• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

The Cricket Thread Part Deux

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love Dhoni's batting. Maximum results with minimum risks xD

Good innings from kohli as well. Hopefully he doesn't pull a Rohit Sharma on us <_<

also I love how England always hang on to these thrilling draws on the last days of test matches.
 
A Typical Dhoni innings. I see a strong resemblance in Kohli's career and Gambhir's career. Both used to fail frequently at first getting out to over-aggressive strokes or poorly timed 'cute' shots. But now Gambhir has become a run machine and Kohli seems to have let his ego go and is scoring runs.

Isn't it a bit ironical that though South Africa have controlled 2 Tests they trail in the series 1-0, and the team they are doing to has often been described as a team that is 'oh so close yet so far' is making South Africa feel that way.
 
hey i'm not complaining. england have been gutsy throughout this series and i think we definitely deserve to be leading at this point, despite my massive bias on the matter. going in 1-0 before the final test is always brilliant, i think we should be proud of what we've done in SA. (then we can move on and destroy india/the aussies in the near future :happybrain: )

ian bell wtf
 
Man why couldn't Bangladesh just win? ;_; Well played India though, I do like Dhoni hundreds as much as the next guy. ALSO HIP THEY NEARLY GOT 300 SO IT'S ALMOST SOMETHING I WANT HAPPENING.
ian bell wtf
Click to expand...
Hey man Ian Bell is my dad (no not really they just share the same name).

England draw by the skin of their balls, damn it. I'd very much appreciate it if Prince went down the order now. ^_^
 
Steve Waugh was the player of 90-99.

This one is harder I think, though, ok I'd say it's Warne..

I mean maybe he stood out just by virtue of being the spinner, as opposed to like Ponting who was a batsman in a team with Hayden, Langer, etc. Or McGrath in a team with Kasprowicz, Gillespie etc.

Have a nice day.
 
Hipmonlee said:
Steve Waugh was the player of 90-99.

This one is harder I think, though, ok I'd say it's Warne..

I mean maybe he stood out just by virtue of being the spinner, as opposed to like Ponting who was a batsman in a team with Hayden, Langer, etc. Or McGrath in a team with Kasprowicz, Gillespie etc.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
How exactly? http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

He averaged 5 less than Sachin during the 1990-99. He only scored about 550 more runs while having played 33 more innings and having 13 more not outs. And that is only in test matches. No need for ODI statistics. There is really only one winner there,lol


...as for Warne. He probably won't get it. I mean he only played for about 7 years in 2000-09. Not to mention he quit ODIs long before. And a player should be able to do well in both forms of the game not just test matches.
 
Ok apparently he didnt become captain til 1999. I had thought it was earlier than that.. Perhaps he should be player of the 2000s.

Anyway average only tells you so much, they faced different attacks on different pitches. Sachin averaged just over 8 runs more than the next highest indian, Waugh 10 runs more than the nearest Australian.

Fact is for all his run getting Sachin never really achieved much that was noteworthy. Compared with Steve Waugh who dominated the run scoring in the best team in the world. He got runs in big games whenever his side needed him to.

How about comparing this with this.

Sachin on the other hand averages 79 in draws (compared with Waugh's 38). Im sure a lot of those runs were vital to save games, I'm also sure a lot of those runs were completely irellevant.

Interestingly their averages are very similar in losses.

Steve Waugh more than anyone is the man behind Australia's success in the last 20 years.

Have a nice day.
 
Are those statistics in matches won? Because that doesn't mean much. Matches are won with everyone contributing. Australia had a very very good team back then whereas India really only had Sachin and Kumble. Major difference there. Its not Sachin's fault his team couldn't force results when he scored runs. I mean imagine if he had Warne, McGrath, Fleming and co as his bowlers.

It is also interesting to note that In the 109 matches India won in ODI Cricket Sachin scored 5374 runs at an average of 61! And in the 117 matches Australia won Waugh only made 2385 runs at an average of 32. I realize that Sachin was an opener and waugh batted at #4 but even then. That is a massive difference.

As for the noteworthy achievements There was the test series vs Aussies, The Sharjah tournament where he single handedly won India the tournament, The highest run getter in 96 world cup (Waugh is on that list too btw,lol). I would love to see some series where waugh won alot of matches for Aussies (too lazy to search it up myself,lol)

Fact is he was at his best against the best team in the world and thats what matters.
 
Yeah but Steve Waugh was the key man behind the best sports team in the world over the last 20 years as well.

Look, you dont need me to find you examples of Waugh batting well.. That was one particular series even I remember and I'm not an Australian..

Also ODIs dont count.

Have a nice day.
 
Hipmonlee said:
Yeah but Steve Waugh was the key man behind the best sports team in the world over the last 20 years as well.

Look, you dont need me to find you examples of Waugh batting well.. That was one particular series even I remember and I'm not an Australian..

Also ODIs dont count.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

And Shane Warne wasn't? Glen McGrath wasn't? Sorry but I don't see what he did that would make the player of the decade.

