I dont think its choking which happens with the Indian team. Its lack of discipline which has been exposing them more in the finals than any other place. I wrote regarding this in a recent article

http://www.cricketweb.net/articles/EpZyFEZZpZPZWlivkl.shtml

I frankly dont believe in stuff like chokers tags and finals jinxed teams which were tags given to the South African team earlier and now is being given to the likes of India.

Its not that India's batting is 'spineless' as Gavaskar puts it in the article for their VB series performance. Its their lack of consistency. Brilliant one day, ordinary on another one.

 

[Swervy]

I frankly dont believe in stuff like chokers tags and finals jinxed teams which were tags given to the South African team earlier and now is being given to the likes of India.

Its not that India's batting is 'spineless' as Gavaskar puts it in the article for their VB series performance. Its their lack of consistency. Brilliant one day, ordinary on another one. [/B]

but you have to ask why are they do poorly in the games that count. The phenomenon of 'choking' does exist in many sports,and with cricket being a rather cerebral type of sport,cricketers are rather prone to it.....and by the looks of it..India especially

 

[age_master]

RSA are the biggest chokers of the last decade for mine

 

[Pratters]

but you have to ask why are they do poorly in the games that count. The phenomenon of 'choking' does exist in many sports,and with cricket being a rather cerebral type of sport,cricketers are rather prone to it.....and by the looks of it..India especially

Its not coz they 'choke' in the finals. Quite a lot of weaknesses do get eposed in earlier matches as well like the batting collapse India had vs Zimbabwe specially in Perth. In the finals, teams are exposed much more because of stiffer competition.

Some teams are also unlucky. I wouldnt say South Africa were huge chokers. They lost to the Windies in the quarters of the World Cup in 96.. not a final and a bad loss no doubt. The tie in the World Cup semis in 1999, I would attriubute that more to the brilliance of Warne than the choking of South Africa. Similarly, in other sports, you may think of Clijsters. She is a brilliant player but hasnt won a grandslam. Doesnt make her a choker. Just a wee bit unlucky IMO and brilliance from Henine some times.

 

[Jono]

Look at India's bowling line up that day. Pitiful, you can't expect to win a final against the best team in the world with those bowlers. Simple as that, whether they are chokers or not is irrelevant to Sunday's match in my opinion, they were just simply poor.

I think the term chokers is more relevant to the WC Final where they had what many thought was one of the best bowling line ups of the tournament, but all bowled badly on the day.

I think South Africa could possibly be called chokers the amount of times they have looked like beating Australia. Was it 1997 when they toured Australia under Cronje and beat Australia in the first final only to lose the second and third? I think they're the best example because going into the game they were the better team (IMO) but lost. On Sunday India went into the game an inferior team in the fielding and bowling departments.

 

[Sanz]

Well, Indian team is a choker in a sense that we dont even put up a decent fight. All the three/Four finals have been very one-sided and it could mean only one thing - Our Team CHOKED.

I didn't expect our team to beat Australia, but I didn't expect a surrender either.

 

[raju]

Gavaskar is rent-a-quote big mouth.
This was the guy who batted 60 overs for 36no because he considered England's total ungettable in a ODI. What a cowardly attitude.

As for chokers what about the recent Lancashire side...5 semi final defeats in the last 4 seasons. And a couple of those were really bottling jobs (Warks in 2002, Worcs in 2003). Cant remember the others but I think Leics and Gloucs may have beaten them also.
Also Kent never seem to win much despite being in contention for a lot of trophies over the last 10 years or so. Can't really blame the current squad for that though.

 

[Swervy]

Gavaskar is rent-a-quote big mouth.
This was the guy who batted 60 overs for 36no because he considered England's total ungettable in a ODI. What a cowardly attitude.

As for chokers what about the recent Lancashire side...5 semi final defeats in the last 4 seasons. And a couple of those were really bottling jobs (Warks in 2002, Worcs in 2003). Cant remember the others but I think Leics and Gloucs may have beaten them also.
Also Kent never seem to win much despite being in contention for a lot of trophies over the last 10 years or so. Can't really blame the current squad for that though.

In cases like you have mentioned just the pressure of a past teams failure can be enough for a team to buckle and not play to its full potential...as soon as the final hurdle has been jumped ie. the team wins 'the big one',sucess then starts coming easier (a possible example being Queensland)

 

[Langeveldt]

Gavaskar reminds me of Bishen Bedi, except Bedi speaks some sense.....

Everyone knows the SA team of 98-2003 were the biggest chokers going..

And Gavaskar wouldnt stoop to congratulating the aussies would he??

 

[Don Ricardo]

Gavaskar reminds me of Bishen Bedi, except Bedi speaks some sense.....

Everyone knows the SA team of 98-2003 were the biggest chokers going..

And Gavaskar wouldnt stoop to congratulating the aussies would he??

I agree wholeheartedly

Gavaskar (a couple of weeks before):
"The way they played in the World Cup and on this tour of Australia, I'd put India right at the top."

(what was so good about india at the world cup?- they were rubbish against the testing material (ie aus))

 

[Jono]

"Having played a lot against the Indians I would not say they are chokers, even after out 3-0 streak in finals over the last year. It's not as though the Indians played terribly in Wanderers or Kolkata or Melbourne and Sydney."

After battering the Indians into submission Matthew Hayden rises to their defense, disagreeing with Sunil Gavaskar's contention that India had stolen the title of 'chokers in crunch matches' from South Africa.

From Cricinfo.

 

[Gaijin-san]

And Gavaskar wouldnt stoop to congratulating the aussies would he??

Nobody does, it's considered taut.