Best performance in a losing team?

[Zinzan]

Still ****s me how 281 in 43 became 298 in 43. So harsh on SA, especially considering how sides were regularly doubling up on their 35 over score throughout the tournament.

I've heard this from a few people, especially S African mates of mine, surprise surprise. so I'll ask the same question. What should NZ have needed off 43 overs for it to seem fair?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've heard this from a few people, especially S African mates of mine, surprise surprise. so I'll ask the same question. What should NZ have needed off 43 overs for it to seem fair?

Tough to tell obviously, but just 17 runs more felt slightly less than what it should've been. DL needs some work here, especially since odis have changed so much over the last 7-8 years when it comes to the death overs.

Doesn't really matter though, since NZ deserved to win. I've always felt AB bats too low down in the order and it ended up biting them in the ass.

 

[Daemon]

I've heard this from a few people, especially S African mates of mine, surprise surprise. so I'll ask the same question. What should NZ have needed off 43 overs for it to seem fair?

A required rate of +0.7ish. That makes it what, 310? That seems acceptable to me. Very unscientific of course.

It's one thing to be told on the 20th over that you only have 23 left, completely different when you're 3 down and suddenly only have 5 overs to go.

 

[wpdavid]

Rodney Hogg in the 1978/79 Ashes

Hutton and Bedser in, iirc, the 1950/51 Ashes

 

[91Jmay]

I've heard this from a few people, especially S African mates of mine, surprise surprise. so I'll ask the same question. What should NZ have needed off 43 overs for it to seem fair?

310 - 315 for me. Probably 310 as Daemon suggests. Would still have backed NZ to chase it, SA just went towards the end of that game. Heads gone possibly due to off the field events.

 

[Shri]

I don't know. You guys adjust and add runs based on their potential to score and I would subtract runs based on their ability to choke. Was a pretty fair score tbh.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't know. You guys adjust and add runs based on their potential to score and I would subtract runs based on their ability to choke. Was a pretty fair score tbh.

It's such a hard one. Off seven overs if the two guys at the crease stayed there, you'd think 100 more on that ground wouldn't have been out of the question. But in saying that there wasn't any real recognised batting left.

It's Duckworth Lewis, not an exact science and if you bat first when I'm sure it was forecast, you run a risk. It's slightly unlucky but that's sport, and we still had to score them (and they still would've won if they held their catches)

 

[Burner]

Didn't Ab also miss a straight-forward run out chance?

 

[Slifer]

Easy: BCL the entire SL series in 2001 but especially the 3rd test 221 out of 390 odd and 130 out of 260. Murali and Vaas at or near their best.

 

[mr_mister]

taking a single with 13 to win off the first ball of a darren gough over then watching both macgill and mcgrath get simultaneously yorked must have stung a bit though.

MacGill had struck 43 in the first innings so he had earned Waughs faith. Pity it turned out to be a fluke (and IIRC, it was a very ugly, chance laden 43 anyhow)

 

[honestbharani]

MacGill had struck 43 in the first innings so he had earned Waughs faith. Pity it turned out to be a fluke (and IIRC, it was a very ugly, chance laden 43 anyhow)

Well his judgement must be mighty poor then

 

[mr_mister]

yeah, did you read my second sentence?

 

[jcas0167]

From an NZ perspective, Chris Harris's gloriously unexpected 130 in losing WC quarter-final match against Australia in 1996. Smashed McGrath & Warne around in great style. Also, Crowe's sublime 91 when his runner was run-out in the 1992 semi-final against Pakistan.

 

[GirtBySea]

2nd Test: Australia v South Africa at Sydney, Jan 2-6, 1994 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Shane Warne, 12 wickets. Had Australia won then you would probably say de Villiers. I read years ago that "Fanie" was just about the only guy who thought they could grab that win!
Also infamous for Martyn's last Test match for 6 years, followed by his exile, because it was "his fault".
But why did McGrath and McDermott take that ****in single at the last ball of that second last over? How come that was never bought up?
Had it been Mark Taylor or Allan Border at that end, and not McDermott, I am sure they would have copped an enormous amount of the blame as well...

 

[Bijed]

What was the rationale behind branding it Martyn's fault? (video won't work for me btw). Did he get out in a particularly bad way, or was it more that he just got out so close to the target with only McGrath left?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Got close, played what you'd call a typical Martyn shot - lack of feet, throwing hands at the ball.

Bit different when he hadn't done it for ten years when looking at it though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wasn't just the lack of feet. He tried a lofted drive. Pretty reckless but if that's the only reason he was out for 6 years, it's really harsh.

How was Martyn's domestic form after he was dropped?

 

[Bijed]

Was his place in the side under threat anyway? Even if it was a horror dismissal, doesn't make him more responsible for the loss that the other batsmen who failed and he was 2nd top scorer in the first innings.

 

[mr_mister]

Wasn't just the lack of feet. He tried a lofted drive. Pretty reckless but if that's the only reason he was out for 6 years, it's really harsh.

How was Martyn's domestic form after he was dropped?

Good enough to get picked again
When I first got into cricket martyns test career came up quite frequently as an ancient case of what if. People accepted in 1999 that he was unlikely to ever play again. Pretty crazy the solid career he ended up having