by X__ » Sun, 05 May 2002 13:48:14
by Phil Wis » Sun, 05 May 2002 14:32:42
Anyway, while Inzy deserves much praise for such an epic innings, wouldn't
11th be a little too high considering the quality of the attack he was
facing? It would certainly have to be well up there, like any triple, but
that far up there?
I actually don't think you should decide on the placement you want for a
particular innings until some time has passed, say five years. In my view
they should be looking at innings played in about 1997 with a view to giving
them a provisional placement now, and Inzy, Astle and some of the other
extraordinary innings played this year should be looked at in about 2007.
phil
by Ben Gusse » Sun, 05 May 2002 16:30:12
> Thanks for posting the link. I wanted to read about this, but all I could
> get from Wisden.com was a stupid page about cookies, with no apparent way
> through it. Are they/am I experiencing technical difficulties, or do I
have
> to reconfigure my security settings before they will let me onto their
site,
> in which case they can get jumped on, and I would propose a boycot(t).
> Anyway, while Inzy deserves much praise for such an epic innings, wouldn't
> 11th be a little too high considering the quality of the attack he was
> facing? It would certainly have to be well up there, like any triple, but
> that far up there?
> I actually don't think you should decide on the placement you want for a
> particular innings until some time has passed, say five years. In my view
> they should be looking at innings played in about 1997 with a view to
giving
> them a provisional placement now, and Inzy, Astle and some of the other
> extraordinary innings played this year should be looked at in about 2007.
> phil
The details of Inzamam's innings were fed into a computer and assessed
according to 12 differently-weighted and independent parameters. The sheer
number of runs - plus the fact that Pakistan went on to win the match -
counted strongly in his favour, but the poor quality of New Zealand's attack
counted against him.
Since the ratings were launched in July 2001, only three innings have ever
broken into the top 100. Mark Butcher's 173 not out for England against
Australia at Headingley last August was good enough for 49th position, while
Nathan Astle's brutal 222 for New Zealand against England at Christchurch in
March came in at No.72.
--
Cheers,
Ben.
by Phil Wis » Sun, 05 May 2002 19:35:12
> > Thanks for posting the link. I wanted to read about this, but all I
could
> > get from Wisden.com was a stupid page about cookies, with no apparent
way
> > through it. Are they/am I experiencing technical difficulties, or do I
> have
> > to reconfigure my security settings before they will let me onto their
> site,
> > in which case they can get jumped on, and I would propose a boycot(t).
> > Anyway, while Inzy deserves much praise for such an epic innings,
wouldn't
> > 11th be a little too high considering the quality of the attack he was
> > facing? It would certainly have to be well up there, like any triple,
but
> > that far up there?
> > I actually don't think you should decide on the placement you want for a
> > particular innings until some time has passed, say five years. In my
view
> > they should be looking at innings played in about 1997 with a view to
> giving
> > them a provisional placement now, and Inzy, Astle and some of the other
> > extraordinary innings played this year should be looked at in about
2007.
> > phil
> Inzamam-ul-Haq's 329 against New Zealand is the 11th-greatest innings of
all
> time, according to the Wisden 100, the ratings system from Wisden.com
which
> assesses each individual batting and bowling performance in Test history.
> Inzamam, whose innings set Pakistan on the way to a crushing
> innings-and-324-run victory at Lahore, missed out on a Top Ten berth by
just
> 0.60 of a point. Nevertheless, his innings is the second-highest-rated
> triple-century in Tests. Only Brian Lara's world-record 375 against
England
> in 1993-94 - at No.10 on the list -scores more.
> The details of Inzamam's innings were fed into a computer and assessed
> according to 12 differently-weighted and independent parameters. The sheer
> number of runs - plus the fact that Pakistan went on to win the match -
> counted strongly in his favour, but the poor quality of New Zealand's
attack
> counted against him.
> Since the ratings were launched in July 2001, only three innings have ever
> broken into the top 100. Mark Butcher's 173 not out for England against
> Australia at Headingley last August was good enough for 49th position,
while
> Nathan Astle's brutal 222 for New Zealand against England at Christchurch
in
> March came in at No.72.
> --
> Cheers,
> Ben.
I don't think you can measure "greatness" according to formula like that.
Maybe they're measuring something akin but slightly different. Greatness
has a social-historical dimension, and I also think you need input from
witness testimony to establish it. I simply can't imagine how it could be a
"greater" innings than Bradman's 334, which contained 300 in a day, or
Hutton's 364, which contributed to quite a handy win itself.
There's no question that Inzy's was a great innings; its sheer magnitude saw
to that. And I've been a fan of IUH since his arrival, even though he's
tormented my home attack from time to time. But the second best ever
triple?
phil
by John Hal » Sun, 05 May 2002 19:36:10
by Crickete » Sun, 05 May 2002 20:26:18
by Craig Sutto » Sun, 05 May 2002 20:48:46
by Shishir Patha » Sun, 05 May 2002 20:48:55
Cheers,
Shishir
by Crickete » Sun, 05 May 2002 20:59:28
by Crickete » Sun, 05 May 2002 21:01:16
http://www.wisden.com/records/ratings/ratings.asp?colid=44116978
If Astle had won the man for NZ, no other innings could have compared with
it; even the article above confirms it.
by Shishir Patha » Sun, 05 May 2002 21:28:15
> I don't think so. Even the guy who created the Wisden 100 said he would
> have been over 30 points ahead of Bradman's # 1.
> http://www.wisden.com/records/ratings/ratings.asp?colid=44116978
> If Astle had won the man for NZ, no other innings could have compared with
> it; even the article above confirms it.
Not taking anything away from that awesome Astle innings ... but consider
this: For some reason or the other (injury I think), Chris Cairns was
keeping him company for the last wicket partnership. Now Cairns, although
injured, is no mug with the bat. A terrific all-rounder actually, and has
scored 100s against decent attacks in both Tests and ODO form of the game.
So Astle was under no pressure to "protect" a no. 11 batsman, and this can
really take the pressure off the set batsman. Moreover, it was an easy
pitch to bat on. Remember Graham Thorpe too got a double hundred earlier in
the game; not to mention 2 200s in the earlier Test match as well (NZ-Pak,
if my memory serves me right).
Contrast this with that Lara 150+* that he scored against Aus to win the
game when he had Ambrose and Walsh for company for better part of the
innings and the difference is apparent. I am mentioning this innings only
to quote an example really (top of the mind recall, if you will), and if one
were to apply one's mind to it, I am sure someone can come up with more
instances.
Cheers,
Shishir
by Mad Hami » Sun, 05 May 2002 21:52:12
>I don't think so. Even the guy who created the Wisden 100 said he would
>have been over 30 points ahead of Bradman's # 1.
>http://www.wisden.com/records/ratings/ratings.asp?colid=44116978
>If Astle had won the man for NZ, no other innings could have compared with
>it; even the article above confirms it.
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
by Crickete » Sun, 05 May 2002 22:38:10
3. Pak 148/3 (Inzamam-ul-Haq 11* Ijaz Ahmed 23*) lunch
4. 10.6 Streak to Inzamam-ul-Haq, no run, seams away outside the line
5. Inzamam-ul-Haq is keen to play in English county cricket.
7. Inzamam-ul-Haq b Giles 63, 203 for 4
9. Height of Inzamam ul-Haq, Brian McMillan
11. Inzamam Ul Haq
12. New Zealand v Sri Lanka, 1996/97, 1st Test - New Zealand Won by an Innings
13. If Hayden's 380 is worthless so also is Clarke's 329
14. Highlights - Australia v New Zealand, CB Series, 11th Match, Melbourne