On a personal level I am sure that a batsman would be happier with a match winning 90 than a match winning 20.As long as player x helps his team win, it doesn't matter if he scores 20, 50, 90 or 900.
If he does his job, he would be happy. End off. Each person has different roles in different matches and match scenarios.On a personal level I am sure that a batsman would be happier with a match winning 90 than a match winning 20.
Although 900 would be preferable.As long as player x helps his team win, it doesn't matter if he scores 20, 50, 90 or 900.
I'm not disputing that at all, but ask any batsman whether they would prefer a score of 90 or 20 and every single one of them would say 90, unless they are insane.If he does his job, he would be happy. End off. Each person has different roles in different matches and match scenarios.
Wasn't it Gavaskar who once said, "I have this bad habit of getting out in the 190's". Maybe I completely destroyed this quote. ;PI'm sure that's the case, but he would be a little disappointed if he scored ten 90's in a row and converted none of them into centuries when presumably he had the chance to.
I think that'd apply more to Younis Khan or Mohammed Yousuf TBH.Wasn't it Gavaskar who once said, "I have this bad habit of getting out in the 190's". Maybe I completely destroyed this quote. ;P
I think Miandad would take a 900 not out rather than that last ball six, but maybe not if Pakistan still ended up losing.A six can be more satisfying and important than a 900. Lanka made 952 versus India. Javed Miandad hit a six off the last ball and won the match. Take your pic.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying, I am talking about how many runs one batsman scores.A six can be more satisfying and important than a 900. Lanka made 952 versus India. Javed Miandad hit a six off the last ball and won the match. Take your pic.
Well, a century in ODI cricket is a feat in itself, I feel. Centuries are not easy to get especially on a pitch which has something for everyone, because you have to be pressing for a high score at all times. I think Tendulkar would have gained more satisfaction from a victory here than a 100, although if he made it a habit, it would probably make him quite a bit annoyed.I think that'd apply more to Younis Khan or Mohammed Yousuf TBH.
Exactly, I think every batsman other than the most selfish ones would prefer a 90 in a winning cause than a century for the losing side. However if Tendulkar did continue to score lots of 90's then he would more than likely be frustrated by this.Well, a century in ODI cricket is a feat in itself, I feel. Centuries are not easy to get especially on a pitch which has something for everyone, because you have to be pressing for a high score at all times. I think Tendulkar would have gained more satisfaction from a victory here than a 100, although if he made it a habit, it would probably make him quite a bit annoyed.
Come now, a 90,000 in one innings? What if it came against India? Surely the least stats-whoric of batsmen would even take that?I have explained regarding one batsman as well Perm. And Sohum, don't think Miandad would trade that six for even 90,000.
He probably took a lot of heart from the fact that he basically got himself out today. A century and anything more was there for his taking but he tried to get a little too cheeky off Tshabalala. He must know that any other day of the week, a big century would have been on the cards.Exactly, I think every batsman other than the most selfish ones would prefer a 90 in a winning cause than a century for the losing side. However if Tendulkar did continue to score lots of 90's then he would more than likely be frustrated by this.
No. Just ask some of the older fans and they will tell you more about that six..Come now, a 90,000 in one innings? What if it came against India? Surely the least stats-whoric of batsmen would even take that?
None of those older fans are Miandad, though, are they?No. Just ask some of the older fans and they will tell you more about that six..
No, you haven't. You completely missed my point about one batsman and one innings. You referred to Miandad's six and then compared it to a team total of 952.I have explained regarding one batsman as well Perm. And Sohum, don't think Miandad would trade that six for even 90,000.
Untrue. Posted it in the earlier post and have reposted it in the new post as well. For the third time:No, you haven't. You completely missed my point about one batsman and one innings. You referred to Miandad's six and then compared it to a team total of 952.