Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Pankaj Chikar » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 05:56:15


http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20010726/reu-wisden_list.html

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Uday Raja » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 06:49:14

Quote:

> http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20010726/reu-wisden_list.html

        Some odd choices here. In the batting, Bradman's 299* vs
RSA in 1931-32 is rated at 5. That was a very weak RSA team.
Amongst Bradman's own innings, excluding his 270 vs Eng in
1936-37 (which is rated 1 on this list), his 334 at Leeds,
254 at Lord's (both in 1930), or 103* at Melbourne in
1932-33, would surely take precedence.
        Lara's 375 is rated at 10. No way. Lara's double century
against Australia in 1999 was by far a superior innings. It
came after the WI had been demolished for ...what was
it...54 or something in the previous Test, and had lost four
quick wickets in the innings. Turned the match and the
series around for the WI.
        On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.
Pressed to it, I'd say drop one of Verity 8/43 at Lord's
against Aus in 1934 (wasn't that a rain-affected pitch?), or
McKenzie 8/71 against WI in 1968-69. Personally, I'd leave
both of the 10-fers (Laker and Kumble) off the list as well.
Impressive statistical feats, but Laker's 9/37 in the first
innings set up the match, and Kumble's 10-fer came with
Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by samarth harish sha » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:47:07

Quote:


> > http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20010726/reu-wisden_list.html

>    Some odd choices here. In the batting, Bradman's 299* vs
> RSA in 1931-32 is rated at 5. That was a very weak RSA team.
> Amongst Bradman's own innings, excluding his 270 vs Eng in
> 1936-37 (which is rated 1 on this list), his 334 at Leeds,
> 254 at Lord's (both in 1930), or 103* at Melbourne in
> 1932-33, would surely take precedence.
>    Lara's 375 is rated at 10. No way. Lara's double century
> against Australia in 1999 was by far a superior innings. It
> came after the WI had been demolished for ...what was
> it...54 or something in the previous Test, and had lost four
> quick wickets in the innings. Turned the match and the
> series around for the WI.
>    On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
> Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.
> Pressed to it, I'd say drop one of Verity 8/43 at Lord's
> against Aus in 1934 (wasn't that a rain-affected pitch?), or
> McKenzie 8/71 against WI in 1968-69. Personally, I'd leave
> both of the 10-fers (Laker and Kumble) off the list as well.
> Impressive statistical feats, but Laker's 9/37 in the first
> innings set up the match, and Kumble's 10-fer came with
> Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

They needed 420 in all, but were 101/0 when Kumble grabbed 10.

-Samarth.

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Rocky Raccoo » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:01:29



Quote:



http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20010726/reu-wisden_list.htm
l

Quote:

> > Some odd choices here. In the batting, Bradman's 299* vs
> > RSA in 1931-32 is rated at 5. That was a very weak RSA team.
> > Amongst Bradman's own innings, excluding his 270 vs Eng in
> > 1936-37 (which is rated 1 on this list), his 334 at Leeds,
> > 254 at Lord's (both in 1930), or 103* at Melbourne in
> > 1932-33, would surely take precedence.
> > Lara's 375 is rated at 10. No way. Lara's double century
> > against Australia in 1999 was by far a superior innings. It
> > came after the WI had been demolished for ...what was
> > it...54 or something in the previous Test, and had lost four
> > quick wickets in the innings. Turned the match and the
> > series around for the WI.
> > On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
> > Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.
> > Pressed to it, I'd say drop one of Verity 8/43 at Lord's
> > against Aus in 1934 (wasn't that a rain-affected pitch?), or
> > McKenzie 8/71 against WI in 1968-69. Personally, I'd leave
> > both of the 10-fers (Laker and Kumble) off the list as well.
> > Impressive statistical feats, but Laker's 9/37 in the first
> > innings set up the match, and Kumble's 10-fer came with
> > Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

> They needed 420 in all, but were 101/0 when Kumble grabbed 10.

and they had only slightly less than 2 days to get the runs & the way
Afridi & Anwar were going, it looked achievable.
 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Ian Galbrai » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:47:55

:> http://SportToday.org/

:       Some odd choices here. In the batting, Bradman's 299* vs
:RSA in 1931-32 is rated at 5. That was a very weak RSA team.
:Amongst Bradman's own innings, excluding his 270 vs Eng in
:1936-37 (which is rated 1 on this list), his 334 at Leeds,
:254 at Lord's (both in 1930), or 103* at Melbourne in
:1932-33, would surely take precedence.

