The Greatest Innings Ever Played

[fredfertang]

The only evidence is Bradman saying it himself, and he is the only one who could possibly know - It does sound about as likely to be true as when President Nixon said "I am not a crook".

Percy Fender wrote a book on the series and he said much the same, and that the only shot in the whole innings that he lifted off the deck was the one when he was out - a stunning catch at cover by Chapman - the Collingwood of his day by all accounts - and Fender was not a particular fan of Bradman so I'll take his word for it

 

[0RI0N]

Many people may disagree with what i'm about to say.

Kamran Akmal's 113 against the old enemy in 06. India were close to bowling pakistan out for <40. In steps akmal and starts to counterattack.From 0/3 to 26/6 to 245 and pakistan still get an 8 run lead.

Brute of a pitch,series decider and against the old enemy.
Certainly 1 of the best innings by a wk ever,with all due respect to messrs Flower,Gilchrist and Sangakarra and others.

 

[Uppercut]

Many people may disagree with what i'm about to say.

Kamran Akmal's 113 against the old enemy in 06. India were close to bowling pakistan out for <40. In steps akmal and starts to counterattack.From 0/3 to 26/6 to 245 and pakistan still get an 8 run lead.

Brute of a pitch,series decider and against the old enemy.
Certainly 1 of the best innings by a wk ever,with all due respect to messrs Flower,Gilchrist and Sangakarra and others.

I think that's a pretty brave comment. Another that i remember someone pointing out was Marlon Samuels century against South Africa just over a year ago, which stuck in their mind as one of real beauty.

It's absolutely necessary to consider these centuries scored by less illustrious batsmen, as they're so often forgotten. It's easy to forget about, say, Hirwani's 16-wicket haul, given what followed, and underestimate how good it was in favour of more proven performers. Quite possibly the greatest ever innings was scored by a player who did little else of note throughout his entire career.

 

[zaremba]

Roy Fredericks v Lillee and Thomson

 

[0RI0N]

I think that's a pretty brave comment. Another that i remember someone pointing out was Marlon Samuels century against South Africa just over a year ago, which stuck in their mind as one of real beauty.

It's absolutely necessary to consider these centuries scored by less illustrious batsmen, as they're so often forgotten. It's easy to forget about, say, Hirwani's 16-wicket haul, given what followed, and underestimate how good it was in favour of more proven performers. Quite possibly the greatest ever innings was scored by a player who did little else of note throughout his entire career.

---
I agree with you

 

[Richard]

Roy Fredericks v Lillee and Thomson

This is a particularly interesting one. I've always considered that this innings, 169 off at 145 balls at The WACA in 1975/76 (ie, at its fastest - and with both Lillee and Thomson in the prime of their careers, and don't forget Gary Gilmour and Max Walker either), was certainly up with the best of them, but had never given much consideration to another innings in the same match - Ian Chappell's 156. Until, that is, I read an interview with Greg Chappell, where he mentioned that he thought his brother's knock was much better than Fredericks' as the Australians allowed Fredericks plenty of room while Roberts, Holding, Boyce and Julien generally got their short stuff in at a much tighter line.

How much of this we can put down to brotherly admiration and distaste for one's own team's failings is of course open for question but it's very unlikely he'd have fabricated it completely and I've begun to wonder whether Chappell (I)'s innings might not have been better still than Fredericks'. Quite why it is that history has recorded Fredericks' innings as the superlative thing it unquestionably was but has almost forgotten Chappell's is beyond me. I don't imagine Clive Lloyd played poorly for his 149 off 186 balls either. Perhaps purely because Andy Roberts demolished Australia's second-innings and West Indies won.

 

[zaremba]

I think it had to do with a number of factors: the ferocity of the Aussie pace attack; the fact that the Windies were in trouble and this was a ridiculously audacious counter-attack; the fact that the assault was launched by the opening batsman at the outset of the game; the sheer pace at which he scored; and the fact that this was a transformation from the way he had played in the past.

I read and re-read the description of this knock in Peter Roebuck's "Great Innings" until the pages were ragged shreds

 

[Richard]

Many people may disagree with what i'm about to say.

Kamran Akmal's 113 against the old enemy in 06. India were close to bowling pakistan out for <40. In steps akmal and starts to counterattack.From 0/3 to 26/6 to 245 and pakistan still get an 8 run lead.

Brute of a pitch,series decider and against the old enemy.

Much as most of that innings was indeed of incredible quality, the reality is that Kamran was plumb lbw early in the innings and the usual suspect Daryl Harper refused to give it out. He should also have been stumped in the 80s. There's no way such an innings can be the best there's ever been IMO, regardless of how important it turned-out to be.

