The Greatest Innings Ever Played

[Richard]

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?

Because that's the time when the batsman's "bit" is done. Apart from when running between wickets, the batsman is only doing his "bit" in cricket for a split-second. As far as judging what the batsman has done is concerned, this is all that matters. What comes before and after is irrelevant, as the batsman has no control over that, under any circumstances (and if he attempts to he should be dismissed obstructing the field).

Though a dropped catch can never be out, whether a catch is caught or dropped never has anything to do with the batsman, because the batsman's part is done when this happens (or, more ideally, doesn't happen). Even though a play-and-miss where the batsman is beaten all-ends-up is of course a stroke of luck, it's a stroke of luck that happens during the batsman's sector of cricket and therefore the batsman has the potential to influence whether it happens or not, even if he's not always good enough to do so. Also, it happens just about every innings (which makes it pretty minor in my book) and if you said every play-and-miss should be out no-one would score a great deal of runs very often. However, dropped catches are comparatively rare.

Those are the differences.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Knowing Richard's disdain of batsman giving chances. I wonder what he makes of batsman delibrately appearing troubled by bowlers for tactical reasons such as when Jack Hobbs in the Oval test of the 1926 ashes delibrately appeared troubled by the Australian spinners so that the Australian captain Herbie Collins didn't bring on fast bowler Jack Gregory who Hobbs knew would be absolutely lethal on the wet pitch.

Bowlers have also used similar tactics in reverse such as when in a test on the Australian 1949/50 tour of South Africa when rain produced a sticky pitch the Australian captain Lindsay Hassett instructed his bowlers to not take wickets with his instructions to Bill Johnston of "We want rubbish Bill, some of the worst rubbish you've ever bowled. We don't want wickets, we want time." These instructions meant that Australia only had to bat once on the sticky and eventually won chasing down a large target in the 4th innings. However this tactic didn't always work as is shown in the 3rd test of the 1936-37 ashes series when Bradman gave similar instructions to his bowlers when England were 76-9 having avoided the follow on. The problem was that the England captain Gubby Allen was batting and overheard the instruction and decided to promptly declare although Australia won with Bradman going on to score 270 after being criticised as selfish for reversing the batting order so he came in after the rest day when the pitch was no longer a sticky.

 

[fredfertang]

OK - three pages, is that enough interest to post up the F5 calculation??

F5 = 2(r – n) + (r – m) all divided by 3r

where

r = the number of runs

n = the next highest score in the innings

m = the average runs per wicket for the match

 

[0RI0N]

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.

---
my point is that according to Richard,if a batsman makes an error it cannot be deemed great.therefore laxmans epic isnt great...because laxman made an error(lost his wicket).
Richard's logic:if a batsman is dropped,it is a > error than batsman getting himself dismissed.

 

[Richard]

Knowing Richard's disdain of batsman giving chances. I wonder what he makes of batsman delibrately appearing troubled by bowlers for tactical reasons such as when Jack Hobbs in the Oval test of the 1926 ashes delibrately appeared troubled by the Australian spinners so that the Australian captain Herbie Collins didn't bring on fast bowler Jack Gregory who Hobbs knew would be absolutely lethal on the wet pitch.

Bowlers have also used similar tactics in reverse such as when in a test on the Australian 1949/50 tour of South Africa when rain produced a sticky pitch the Australian captain Lindsay Hassett instructed his bowlers to not take wickets with his instructions to Bill Johnston of "We want rubbish Bill, some of the worst rubbish you've ever bowled. We don't want wickets, we want time." These instructions meant that Australia only had to bat once on the sticky and eventually won chasing down a large target in the 4th innings. However this tactic didn't always work as is shown in the 3rd test of the 1936-37 ashes series when Bradman gave similar instructions to his bowlers when England were 76-9 having avoided the follow on. The problem was that the England captain Gubby Allen was batting and overheard the instruction and decided to promptly declare although Australia won with Bradman going on to score 270 after being criticised as selfish for reversing the batting order so he came in after the rest day when the pitch was no longer a sticky.

I can't see how any of the above are anything other than excellent tactical play.

 

[Richard]

---
my point is that according to Richard,if a batsman makes an error it cannot be deemed great.therefore laxmans epic isnt great...because laxman made an error(lost his wicket).
Richard's logic:if a batsman is dropped,it is a > error than batsman getting himself dismissed.