Agreed, very strange. IIRC Bradman himself regarded the 254 as his best
innings. They've also left out Stan McCabe's famous innings where
Bradman called the Aust. players out to watch it. And where the hell is
Dean Jones 200 in India?

:       Lara's 375 is rated at 10. No way. Lara's double century
:against Australia in 1999 was by far a superior innings. It
:came after the WI had been demolished for ...what was
:it...54 or something in the previous Test, and had lost four
:quick wickets in the innings. Turned the match and the
:series around for the WI.

Agreed, although given the 375 is the highest test score I can
understand it being nominated. Surely the double century and any the
innings mentioned above should slot in ahead of Azhar Mahmoods innings.

:       On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
:Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.

Except that was on a very bad wicket.

:Pressed to it, I'd say drop one of Verity 8/43 at Lord's
:against Aus in 1934 (wasn't that a rain-affected pitch?), or
:McKenzie 8/71 against WI in 1968-69. Personally, I'd leave
:both of the 10-fers (Laker and Kumble) off the list as well.
:Impressive statistical feats, but Laker's 9/37 in the first
:innings set up the match, and Kumble's 10-fer came with
:Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

And India doing everything they could to ensure no-one else got a
wicket. Wouldn't it have been on a Krumbler as well?

--
Ian Galbraith

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."
- Philip K.***

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Uday Raja » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 14:09:21

Quote:

> They've also left out Stan McCabe's famous innings where
> Bradman called the Aust. players out to watch it.

        Yes, his 232 at Trent Bridge in 1938. Put on 77 in
about 28 minutes with last man Fleetwood-Smith, who got
a grand 5 of those.

Quote:
> And where the hell is Dean Jones 200 in India?

        Great innings in the circumstances (away tour, young
side, very hot, and Deano threw up a few times in his
innings), but not one of the ten best innings of all
time, I'd say. Steve Waugh's 200 at Kingston in 1995, I
wonder where that innings was ranked.

Quote:
> Agreed, although given the 375 is the highest test score I can
> understand it being nominated. Surely the double century and any the
> innings mentioned above should slot in ahead of Azhar Mahmoods innings.

        Azhar is not a batsman (in fact, his batting seems to
have declined quite a bit since his first few Tests),
but that was quite a remarkable innings. He scored 132
out of a total of 259, coming in at 89/5. He lost the
last recognized batsman, Moin, at 127. Of the last 132
runs scored, nos. 8 through 11 contributed 14. There
were 9 extras in the whole innings, so Azhar scored at
least 109 of those last 132. The last two wickets added
106 runs, with nos. 10 and 11 getting 8 between them.
The RSA attack was Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, and
Klusener, not half bad, especially on a pacy Durban
pitch. Pakistan won that Test by 29 runs.

The scorecard is at:
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1997-98/PAK_IN_RS...

        I don't know if I'd rate it in the top 10 innings of
all time myself, but I don't find this to be an
outrageous choice.

Quote:
> :       On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
> :Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.

> Except that was on a very bad wicket.

        I didn't see the Test, but the scorecard indicates
that S*****s got 80, and Binary-man 77. How bad could
the pitch have been? ....Even so, deciding Test of a
series, delivered a knock-out punch on day 1, great
bowling performance.

Quote:
> : Kumble's 10-fer came with
> :Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

> And India doing everything they could to ensure no-one else got a
> wicket. Wouldn't it have been on a Krumbler as well?

