-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Exciting batsmen
- Thread starter Tom Halsey
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, he batted extremely well in WC2003 final. But it's different to opening in a Test-match. He didn't exactly have much to lose, chasing 350-whatever-it-was, and with his master out before he'd faced a ball.vishnureddy said:
He faced Gillespie pretty well in the first 2 Tests, yes, but Gillespie and Bracken and Gillespie and Williams is an entirely different prospect to McGrath and Gillespie. Both Bracken and Williams have been more accurate than I'd expect them to be in this series, but still nowhere near as accurate as McGrath or Gillespie.
none taken
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Wasim is a rarity. He's like a male equivalent of Kylie or Madonna. The girls\guys still fawn over them even into their mid-30s and in the lattermost's case, early 40s.
Fleming's still fairly good-looking, yes, but surely there were younger players more in the frame?
My point regarding the poll-posts being, maybe you'd better phrase them as I suggested, though as Corey pointed-out, it's not as neccesary as maybe I thought it was.
I just think why settle for good when you can get very good?
Fleming's still fairly good-looking, yes, but surely there were younger players more in the frame?
My point regarding the poll-posts being, maybe you'd better phrase them as I suggested, though as Corey pointed-out, it's not as neccesary as maybe I thought it was.
I just think why settle for good when you can get very good?
iamdavid
Well-known member
Now this my friend is absolue Bull sh*t.Richard said:
To see Sehwag bat during the 1st 15 overs of this match was a sight for sore eyes , his footwork was laughable & he took way more airswings than I can bare to remember , McGrath in particular gave him huge trouble with the extra bounce on off stump , he had absolutely no idea.
He got one great shot away , a cut for 6 but in general he was woeful.
Then when it looked like raining they brought Hogg & Lehmann on & it was a different story , he got a few nice sixes away & his confidence picked up.
Considering how much you go on about Hayden & Gilchrist's averages being inflated I am amased Sehwag has escaped similar treatment , quite simply he's been bloody lucky for the greater part of his test carear , never more so than yesterday.
I also note you're attitude towards Hayden's style of play , look at Sehwag , half his boundaries yesterday were from pre meditated slogs , ugly as sin.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't find Sehwag especially attractive, certainly nowhere near as much as his master.
Still enjoyed seeing him hammer Lee and MacGill and co. all over the park though.
Sehwag has played two exceedingly good centuries at St.George's Park and Trent Bridge, against first the seaming then the swinging ball. I don't think his runs in India prove him a Test-class opener, and as I said he failed dismally in New Zealand.
However I did also point-out that he's damn lucky to have scored more than 40-whatever-it-was when Katich dropped him. I'm not as annoyed about that as I am when Hayden and Gilchrist get dropped, because it would have been a gift wicket to Bracken.
As to WC2003 final, fair enough, maybe "played OK" would have been a better phrase.
Sehwag and Hayden have certain parallels, both have had some opportunities to be flat-track bullies, both had luck. Hayden has had far more than Sehwag in terms of both, though, and that's why I go on about it more. It's also because peope praise Hayden more often. And Sehwag has played more good innings in trying circumstances (ie the moving ball at 75+mph).
Still enjoyed seeing him hammer Lee and MacGill and co. all over the park though.
Sehwag has played two exceedingly good centuries at St.George's Park and Trent Bridge, against first the seaming then the swinging ball. I don't think his runs in India prove him a Test-class opener, and as I said he failed dismally in New Zealand.
However I did also point-out that he's damn lucky to have scored more than 40-whatever-it-was when Katich dropped him. I'm not as annoyed about that as I am when Hayden and Gilchrist get dropped, because it would have been a gift wicket to Bracken.
As to WC2003 final, fair enough, maybe "played OK" would have been a better phrase.
Sehwag and Hayden have certain parallels, both have had some opportunities to be flat-track bullies, both had luck. Hayden has had far more than Sehwag in terms of both, though, and that's why I go on about it more. It's also because peope praise Hayden more often. And Sehwag has played more good innings in trying circumstances (ie the moving ball at 75+mph).
Last edited:
iamdavid
Well-known member
Just to detail some of the luck Sehwag had on Friday
should have been run out by a good 2 yards on 8 but Gilchrist fumbled it , terrible mix-up.
Stump cam conclusively showed him to be out stumped on 37 , from that angle he was clearly on the line , yet for some reason Bob Parry let him stay :!(
The Langer drop from a slash at third slip when he was 40 odd.
Katich dropping one of the easiest catches one will ever see at point , honestly my mum actually would've caught that one , a feildsman of Katich's calibre would have more than a 99% succes rate with that but this time he just.....dropped it.
Then there were the dozen or more airswings , where he took perfectly decent balls & attempted to put them into orbit only for them to sail by , very ugly.
Then all the miscues , the streaky boundaries through slips , the prededitated slogs & the leading edges that came within a whisker of feildsman.
