The Greatest Innings Ever Played

[Richard]

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

Whelan used that one on the Camel56 idiots a while ago - try not to regurgitate old gaaags (however good they were on first use), Peteymeister.

 

[Richard]

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

Well observed. Maybe now you can find someone, somewhere who suggested he didn't. That'll be much, much harder.

 

[0RI0N]

<raises bat>

 

[Richard]

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

Who? Me, KP or Belly?

 

[Richard]

<raises bat>

Why? For a broad breaking of one's own promises?

This will be my last reply in this thread.

 

[fredfertang]

Bell

 

[0RI0N]

Why? For a broad breaking of one's own promises?

figure it out...

Wow i changed my mind...fancy that richard,people actually change their minds.
im such a bad person.
you actually keepin tabs on my posts.

 

[Richard]

Not really, I don't need to keep tabs on posts made 5 minutes ago to remember them.

And BTW, I don't think you'll find me saying that changing one's mind makes anyone a bad person or that there's anything wrong with it anywhere. Please do have a look around if you're interested though.

 

[jeevan]

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

And where does Akmal's knock rank in Wisden's list?

 

[0RI0N]

And where does Akmal's knock rank in Wisden's list?

wisden knock came out in '03.akmal made his in '06.
Do the physics

 

[0RI0N]

And where does Akmal's knock rank in Wisden's list?

wisden list came out before akmal made his in '06.
Do the physics

 

[NUFAN]

The simple facts of the matter that I'm trying to get at are not about degree of error, but what is and isn't out. A batsman who is caught and a batsman who is dropped have done exactly the same thing - even though a batsman who's played and missed might well have made a much bigger error. Yet a play-and-miss can never result in a wicket - a ball being hit in the air to a fielder always should, and usually does, result in a wicket. It's utterly unfair, and inaccurate, to record that a batsman has done something differently when he's dropped and when he's caught.

I was thinking this thread had gotten a high amount of posts quickly,now I know why.

Richard, regarding the underlined part of your quote. Have you never see a batsman get clean bowled from a play and miss?

 

[Something_Fishy]

Richard, regarding the underlined part of your quote. Have you never see a batsman get clean bowled from a play and miss?

Nice.

 

[zaremba]

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.

Your logic continues to escape me.

The chronology of when the batsman gets his slice of luck ("the batsman's sector of cricket" - honestly!) is irrelevant. Yes the batsman has some chance of influencing whether or not he gets an edge when the ball is approaching his bat. But when he plays-and-misses, that's a complete failure by the batsman in "his sector of cricket". His survival is not attributable to any skill of his own. In fact it generally shows a lower level of skill than the batsman who manages to get an edge and is then dropped. Bear in mind that what both batsmen are trying to do is to hit the ball with the middle of the bat.

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.

I don't say that every play-and-miss should be out! I don't count non-dismissals - it's you that wants to do this, not me. I simply can't begin to fathom why you think there's any logical difference between a play-and-miss and a dropped catch.

I also can't see the relevance of the frequency of occurrence of dropped catches v play-and-misses. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

 

[Flem274*]

I hate the discussion of luck in sport. Luck is a fact of lide, it will happen, if you don't have any then go and get some.

 

[Uppercut]

I hope you're only using this as an example of lesser batsmen playing unusually good innings'. Although Samuels showed astonishing (by his standards) restraint in this knock and played a considerable part in a victory the like of which West Indies had not experienced for many years (ie, an overseas victory to take first blood in a series everyone expected them to be outclassed in), there's no way it was one of the best ever seen.

Haha no of course, I just vaguely remember someone bringing it up as one of the best they'd actually seen. The general point still stands- superlative knocks by average players are forgotten. So much so that I can't think of a better example than that

 

[Nutter]

Nathan Astle 222?

 

[Something_Fishy]

Yeah but then you can go and mention Jerome Taylor's 106 - imagine the consternation it would result in. Or actually it would probably be ignored (excepting Richard).

 

[gwo]

According to the formula presented in the first post...

Ikki's Hayden's 119
F1 4.918684734
F2 1.24515772
F3 0.972552792
F4 2.24
F5 0.991958495

Score 62.85570433

Boycotts 154*
F1 5.360108411
F2 1.306051371
F3 0.904603113
F4 1.58490566
F5 0.840638528
Score 61.16645866


That took too long to do.

When I'm bored I might input some more numbers in.

(oh also I had a problem with calculating F3 in Boycotts innings as Watkin made his debut that test match - of little consequence imo (Watkin would have had to come into the match with a average of -13.3 for Boycott's innings would be considered better, as it is I put his "average" as the suggested 28).


- conclusion

this is crap cos boycotts 154* > haydens 119.

QED

 

[Lillian Thomson]

According to the formula presented in the first post...

Ikki's Hayden's 119
F1 4.918684734
F2 1.24515772
F3 0.972552792
F4 2.24
F5 0.991958495

Score 62.85570433

Boycotts 154*
F1 5.360108411
F2 1.306051371
F3 0.904603113
F4 1.58490566
F5 0.840638528
Score 61.16645866


That took too long to do.

When I'm bored I might input some more numbers in.

(oh also I had a problem with calculating F3 in Boycotts innings as Watkin made his debut that test match - of little consequence imo (Watkin would have had to come into the match with a average of -13.3 for Boycott's innings would be considered better, as it is I put his "average" as the suggested 28).


- conclusion

this is crap cos boycotts 154* > haydens 119.

QED

Geoff Boycott never even made 154* in a Test Match.