        Again, I didn't see that Test. IIRC, the "no-one else
to get a wicket" dictum only came into effect when
there were 9 down (maybe 8? not sure now). And the
pitch has been called a krumbler all right (was the
term Krumbler coined after that Test? I don't recall it
being used much earlier). There were also a few dodgy
umpiring decisions.
 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Ian Galbrai » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 16:14:12

[snip]

:> And where the hell is Dean Jones 200 in India?

:       Great innings in the circumstances (away tour, young
:side, very hot, and Deano threw up a few times in his
:innings), but not one of the ten best innings of all

IMHO on sheer courage alone it should be there. It may not have been the
prettiest innings but I doubt that is a requirement.

:time, I'd say. Steve Waugh's 200 at Kingston in 1995, I
:wonder where that innings was ranked.

Good point.

:> Agreed, although given the 375 is the highest test score I can
:> understand it being nominated. Surely the double century and any the
:> innings mentioned above should slot in ahead of Azhar Mahmoods innings.

:       Azhar is not a batsman (in fact, his batting seems to
:have declined quite a bit since his first few Tests),
:but that was quite a remarkable innings. He scored 132
:out of a total of 259, coming in at 89/5. He lost the
:last recognized batsman, Moin, at 127. Of the last 132
:runs scored, nos. 8 through 11 contributed 14. There
:were 9 extras in the whole innings, so Azhar scored at
:least 109 of those last 132. The last two wickets added
:106 runs, with nos. 10 and 11 getting 8 between them.
:The RSA attack was Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, and
:Klusener, not half bad, especially on a pacy Durban
:pitch. Pakistan won that Test by 29 runs.

On a similar basis they should consider innings such as Gilchrist's
innings in Hobart against Pakistan.

[snip]

:> :       On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
:> :Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.

:> Except that was on a very bad wicket.

:       I didn't see the Test, but the scorecard indicates
:that S*****s got 80, and Binary-man 77. How bad could
:the pitch have been? ....Even so, deciding Test of a
:series, delivered a knock-out punch on day 1, great
:bowling performance.

From memory it was a very bad wicket, a greentop at Perth. The WI
batsman did pretty well because I think the Aussies were basically
demoralized by Ambrose's performance.

[snip]

--
Ian Galbraith

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."
- Philip K.***

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by samarth harish sha » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:33:37

Quote:


> > They've also left out Stan McCabe's famous innings where
> > Bradman called the Aust. players out to watch it.

>    Yes, his 232 at Trent Bridge in 1938. Put on 77 in
> about 28 minutes with last man Fleetwood-Smith, who got
> a grand 5 of those.

Agree. By all accounts, it was one of the greatest innings ever played.

Quote:
> > And where the hell is Dean Jones 200 in India?

>    Great innings in the circumstances (away tour, young
> side, very hot, and Deano threw up a few times in his
> innings), but not one of the ten best innings of all
> time, I'd say. Steve Waugh's 200 at Kingston in 1995, I
> wonder where that innings was ranked.

Agree, once again. Jones' innings was a terrific knock, but on a placid
track (347 appeared a tough chase in the 4th innings only due to
time-pressure) against an absolutely pathetic attack. (Leg-side
full-tosses from Ravi Shastri and all.) It was a very brave knock, but
hey, the fact that he wasn't fit enough to deal with the admittedly tough
conditions shouldn't act *in* his favor!

Waugh's 200 at Kingston was easily a better knock, IMHO.

Quote:
> > Agreed, although given the 375 is the highest test score I can
> > understand it being nominated. Surely the double century and any the
> > innings mentioned above should slot in ahead of Azhar Mahmoods innings.

