and call it off...?
there has been already talk on air that tendulkar should hurry up his century so that captains can call it off since there is no result to be achieved...
but why should india call it off... what is a result anyway...?
india should make sri lanka toil further... till the very last over of the day... and if there is possibility of even laxman getting century then that should be explored too to the hilt by the indian team...
this is an international match not an exhibition match... more over it's the first match of the three match series... and the next match starts after just a 3 days break... india still can achieve desired 'result' of grinding opposition to its feet when they know the match is not heading anywhere for them... make them toil hard aimlessly... frustrate them... till the last ball of the day...
make their bowlers pray that sanga wins the toss in the next match and decides to bat... for if india win the toss and bat again in kanpur... we would achieve the desired result...
and even if we not... we have two batsmen having better than net practice at the expense of sri lankan bowlers... earning free international runs...
still talk about result...?
why shake hands...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
But it's a bit tough if you are doing text commentary on this and you've been awake since 5:00AM and you were baking on it being called off :)
so ms now the test will run for the whim and fancy of commentators...
novel thought... must say... :)
I thought we should have either called it off at the start of 15 mandatory overs or batted on till the end. But to call it off once Tendulkar got his hundred didn't feel too good, not that other teams haven't done it. Even Michael Clarke batted on at Edgbaston to get his hundred. All in all, this was a test worth forgetting thanks to the unimaginably bad pitch.
c'mon mahek why it felt no too good to you...?
Because it was a slow slow hundred on a flat pitch against a bowling attack missing one of their frontline bowlers. Yeah there was a test to be saved and he did the job, but where does this hundred rank in his list of top 50 test innings? Does it even make the top 50?
mahek... why every innings should or must be ranked...?
he did his job the way team wanted it... got the much needed practice before the start of match at the expense of sri lankan bowlers which is any day better than net practice and in bargain got his century...
what more one can ask for...?
Nothing more, but it wasn't one I enjoyed. It's not meant to undermine his effort in any way, just that it contributed to another boring test on Indian shores.
picture abhi baaki hai mere dost... this is only first of three test series... :)
1. They realise that the boot could be on the other foot another day. I mean, today you might bat on, and another day, Sanga might get the chance. So, it is kind of quid-pro-quo between professionals :-)
2. No Hundred is meaningless. Am I to believe that Bradman or Ponting never got a freebie hundred in their lives? No, why should we grudge tendulkar his. If it takes him 1 further away from Ponting, good.
Ofcourse, another matter that Ponting has West Indies waiting for him thsi season, and might end up with the centuries record by the end of that series itself! He will get atleast 1 century in this series against WI this year, and surely he'll average atleast 30?
raj... actually laxman too should have pushed for his century... but he appeared more bored than even sri lankan were...
apart from that i agree... :)
Raj, there's a difference between saying a hundred being meaningful and one being memorable. This one was far from being memorable. No one is going to grudge him this hundred, but it was clear that they were only playing on for his hundred. I wouldn't have had a bad taste in my mouth if we'd batted till the end as that would have been good for the whole team.
Ponting and Bradman have some of those too, but why bring them into the discussion? Or is it instinctive for every Indian to defend Tendulkar vis-a-vis Ponting? Tendulkar has more hundreds than Bradman but only a fool would argue he's a better batsman than the Australian great. Likewise, for Tendulkar fans Ponting isn't going to be any greater than Tendulkar if he scores more hundreds and vice-versa. It's just a statistic and the more a player plays the more likely he is to score more hundreds.
Well, to me, I 'd stop at saying we cant compare Bradman and Tendulkar. If helmets and pitches are one reason Tendulkar is supposed to be inferior, then the different playing conditions, teh volume of cricket, a new cricket ground every other day to reckon with, the pressure of batting for India, juggling between limited overs and test cricket - all these make it a question whether Bradman would have been equally succesful as Tendulkar today.Who knows? he might still be succesful today but ther is nothing in his resume to suggest that he is capable of facing the conditions and pressures Tendulkar did.
Also, remember that when they toured those days, a thousand warm up matches were there, people toured a country for 3 months for 5 test matches so there was enough time to play themselves in and get acquainted. Tendulkar flys down one day and plays a test match the next day. Did Bradman have to do this?
So, there is no guarantee that Bradman would have been as good as Tendu today and vice versa.
So, it is not enough to say will tendulkar have succeeded in Bradman era because of no helmet etc? We have to ask the converse also.
Sure you can take the argument to such ridiculous levels but that doesn't change the fact that Bradman is the best batsman in the history of the game. You can bring in n number of variables but nothing can bridge the gap of 45 runs in their average. Heck there can be a case made for a number of batsmen being better than Tendulkar, all of which would fall on deaf Indian ears. Likewise, a lot of people in the Caribbean may argue in favour of Richards or Lara. Cricket wouldn't be what it is if fans didn't root for their countrymen, would it?
So, Mahek, if someone roots for Tendulkar, then that is only nationalism. Not a preference based on his skills and achievements?
I prefer Sachin, and if I am accused of 'nationalism' (accused because I am not such a heart on sleeve patriot so any such allegations sound as accusations to me) because of that, so be it.
The fanaticism of Bradman fans that anyone questioning the iconic status is ridiculous - is simply amazing. You never know - there are so many factors there. A neutral will not compare. A Sachin fanatic will say Bradman is inferior, no questions asked; a bradman fanatic will say vice versa. I am the neutral here :-)
Putting it simply, if you were neutral and had one spot in your lineup you'd pick Bradman over Tendulkar. You'd be hard pressed to find too many non-Indians who wouldn't do it. Heck even Tendulkar wouldn't pick himself over Bradman, and that's not because he's very humble and modest.
It would have been fun if they lost a couple of wickets in the process :)
raj...
excellent points on bradman and tendulkar... specially the variables you have drawn... very thought provoking...
yes scorpy it would have been fun...
specially knowing the on fifth day we lost only two wickets whole day... one of which was of tailender... which required a brilliant reflexes to dislodge him... :)
Spaek for yourself Mahek. I'd pick Tendulkar over Bradman if the conditions and rules and tools available were similar to his times - no helmet, uncovered pitches etc, and I'd pick Tendulkar if helmet is allowed, a tough schedule of 5 ODI matches and 3 tests in a month is the plan.
In both cases,i'd be pickinga provn performer under those conditions. Anything else is emotional attachment to your idol. See, you are picking Bradman irrespectiveo f anything else whereas I'm letting cold logic rule the roost - who is the neutral ;-)
Whatever floats your boat.
Post a Comment