A counter-question...

[Jarquis]

Haha, Sachin for sure. If anything the quaintness of the honour's board is increased by things like these.

 

[four_or_six]

Haha, Sachin for sure. If anything the quaintness of the honour's board is increased by things like these.

Still can't believe no Athers, and a run out for 99 too

 

[GIMH]

Still can't believe no Athers, and a run out for 99 too

The way you say 'Still' makes it nsound like you expect him to have done it in the last few years or something

 

[Fusion]

American English FTW!!

+1. Resistance is futile.

 

[four_or_six]

The way you say 'Still' makes it nsound like you expect him to have done it in the last few years or something

No... I just can't bring myself to believe it yet.

 

[Top_Cat]

Atherton glorious ton! - YouTube

 

[Burgey]

Still can't believe no Athers, and a run out for 99 too

One of the great Ashes moments.

Gatting(?) or whoever the non-striker is - their running was embarrassing. I know he was a fat **** who couldn't run, but he barely broke into a jog.

 

[GotSpin]

Lol Harsha Bhogle you drongo. I also a tweet from him praising the performance of both umpires during the test. Hmmmm

 

[benchmark00]

Breaking away from the general consensus of posting along national lines which has been infecting CW in the last few months:

They both lose out.

Tendulkar loses out because he doesn't get his name written on the board, which means he hasn't performed at the most iconic cricket ground in the world, that's an obvious one.

But Lords also loses out, because grounds and trusts like the MCC and Lords pride themselves on being the who's who of cricket, and in time it will be a shame that it cannot boast having Tendulkar's name scribed on it, who will undoubtedly be remembered in the top half a dozen or so batsmen to play the game when he retires. Would the Lords board remain as prestigious if by quirk the only names up there were rubbish batsmen who got lucky and didn't have Bradman etc? Ofcourse not.

There's no doubt it will be a shame for Tendulkar when he retires, but it will also be disappointing for Lords.

 

[Fusion]

Breaking away from the general consensus of posting along national lines which has been infecting CW in the last few months:

They both lose out.

Tendulkar loses out because he doesn't get his name written on the board, which means he hasn't performed at the most iconic cricket ground in the world, that's an obvious one.

But Lords also loses out, because grounds and trusts like the MCC and Lords pride themselves on being the who's who of cricket, and in time it will be a shame that it cannot boast having Tendulkar's name scribed on it, who will undoubtedly be remembered in the top half a dozen or so batsmen to play the game when he retires. Would the Lords board remain as prestigious if by quirk the only names up there were rubbish batsmen who got lucky and didn't have Bradman etc? Ofcourse not.

There's no doubt it will be a shame for Tendulkar when he retires, but it will also be disappointing for Lords.

Word.

 

[Spikey]

still believe sachin should have listened to my advice and stood on phone books while batting @ lord's.

 

[miscer]

i cant believe people (who are responding seriously) are this thick. it was obviously a joke that doesn't warrant anything more than a "lol."

 

[Bun]

yeah sachin will be disappointed at not getting a ton at lords, but ain't big ****ing deal at the end. also the lords chaps may be gutted at not seeing the greatest since don performing there as well.

overall a tiny speck in a tiny blue planet.

 

[Burgey]

yeah sachin will be disappointed at not getting a ton at lords, but ain't big ****ing deal at the end. also the lords chaps may be gutted at not seeing the greatest since don performing there as well.

overall a tiny speck in a tiny blue planet.

Sobers retired years ago.

 

[Dhonisgland]

Sobers retired years ago.

What do you know?

They should rename Lord's to "Sachin's".

 

[Burgey]

What do you know?

They should rename Lord's to "Sachin's".

The troll is strong in this one...

 

[Cevno]

breaking away from the general consensus of posting along national lines which has been infecting cw in the last few months:

They both lose out.

Tendulkar loses out because he doesn't get his name written on the board, which means he hasn't performed at the most iconic cricket ground in the world, that's an obvious one.

But lords also loses out, because grounds and trusts like the mcc and lords pride themselves on being the who's who of cricket, and in time it will be a shame that it cannot boast having tendulkar's name scribed on it, who will undoubtedly be remembered in the top half a dozen or so batsmen to play the game when he retires. Would the lords board remain as prestigious if by quirk the only names up there were rubbish batsmen who got lucky and didn't have bradman etc? Ofcourse not.

There's no doubt it will be a shame for tendulkar when he retires, but it will also be disappointing for lords.

awta

 

[weldone]

Breaking away from the general consensus of posting along national lines which has been infecting CW in the last few months:

They both lose out.

Tendulkar loses out because he doesn't get his name written on the board, which means he hasn't performed at the most iconic cricket ground in the world, that's an obvious one.

But Lords also loses out, because grounds and trusts like the MCC and Lords pride themselves on being the who's who of cricket, and in time it will be a shame that it cannot boast having Tendulkar's name scribed on it, who will undoubtedly be remembered in the top half a dozen or so batsmen to play the game when he retires. Would the Lords board remain as prestigious if by quirk the only names up there were rubbish batsmen who got lucky and didn't have Bradman etc? Ofcourse not.

There's no doubt it will be a shame for Tendulkar when he retires, but it will also be disappointing for Lords.

This.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think the honours board prides itself on being a "who's who" of cricket, it's really there so we can look through the figures and get all dreamy and nostalgic about the great test performances at Lord's. It's a loss for Lord's in that the ground has never been lucky enough to witness a Sachin century, which I think is what Bhogle was getting at, but it's hardly a loss for the honours board. It's all part of the charm. It's entertaining to hear the tour guides talk about the great batsmen never to have made it and the prank-batsmen who did.

 

[Top_Cat]

The guides specifically mentioned Sachin when I was there in '09 so I'm sure they won't miss a trick from now on.