>    Azhar is not a batsman (in fact, his batting seems to
> have declined quite a bit since his first few Tests),
> but that was quite a remarkable innings. He scored 132
> out of a total of 259, coming in at 89/5. He lost the
> last recognized batsman, Moin, at 127. Of the last 132
> runs scored, nos. 8 through 11 contributed 14. There
> were 9 extras in the whole innings, so Azhar scored at
> least 109 of those last 132. The last two wickets added
> 106 runs, with nos. 10 and 11 getting 8 between them.
> The RSA attack was Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, and
> Klusener, not half bad, especially on a pacy Durban
> pitch. Pakistan won that Test by 29 runs.

> The scorecard is at:
> http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1997-98/PAK_IN_RS...

I agree. *Terrific* knock. I saw the entire knock live and it was an
absolutely *gorgeous* innings. Ferocious square-cutting of Donald. Superb
strokeplay off both front- and back-foot.

Quote:
>    I don't know if I'd rate it in the top 10 innings of
> all time myself, but I don't find this to be an
> outrageous choice.

I wouldn't rate it among the top 10 of all time, either, but considering
some of the other knocks in the list, I don't grudge Azhar his place in
the list. It was easily one of the top 10 knocks of the 90s, IMHO.

Quote:
> > :       On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
> > :Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.

> > Except that was on a very bad wicket.

>    I didn't see the Test, but the scorecard indicates
> that S*****s got 80, and Binary-man 77. How bad could
> the pitch have been? ....Even so, deciding Test of a
> series, delivered a knock-out punch on day 1, great
> bowling performance.

I didn't actually see it. I've only heard a whole lot about this spell.
Given just the statistics, though (7/1), I am least surprised this spell
made it.

Quote:
> > : Kumble's 10-fer came with
> > :Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

> > And India doing everything they could to ensure no-one else got a
> > wicket. Wouldn't it have been on a Krumbler as well?

>    Again, I didn't see that Test. IIRC, the "no-one else
> to get a wicket" dictum only came into effect when
> there were 9 down (maybe 8? not sure now). And the
> pitch has been called a krumbler all right (was the

Hey, how bad could it have been if Ramesh made 96, Azhar 67, Ganguly 67,
Anwar 67 and *Srinath* (of all people) 49. Afridi, not Mr. Technique
himself, also made runs in both innings.

Quote:
> term Krumbler coined after that Test? I don't recall it
> being used much earlier). There were also a few dodgy
> umpiring decisions.

Yes, the first one, I think was dodgy.

I wouldn't rate Kumble's spell in the top-20, even, BTW. The Pakistani
top-order is weak and once he removed them (at least one of them to a
dodgy decision), pressure did the rest of them in. Once Pakistan were 3
down, their batsmen didn't stand a chance. And at least one of those first
3 wickets was to a dodgy decision.

-Samarth.

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by samarth harish sha » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:38:13

<snip>

Quote:
> On a similar basis they should consider innings such as Gilchrist's
> innings in Hobart against Pakistan.

They most certainly should. 'Twas the sorta stuff dreams are made up of.

Quote:
> [snip]

> :> :       On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
> :> :Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.

> :> Except that was on a very bad wicket.

> :  I didn't see the Test, but the scorecard indicates
> :that S*****s got 80, and Binary-man 77. How bad could
> :the pitch have been? ....Even so, deciding Test of a
> :series, delivered a knock-out punch on day 1, great
> :bowling performance.

> From memory it was a very bad wicket, a greentop at Perth. The WI
> batsman did pretty well because I think the Aussies were basically
> demoralized by Ambrose's performance.

All the more reason, then, for rating Ambrose's performance highly. If
Jones can be included on the basis of his courage, Ambrose can be included
on the basis of driving any semblance of courage out of the opposition's
mind. :-)

-Samarth.

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Thomas Ros » Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:33:01

Most of them I can live with, just a few grumbles.

Firstly, Azhar Mahmood? It may have been a good innings but surely over the
125-year history of Test cricket there have been some better performances.
And I seem to recall a Sarfraz Nawaz 9fer that led Pakistan to victory
against all odds.

The Don was also a bit unlucky...but I'm sure they couldn't have had him
taking all ten spots.

Thomas.