I guess this is all opinionated and there really is no winner. So lets just stick to the 2000-09 player of the decade xD

also lol@ ODI's don't count....
 
They dont..

And no, I'd say Waugh really was the most important contributor (though perhaps a lot of that contribution came in the early 2000s). Warne has a case, but things favour him because he is the only spinner..

The Australian's success is as much about their attitude as it is about their technical ability, and Waugh is the man who epitomised that the most. I mean, it is a pretty powerful argument that in the strongest batting line up in the world, he averaged 8 more than the next highest player..

Have a nice day.
 
Remember we are only counting statistics and contributions from 1990-99. Mind telling me why ODI's don't count? To me it just sounds like a lame excuse for players who can't do well in that format. Sachin also averages 8 more than the next highest Indian. Sach made the whole world believe that as long as he is batting India have a chance of victory. To influence a billion people like he did is also a powerful statement. Waugh came into captancy around 1999 I think. Before that Mark Taylor had already made Australia into a really solid winning team. Waugh simply inherited that team from him (much like ricky ponting). Its basically like "right I get to captain Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, My brother (M waugh) so lets win some test matches". I am not saying Waugh wasn't great. To get 10k runs in test matches is quite something. But he isn't as good as some of the other players of his generation (Lara, Sachin). ANd I can almost guarantee you he would admit that himself,lol
 
He'd be wrong then.

Mark Taylor made Australia a solid team while Waugh was in the side, dominating the runscoring. That isnt inheriting a side, that is being a key part of building the side.

Averaging more than the other Australians is more impressive because the Australian team was much better than the Indian team.

This isnt a question of who is the most technically able batsman. Tendulkar wins that hands down, no doubt. But I'd select Waugh before Tendulkar any day.

The fact is here, Waugh's runs are more important than Tendulkar's because Waugh won. The objective is winning, and Waugh did that much, much more than Tendulkar did. The fact is runs in losses and about half of the time runs in draws just dont matter. If you bat last in a drawn match it doesnt matter if you get 500 from 500 or 5 from 500. If you get 500 and you lose, then I'm sorry, you werent good enough.

Tendulkar's opportunities were harmed by not being in as good a side as Waugh, but if you want to overcome that you need to do it emphatically. Tendulkar wasnt emphatic enough.

An average of 80 in wins. That is scoring when it matters.

Have a nice day.
 
Hipmonlee said:
Mark Taylor made Australia a solid team while Waugh was in the side, dominating the runscoring. That isnt inheriting a side, that is being a key part of building the side.
Click to expand...

Accept he wasn't the only one. There were alot of other players who were contributing as well. Like all the ones I have already mentioned in my previous posts.

Hipmonlee said:
Averaging more than the other Australians is more impressive because the Australian team was much better than the Indian team.
Click to expand...

In terms of batsman there wasn't that big a difference. Yes obviously Aussies were better in almost every way. But India did have good batsman even back then (its bowlers we didn't have sadly).

Hipmonlee said:
Tendulkar's opportunities were harmed by not being in as good a side as Waugh, but if you want to overcome that you need to do it emphatically. Tendulkar wasnt emphatic enough.
Click to expand...

Wait so what you are saying is Sachin should have scored even more to cover up for the rest of the batsman (not that he wasn't already doing that,lol)? Like I said it is not his fault the bowlers couldn't produce more victories when he scored.

Sachin averages 59 in Indian wins while Waugh averages 71 (not 80). The difference is of 12 runs and although that is alot it doesn't make him a better player. Also you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Sachin averages 61 in ODI cricket when India wins while Waugh averages a medicore 32 while Australia wins. All of a sudden this isn't considered "scoring when it matters"?

EDIT: I just realized I got my 200th post which took me more than 2 years,lol..
 
Does it really matter argueeing who is the player of 90-99 sportsmen are judged very subjectively so there hardly ever a definitive answer. Both Waugh and Tendulkar were great players during the period and a both deserving of the title.

In other news Kamran Akmal has been dropped from the Pakistan team for his four dropped catches in 2nd test which was one of the main factors in there loss. I think it was a harsh decision and more of a knee-jerk reaction.
 
The_Chaser said:
Does it really matter argueeing who is the player of 90-99 sportsmen are judged very subjectively so there hardly ever a definitive answer. Both Waugh and Tendulkar were great players during the period and a both deserving of the title.

In other news Kamran Akmal has been dropped from the Pakistan team for his four dropped catches in 2nd test which was one of the main factors in there loss. I think it was a harsh decision and more of a knee-jerk reaction.
Click to expand...
You are right there never will be a "right" or "correct" answer. Its all opinion. But I was having fun discussing so I kept going ^_^

I agree with you about Kamran Akmal as well. He is a good player. Yes he dropped catches but blaming him for not being able to chase 176? Thats stupid. He is a more confident batsman than there next keeper and he is use to the conditions. I don't see the point in bringing the other guy for just one test in Aus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top