tooextracool said:
so hes better of opening the batting
No, that does not mean such.
the fact that he failed at 4 in similar conditions to the game in the wc against NZ goes to show that you cannot say that hes better off at 4...
Similar, but not quite as bad. Otherwise New Zealand might have competed better than they did.
As it was, they only disadvantaged themselves in the end by putting more emphasis on 5-2 than planning for the Cup.
a major difference i might add......
No, not so, given that Murali's figures were not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination.
why is it not surprising that both of chamindas good performances came on seamer friendly wickets?
Because, guess what -
THEY DIDN'T!!!!! Yet again our supposedly all-seeing maestro has got it wrong. And this time I can verify as such.
Yes, the wicket for the second game at Edgbaston offered seam-movement all through the match, but the first one did only for the first 20 overs or so, which meant Nehra got far better figures than he usually does on less extravagant wickets and that Agarkar started well (7 overs for 21, 3 wickets).
By India's innings, it had flattened out and was playing very well. Chaminda's performance was excellent.
And even if they had both been on seaming wickets, incidentally, what would that mean so far as the difference (or rather the non-difference) of Sri Lanka's attack between these games and WC2003?
they did not bowl poorly either, just because tendulkar happened to play brilliantly at the top it doesnt not mean that they bowled poorly. that said wasim akram was brilliant....
Brilliant, yes, that's why he went for 48 off 10 overs, isn't it. You'd expect someone who bowled brilliantly in a ODI to go for 25 at the most.
And you
do not go for 8-an-over, which both Waqar and Shoaib did without bowling very poorly, no matter who the batsman is.
what rubbish...flintoff bowled nowhere near as well as he did in the world cup, anybody who watched him bowl then would have realised that
And anyone who watched the NatWest final closely would see he bowled exactly the same in both matches, except Ganguly used his feet, sensibly, and didn't allow someone bowling so quick that the wicketkeeper couldn't stand-up to be economical just because he was bowling accurately.
There was nothing wrong with the line or length, but Ganguly made a mockery of it, as he tends to do with alarming regularity...
yes instead they would rather have had tendulkar fail again while chasing at 4.....and he would probably have failed against pakistan if he batted at 4 too.
Probably... and of course you can know that probability, can't you?
Well, in that case I think it's probable that Ganguly and Sehwag would have won the game by 10 wickets if they were opening.
And with regards the final, even if he had failed at four, it would still have given India a better chance. Would you really prefer him coming in with 7-an-over needed for 50 overs than 7-an-over for 35 or 30?