Eh? The point is not about whether or not an error is made, but how many runs have been made before the error.

 

[0RI0N]

Eh? The point is not about whether or not an error is made, but how many runs have been made before the error.

and its a good thing the world prefers wisden rankings and not your whack system.
This will be my last reply in this thread.
Richard the pedant

 

[Something_Fishy]

Eh? The point is not about whether or not an error is made, but how many runs have been made before the error.

Question for Richard:
Take a batsmen who scores 200 and then is caught by the keeper playing an awful shot, his first real mistake of his innings. Right, now compare this with someone who scores a chanceless and techinically perfect 120 (hitting, as you say Bradman did, every single ball exactly where he intended to) and is then given out LBW (horrific umpiring decision, the ball pitched outside leg stump and the batsman had padded it away).
Which one is better?

 

[Neil Pickup]

You have more chance of creating manned space flight powered only by reconstituted turnips than of getting any change of mind out of Richard on this. The lesson is don't try.

 

[Jigga988]

Question for Richard:
Take a batsmen who scores 200 and then is caught by the keeper playing an awful shot, his first real mistake of his innings. Right, now compare this with someone who scores a chanceless and techinically perfect 120 (hitting, as you say Bradman did, every single ball exactly where he intended to) and is then given out LBW (horrific umpiring decision, the ball pitched outside leg stump and the batsman had padded it away).
Which one is better?

If the innings of 200 is as faultless as the latter, then surely it's better, until the latter innings passes 200. Who's to say that the latter innings would have got out at 121 or 122 playing a shocking shot.... That's it from my perspective, obviously I'm not Richard, just thought I'd add my 2 cents.

 

[0RI0N]

You have more chance of creating manned space flight powered only by reconstituted turnips than of getting any change of mind out of Richard on this. The lesson is don't try.

thanks for the heads up.
btw, is he possessed,mad,drunk or high or a combination of the above when he comes up with his cricket 'observations?'

 

[Neil Pickup]

thanks for the heads up.
btw, is he possessed,mad,drunk or high or a combination of the above when he comes up with his cricket 'observations?'

I think it's possession.

 

[PY]

I think he was 'dropped' on his head as a child....

 

[Something_Fishy]

If the innings of 200 is as faultless as the latter, then surely it's better, until the latter innings passes 200. Who's to say that the latter innings would have got out at 121 or 122 playing a shocking shot.... That's it from my perspective, obviously I'm not Richard, just thought I'd add my 2 cents.

Wasn't as faultless as the other (didn't put every ball where he wanted) but was still brilliant. Make sense? Thanks btw.

 

[fredfertang]

You have more chance of creating manned space flight powered only by reconstituted turnips than of getting any change of mind out of Richard on this. The lesson is don't try.

If Ian Bell had Richard's tenacity and persistence KP wouldn't be England's best batsmen - wouldn't make him any more popular of course

 

[Richard]

and its a good thing the world prefers wisden rankings and not your whack system.

Neither make any enormous impact on the broad psyche.

 

[0RI0N]

I think he was 'dropped' on his head as a child....

---
But he's okay PY.
No worries Richard

 

[Richard]

Question for Richard:
Take a batsmen who scores 200 and then is caught by the keeper playing an awful shot, his first real mistake of his innings. Right, now compare this with someone who scores a chanceless and techinically perfect 120 (hitting, as you say Bradman did, every single ball exactly where he intended to) and is then given out LBW (horrific umpiring decision, the ball pitched outside leg stump and the batsman had padded it away).
Which one is better?

All I can answer is they're both brilliant and said innings is very likely to be the highlight of the career of the batsman who played them. I honestly wouldn't want to say either was neccessarily better.

(BTW, just a small note - it's not exactly "I say Bradman did" in his 254; it's a pretty well-known gambit, whether 100% true or not)

 

[Richard]

thanks for the heads up.
btw, is he possessed,mad,drunk or high or a combination of the above when he comes up with his cricket 'observations?'

Nope. You're not unusual in your early attitudes though (in fact very common) - it'll be interesting to see whether you a) come around; b) stop posting or c) continue in your not-so-merry ways. Those are the choices faced by all.

 

[0RI0N]

Neither make any enormous impact on the broad psyche.

richard,
but kamran akmal still played a great innings vs india