Quote:

> http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sk/news/reuters/20010726/reu-wisden_list.html

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Amol Cricketwall » Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:00:56

Quote:


> > They've also left out Stan McCabe's famous innings where
> > Bradman called the Aust. players out to watch it.

>    Yes, his 232 at Trent Bridge in 1938. Put on 77 in
> about 28 minutes with last man Fleetwood-Smith, who got
> a grand 5 of those.

Well, of course they left it out - its a pretty ***list, IMHO :-)
I mean, when you look at the Indian list, for example, Ive seen a
whole bunch of the innings listed. And still, the 2 best Indian
innings Ive ever seen in my life (SMG-Bangalore-Pak-96, SRT-Madras-
Pak-136) are not in the Top 10. To me, that makes it a ***list,
so I didnt bother spending more than 30 seconds reading the rest of
their list :-)

Quote:
> > And where the hell is Dean Jones 200 in India?

>    Great innings in the circumstances (away tour, young
> side, very hot, and Deano threw up a few times in his
> innings), but not one of the ten best innings of all
> time, I'd say. Steve Waugh's 200 at Kingston in 1995, I
> wonder where that innings was ranked.

Iam not sure I'd rank Steve's 200 as well - it was huge in terms of
score, and also in terms of importance. But I wouldnt rate it *that*
high as just an innings. I didnt think batting conditions
impossibly hard or anything, for example (as demonstrated by Mark Waugh's
ton in the same innings, which was a more fluent knock :-), and Blewett
making 70 odd. And the Windies bowlers actually bowled ***for most
of it as well, IMHO :-) An excellent knock and one that should be near
the top in terms of sheer importance, but not one I personally think
was all that special in terms of degree-of-difficulty.

Quote:
> > Agreed, although given the 375 is the highest test score I can
> > understand it being nominated. Surely the double century and any the
> > innings mentioned above should slot in ahead of Azhar Mahmoods innings.

>    Azhar is not a batsman (in fact, his batting seems to
> have declined quite a bit since his first few Tests),
> but that was quite a remarkable innings.

I agree, a remarkable innings - but I still wouldnt come close to ranking
it among the Top 10 of all time! I mean, top 10 of the 90s yes, as Samarth
said. But Top 10 of all time? Give me a break :-) (Where is Dudley Nourse
with a broken hand, 40-year old, and scoring 208 to beat an excellent
England side? Where are Hobbs and Sutcliffe on a drying sticky in
the Ashes? Ah, forget it :-)

Quote:

> > :       On the bowling end, Ambrose's 7/25 at Perth against
> > :Australia (which included that 7/1 run) must find a place.

> > Except that was on a very bad wicket.

>    I didn't see the Test, but the scorecard indicates
> that S*****s got 80, and Binary-man 77. How bad could
> the pitch have been? ....Even so, deciding Test of a
> series, delivered a knock-out punch on day 1, great
> bowling performance.

It was a very rough pitch - the groundsman was actually fired at the
end of that test match :-) The game ended on the 3rd morning IIRC. It
was Perth, with the usual Perth bounce, and it was a green-top! I watched
that game, and I remember Ambrose bowling very poorly in the
morning session, the worst Ambrose had bowled the entire test series (he
had been spectacular the entire series prior to that). Walsh bowled
relatively ordinarily on a helpful pitch as well, Bishop was ok and got
a wicket, IIRC. Australia were about 80/2 when Ambrose was brought back
after lunch. And *this* time he bowled as well as he had bowled the rest
of the series, proceeded to take 7-1 in about 7 overs, and Australia
collapsed to about 115 all out :-)

When WI batted, someone was injured after a while and Richie Richardson
came in. And thats when Jo Angel decided the best way to dismiss ol'
Richie was to bounce him out, with a man set at fine-leg. So he proceeded
to bounce every delivery from that point onwards, and Richie just sat
back and kept hooking and hooking and hooking :-) WI were already 20-odd
into the lead by the time the 2nd wicket fell, and that game was effectively
over by the 3rd session of the first day.

