honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I would have assumed it was the latest one to be dismissed in the 90s, Teja ...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're drunk.I was contemplating whether players around the world might want to be part of a new convention for batsmen in their late 90s. It goes like this. Say someone is on 99*, and happens to go for a foolish single, or pops up a catch. The fielders on the other side, instead of running or catching him out, decide to give him a life to get to the hundred. After having duly got to said hundred, the batsmen then gets himself out somehow, either a hit wicket, or a simple catch or a run-out.
I think it would be nice to have such a practice. Also realize many of you may not think of it as a great idea. Anyways, I am not proposing it be codified of course. How many chances would be given would obviously rest on the players involved. I am fine with only one chance.
Of course, if the other side then loses by a run, there might be some outrage
Yeah that's a nonsense theory............it was just because they're ****s.There is a school of thought that reckons Douglas Jardine's antipathy towards Australians began in 1921 when he played for Oxford against them and Armstrong didn't play on after the close when he was 96 not out in a match that was going nowhere - it's a stupid theory