 

[Richard]

I think it had to do with a number of factors: the ferocity of the Aussie pace attack; the fact that the Windies were in trouble and this was a ridiculously audacious counter-attack; the fact that the assault was launched by the opening batsman at the outset of the game; the sheer pace at which he scored; and the fact that this was a transformation from the way he had played in the past.

I read and re-read the description of this knock in Peter Roebuck's "Great Innings" until the pages were ragged shreds

I'd agree with some of those but not completely sure about others. Fredericks had always been a willing and superlative puller and hooker (in fact his most famous attempt at the shot had come a few months earlier and had resulted in falling onto his stumps - in, of course, the World Cup 1975 final). And West Indies may have eventually been hammered in the series but this was just the Second Test, which they pulled level, and Australia's first-innings score of 329 was certainly not bad on such a fast pitch but nor was it truly imposing. Fredericks' knock turned it from a useful score into a puny one, and Lloyd and Murray duly took-up the cudgels and gave West Indies a massive lead, from which (as I mention) Roberts ensured victory.

 

[Richard]

I think that's a pretty brave comment. Another that i remember someone pointing out was Marlon Samuels century against South Africa just over a year ago, which stuck in their mind as one of real beauty.

I hope you're only using this as an example of lesser batsmen playing unusually good innings'. Although Samuels showed astonishing (by his standards) restraint in this knock and played a considerable part in a victory the like of which West Indies had not experienced for many years (ie, an overseas victory to take first blood in a series everyone expected them to be outclassed in), there's no way it was one of the best ever seen.

 

[0RI0N]

Much as most of that innings was indeed of incredible quality, the reality is that Kamran was plumb lbw early in the innings and the usual suspect Daryl Harper refused to give it out. He should also have been stumped in the 80s. There's no way such an innings can be the best there's ever been IMO, regardless of how important it turned-out to be.

---
question to senior members:is Richard always such a morose n negative person?
Critisising everyones posts.you like this when you making love to your gf/wife?
most innings will have a batsman making an error,hence most batsmen are out.using your logic,only not out batsmen can play great innings,and even then they cannot be dropped in the innings.
Thank you richard

 

[zaremba]

---
question to senior members:is Richard always such a morose n negative person?
Critisising everyones posts.you like this when you making love to your gf/wife?
most innings will have a batsman making an error,hence most batsmen are out.using your logic,only not out batsmen can play great innings,and even then they cannot be dropped in the innings.
Thank you richard

Welcome to Cricketweb.net.

 

[Richard]

---
question to senior members:is Richard always such a morose n negative person?
Critisising everyones posts.you like this when you making love to your gf/wife?

Really don't see the point in those comments. Utterly useless to anyone.

most innings will have a batsman making an error,hence most batsmen are out.using your logic,only not out batsmen can play great innings,and even then they cannot be dropped in the innings.

That makes precisely no sense whatsoever. Usually, if a batsman gives a chance, he's out. Ergo, anyone who gives a chance before scoring many runs cannot have played one of the best innings ever.

Of course all innings' (maybe except Bradman's 254...) will contain error. There's a difference between a slightly uppish stroke that goes just out of extra-cover's reach and a simple drop of a routine edge by the wicketkeeper, or an obvious catch down the leg-side that the Umpire refuses to give out. The former can never, under any circumstances, be out; the latter should always be out and whenever it isn't something has happened that should not happen.

 

[zaremba]

There's a difference between a slightly uppish stroke that goes just out of extra-cover's reach and a simple drop of a routine edge by the wicketkeeper

Can you explain what the difference is between these two kinds of error by the batsman? Why should the batsman in the former case be entitled to recognition for a "great" innings, but the latter not? Both batsman have made errors of equal magnitude. Both errors could have resulted in dismissal but through good fortune didn't.

One aspect which I feel you give insufficient credit for is how a batsman reacts once he's given chances. Chances are (like it or not) part and parcel of batting. A batsman who recovers from giving a chance to score a hundred brilliant runs thereafter still deserves credit for those hundred runs. Take Herbert Sutcliffe, for instance, whose reaction (or more precisely his lack of reaction) to being nearly out was recognised as an intrinsic part of his greatness as a player, and was a major factor in why he achieved the record that he did as a Test batsman.

 

[Richard]

Can you explain what the difference is between these two kinds of error by the batsman? Why should the batsman in the former case be entitled to recognition for a "great" innings, but the latter not? Both batsman have made errors of equal magnitude. Both errors could have resulted in dismissal but through good fortune didn't.