That game pretty much has to be there just because of that 7-1, I
suppose - its one of the great spells of all-time. And it *was* a very
good spell, even forgetting about the wickets :-) But Ambrose was at
least as good in a couple of other games that series, IMHO, often
without too much luck. He did claim a 10-wicket match-haul in just the
previous test at Adelaide (which WI won by 1 run, and which is still the
best test Ive ever watched I think).

Quote:
> > : Kumble's 10-fer came with
> > :Pakistan needing over 350 to win.

> > And India doing everything they could to ensure no-one else got a
> > wicket. Wouldn't it have been on a Krumbler as well?

>    Again, I didn't see that Test. IIRC, the "no-one else
> to get a wicket" dictum only came into effect when
> there were 9 down (maybe 8? not sure now). And the
> pitch has been called a krumbler all right (was the
> term Krumbler coined after that Test? I don't recall it
> being used much earlier). There were also a few dodgy
> umpiring decisions.

No, no, we've been using Krumbler for ages :-)

I agree here too, the pitch was awful, and I wouldnt rate this spell
in the Top 10 either! Its even lower than the Ambrose one, for that was
at least in the first innings when the match was still up in the air -
while watching this match, I had no doubt in my own mind that the Delhi
test was over long before Kumble started his demolition :-) And Iam not
the only one who thought that way, BTW - Akram himself said he never once
felt they had a chance, thinking their best hope was to maybe get to 250
or so (and this even after they started brilliantly)!

Pakistan was set 420 to win on a Krumbler, and India bowled maybe the
worst ***anyone has ever seen them bowl for the first hour and a bit
of it (prior to lunch). Pak was 100/0 at lunch, and Kumble had bowled
some of the worst stuff he's ever bowled himself! Even at this point,
though, none of us watching were at all worried, just pissed off at the
***bowling and even crappier captaincy (and Akram said later that at
lunch he thought they might get 250 :-) After lunch they fixed things,
set the fielding better, and Kumble kept it right there throughout. There
were a couple dodgy decisions, and Harbajan was very unlucky not to pick
up at least 1 wicket at the other end, really (sort of like Ayub bowled
well enough to have gotten more than a few in Madras during "Hirwani's
test"). But he bowled well after that and Pakistan didnt seem to think
they could even survive once they lost a couple of wickets. Kumble is
one of those very nice guys who deserved all the adulation he got from
this 10-wicket-haul, but I personally think he has bowled better himself
at other times than he did in this particular innings.

Sadiq [ would Marshall, evening of Day 2 Kanpur '83, make it?
        Of course he wouldnt - that was a mere 4 wickets ;-) ] Yusuf

 
 
 

Cricket-Wisden's top 10 test batting and bowling list

Post by Ravi Krish » Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:32:35


Quote:
>I agree here too, the pitch was awful, and I wouldnt rate this spell
>in the Top 10 either! Its even lower than the Ambrose one, for that was
>at least in the first innings when the match was still up in the air -
>while watching this match, I had no doubt in my own mind that the Delhi
>test was over long before Kumble started his demolition :-) And Iam not
>the only one who thought that way, BTW - Akram himself said he never once
>felt they had a chance, thinking their best hope was to maybe get to 250
>or so (and this even after they started brilliantly)!

the match slipped out of Pak's hands bcos of one and only
one reason: the 100 runs partnership of Gangs/Srinath.
had it been a 1 run partnership of Gangs/Agarkar,
then Pak would have to chase only 320, and at 100/0 it
would have been much easily attainable. At 100/0
I doubt whether Kumble would have bowled the same knowing
that Pak had to score only 220 more runs.

The guys who are abused the most in this forum for
the chennai test fiasco (Kumble/Srinath) made it up
to some extent in the Delhi test. Alas, the hero
of the Chennai test batted squat in the Delhi test.
Is this the justice from supreme force, Mr. Shridhar
Narayan Iyer.

RK-