India V Kenya

[tooextracool]

oh he didnt win the game at all, the game was won by trescothick and strauss quite early.
ok then 5 failures and 1 success, still not consistent if you ask me.

[Scaly piscine]

oh he didnt win the game at all, the game was won by trescothick and strauss quite early.
ok then 5 failures and 1 success, still not consistent if you ask me.

So if he gets 0 England still win the game do they??? Strauss & Read in with Batty and 3 rabbits to come, 93 runs to get with 21 overs or so left. As far as I'm concerned 5 of those innings were over 30 so are positive contributions and you can add another one to that as he scored 39 against Sri Lanka. Going by your gormless method of judging success I doubt even Bradman at his pomp would of had as much success as failure.

[luckyeddie]

I doubt even Bradman at his pomp would of had as much success as failure.

Nope.

80 innings, 29 tons, 13 fifties.
That's 42 successes and 38 failures.

pwn3d by TEC on your own admission - hang your head.

(nice use of 'gormless', BTW)

[tooextracool]

So if he gets 0 England still win the game do they??? Strauss & Read in with Batty and 3 rabbits to come, 93 runs to get with 21 overs or so left. As far as I'm concerned 5 of those innings were over 30 so are positive contributions and you can add another one to that as he scored 39 against Sri Lanka. Going by your gormless method of judging success I doubt even Bradman at his pomp would of had as much success as failure.

how can someone 'win the game' when 2 other batsman scored more than him? rubbish the game was already won early when tresco hammered the 82 off 57, unless we saw a collapse of the 90s proportions there was no way we would have lost. all collingwood had to do was survive with strauss and then just put away some of the rubbish that sarwan was bowling. he did the job well enough, but certainly doesnt make his innings a match winning one.

[Scaly piscine]

how can someone 'win the game' when 2 other batsman scored more than him? rubbish the game was already won early when tresco hammered the 82 off 57, unless we saw a collapse of the 90s proportions there was no way we would have lost. all collingwood had to do was survive with strauss and then just put away some of the rubbish that sarwan was bowling. he did the job well enough, but certainly doesnt make his innings a match winning one.

I didn't say he'd won the game individually single-handed (no-one ever can, it's a team game after all), just that he (or the team) won and that's a success as he contributed significantly to the victory.

[tooextracool]

I didn't say he'd won the game individually single-handed (no-one ever can, it's a team game after all), just that he (or the team) won and that's a success as he contributed significantly to the victory.

then you worded it wrongly when you said that ' he won the game' when in fact that had to do with tresco's innings and even strauss' to an extent. the only thing that you can possibly say about collingwoods innings was that he contributed to the success and survived till the end.

[marc71178]

46 not out is more than just surviving.

Had he gone cheaply I have my doubts the win would've happened.

[Scaly piscine]

then you worded it wrongly when you said that ' he won the game' when in fact that had to do with tresco's innings and even strauss' to an extent. the only thing that you can possibly say about collingwoods innings was that he contributed to the success and survived till the end.

If you're gonna quote me, get the quote right in the first place. I said:

Soooooo scoring 46* and winning the game isn't a success?!?


If you can't even get that right what hope is there of you getting anything else right?

[Samuel_Vimes]

(great name, btw - let me introduce you to our Norwegian member, Samuel_Vimes. He's obsessed by fish too, as all Norwegians are).

Yup. And you're obsessed by ducks, just like every Derbyshire player.