The degree of error is quite possibly no different. Equally, a batsman who misses a ball by 10cm has made a bigger error than one who gets a thick nick that carries to third-slip. Yet the smaller error results in dismissal.

The simple facts of the matter that I'm trying to get at are not about degree of error, but what is and isn't out. A batsman who is caught and a batsman who is dropped have done exactly the same thing - even though a batsman who's played and missed might well have made a much bigger error. Yet a play-and-miss can never result in a wicket - a ball being hit in the air to a fielder always should, and usually does, result in a wicket. It's utterly unfair, and inaccurate, to record that a batsman has done something differently when he's dropped and when he's caught.

One aspect which I feel you give insufficient credit for is how a batsman reacts once he's given chances. Chances are (like it or not) part and parcel of batting. A batsman who recovers from giving a chance to score a hundred brilliant runs thereafter still deserves credit for those hundred runs. Take Herbert Sutcliffe, for instance, whose reaction (or more precisely his lack of reaction) to being nearly out was recognised as an intrinsic part of his greatness as a player, and was a major factor in why he achieved the record that he did as a Test batsman.

There is a method for trying to account for this - obviously, someone who gives a chance on 1 and is dropped then goes on to score another 142 before giving his next chance has played far better than someone who gives a chance on 1 and is dropped then gives another just 7 runs later. If you count all chances, rather than just the first one, then divide the number of runs by it (as you under the scorebook average divide runs by completed dismissals) then you get the impression of what you mention - how well a batsman has played.

Yet this method basically suggests that a batsman deserves to have a let-off, with which I don't agree. I'm a bowler, and in my view everything that goes to a fielder's hands at catchable height and speed should be caught, and every decision that should be given out should be given out.

 

[zaremba]

The degree of error is quite possibly no different. Equally, a batsman who misses a ball by 10cm has made a bigger error than one who gets a thick nick that carries to third-slip. Yet the smaller error results in dismissal.

The simple facts of the matter that I'm trying to get at are not about degree of error, but what is and isn't out. A batsman who is caught and a batsman who is dropped have done exactly the same thing - even though a batsman who's played and missed might well have made a much bigger error. Yet a play-and-miss can never result in a wicket - a ball being hit in the air to a fielder always should, and usually does, result in a wicket. It's utterly unfair, and inaccurate, to record that a batsman has done something differently when he's dropped and when he's caught.

I still don't get the logic of the distinction that you're trying to draw between the 2 cases.

Batsman A is dropped by the keeper on 15, and goes on to score 200.
Batsman B plays and misses on 15, and goes on to score 200.
By your logic, as I understand it, B's innings might qualify as a great innings. Yet batsman A's never could. Yet when both had scored 15 runs, B has made what may well be a greater error than A.

Your benchmark appears to be that a play-and-miss can "never" be out. But neither can a dropped catch! In both instances the batsman gets the credit for the luck that he's enjoyed. In both cases that slice of luck is something completely outwith the batsman's control. Why should the greatness or otherwise of an innings hinge on whether his slice of luck arises at the moment the ball misses the edge rather than the moment when the ball falls from the keeper's gloves?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I still don't get the logic of the distinction that you're trying to draw between the 2 cases.

Batsman A is dropped by the keeper on 15, and goes on to score 200.
Batsman B plays and misses on 15, and goes on to score 200.
By your logic, as I understand it, B's innings might qualify as a great innings. Yet batsman A's never could. Yet when both had scored 15 runs, B has made what may well be a greater error than A.

Your benchmark appears to be that a play-and-miss can "never" be out. But neither can a dropped catch! In both instances the batsman gets the credit for the luck that he's enjoyed. In both cases that slice of luck is something completely outwith the batsman's control. Why should the greatness or otherwise of an innings hinge on whether his slice of luck arises at the moment the ball misses the edge rather than the moment when the ball falls from the keeper's gloves?

"Welcome to Cricketweb."

 

[zaremba]

"Welcome to Cricketweb."

 

[jeevan]

---
question to senior members:is Richard always such a morose n negative person?
Critisising everyones posts.you like this when you making love to your gf/wife?
most innings will have a batsman making an error,hence most batsmen are out.using your logic,only not out batsmen can play great innings,and even then they cannot be dropped in the innings.
Thank you richard

Perhaps most would. But this thread is all about the greatest innings ever played. Quite reasonable to have batting quality criteria that weeds out most innings.

 

[0RI0N]

Welcome to Cricketweb.net.

thank you