Hayden scored a hundred today , he had one close lbw turned down off Kumble & got a streaky 4 through gully early on from Khan.
No other luck to speak of.
Hayden is better :P
should have been run out by a good 2 yards on 8 but Gilchrist fumbled it , terrible mix-up.
Stump cam conclusively showed him to be out stumped on 37 , from that angle he was clearly on the line , yet for some reason Bob Parry let him stay :!(
The Langer drop from a slash at third slip when he was 40 odd.
Katich dropping one of the easiest catches one will ever see at point , honestly my mum actually would've caught that one , a feildsman of Katich's calibre would have more than a 99% succes rate with that but this time he just.....dropped it.
Then there were the dozen or more airswings , where he took perfectly decent balls & attempted to put them into orbit only for them to sail by , very ugly.
Then all the miscues , the streaky boundaries through slips , the prededitated slogs & the leading edges that came within a whisker of feildsman.
Hayden scored a hundred today , he had one close lbw turned down off Kumble & got a streaky 4 through gully early on from Khan.
No other luck to speak of.
Hayden is better :P
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I must have been asleep on the stumping, and I couldn't watch the highlights as I was at work.
Sorry, mistook Langer for Katich. Soon to be corrected. The one Langer "dropped" I really don't read much into. No-one was going to catch that.
Forget completely about that run-out, God knows how. If you ask me it was more Chopra's fault, though; there was an easy two there if they'd have gone without hesitation. He just needed to make himself clearer.
Sorry, mistook Langer for Katich. Soon to be corrected. The one Langer "dropped" I really don't read much into. No-one was going to catch that.
Forget completely about that run-out, God knows how. If you ask me it was more Chopra's fault, though; there was an easy two there if they'd have gone without hesitation. He just needed to make himself clearer.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Well-known member
AFAIK it was one from each country and Collymore was the West Indian.iamdavid said:
V Reddy
Well-known member
He plays that way in domestic cricket too. It's not just in International Cricket. But the important thing is he scores runs. He is a typical village type cricketer. He says he doesn't listen to commentators b'coz they make the game sound complicated when it is easy. Even when he was asked about that bad shot he got out to in the first innings, he said that he is not worried b'coz that is way he played all his cricket and he wouldn't change it. He will even miscue , slog, leading edge ,etc,. against bowlers like Styris and not just McGrath but the imp thing is he got runs. Btw, i don't think McGrath will play much longer and so i think he will never get to play them combined. Maybe in India next year but those are on flat tracks.iamdavid said:
Bazza
Well-known member
An interesting comment. In his 5th test he scored 277 off 372 balls (his maiden ton) against Australia.Arrow said:
His next ton was 167 off 210 balls against England.
Then came the 375, followed by 147 off 181 balls v NZ.
Lara's career SR is touching 60 and in ODIs touching 80 so it's fair to say Lara has always been a fairly positive player.
Check out this scorecard from ten years ago - Lara scored 180 out of 219 for T&T against Jamaica:
http://www-usa.cricket.org/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/WI_LOCAL/RSC/T+T_JAM_RSC_21-24JAN1994.html
My point was not his strike rate but how that strike rate was acheived.Bazza said:
In that 277 he exclusivly hit the ball on the ground throughout the innings for all the 44 fours he scored.
No sixes at all.
If you have been watching lara bat in recent times you would notice he airs a lot more balls because he tries to hit big over the top.
In the recent series against australia he was clean bowled a couple of times charging down the pitch trying to hit the spinners out of the park.
Hes adopted a riskier approach.
Adamc
Well-known member
This is true to an extent, though his riskier approach is not necessarily an irresponsible one. If anything, Lara is a more responsible batsman than ever, as he is in charge of a young batting lineup with not a lot of experience. More often than not his aggression is a controlled response to the situation.Arrow said:
In his 202 in the first test he came in with the WI in a reasonable position at 2/94 but the run rate at only 2.5rpo. Hence, he tried to gain some initiative by being aggressive from the start. Consquently, he played and missed several times and skied many deliveries, but he got the job done. This took the pressure off his partners at the other end, none of which were in good form.
In his 72 in the second test the situation was much worse and he responded by curtailing his aggressive nature. At one stage he had 7 off 42 balls, but once he and Jacobs were settled he hit a further 65 off 69.
Anyway, all I am trying to say is that when he is 'charging down the pitch trying to hit the spinners out of the park' it is usually to regain some initiative and take pressure off other batsman rather than a Sehwag-style swipe.
Tom Halsey
Well-known member
I haven't noticed anything. Lara has always been attacking.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
So are most wickets in Australia.vishnureddy said:
This one is rather disappointing in it's unevenness, but Australia still managed 550.:rolleyes:
I'd like to have seen what difference McGrath would have made in Adelaide. He might have saved the game but I'll eat my computer if he'd have won it.
Tom Halsey
Well-known member
The wickets in Australia are some of the flattest in the world. At least the ones in India spin.