200* vs 194

[al Furqaan]

in Sachin's corner:

• reproducibility - has hit 186* and 175 before, and against G8 sides

• chancelessness - was never dropped, although he didn't play all along the ground. thats genius. a run out chance and stumping are all part of the game and i don't count them as positive chances for a batter, but as negative chances for the fielding side.

• opposition - steyn may be ordinary in ODIs, but parnell is certainly solid, either way, SA are one of the top sides in the world.

• effort - no runner taken even though the legend cramped up

• misc - carried the bat too

in Anwar's corner:

• era - his 194 was the only instance of anyone getting really close to 200 except for Richards on two, maybe one occaisions. by the time tendulkar hit 200, many players came close, and one (MS Dhoni) could certainly have reached the double first.

• powerplays - SRT carried the bat and batted for all 50 overs, meaning he had the benefit of 5 more overs of restricted fields. given that anwar failed to carry the bat, and was only 6 shy of the record, he likely could have gotten it with 30 additional balls of powerplays when well set.

• conditions - SRT's knock was on a small field with a quick outfield.

[deshifan]

where is Coventry's corner?

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by deshifan
where is Coventry's corner?

Mainka chipa

[Kabir]

There's no reason to compare. These two are legends, end of discussion.

I've always maintained that Anwar was one of the best batsmen we've seen, and perhaps will see. But then, Tendu is THE greatest.

Cricket already misses Anwar. It will miss Tendu when he retires. All I know is, there are two of the biggest scores against India. It's time that India got it too

[Ajfar]

I don't think we should compare it. by comparing it in a way we are looking down on it. I'm glad someone broke Anwar's record and scored the first ODI double century. and I can't think of a single person that deserved it more than Tendu.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Oh flames!

I watched Anwar's 194 live but not Sachin's 200*, so can't compare.

[Shehwar]

U really can't compare. Powerplays and free hits nowadays....the game has changed a lot...Anwar's was one hell of a knock though...against India in India back in those days...sheer brilliance....and I remember him getting out in the 44th over too....had he stayed on heaven knows what would have happened....Hats off to Tendulkar though....No one deserves it more...

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

[One World]

Comparison is like stats, in other words it's rajeshing.

[al-Sagar]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
in Sachin's corner:

• reproducibility - has hit 186* and 175 before, and against G8 sides

• chancelessness - was never dropped, although he didn't play all along the ground. thats genius. a run out chance and stumping are all part of the game and i don't count them as positive chances for a batter, but as negative chances for the fielding side.

• opposition - steyn may be ordinary in ODIs, but parnell is certainly solid, either way, SA are one of the top sides in the world.

• effort - no runner taken even though the legend cramped up

• misc - carried the bat too

in Anwar's corner:

• era - his 194 was the only instance of anyone getting really close to 200 except for Richards on two, maybe one occaisions. by the time tendulkar hit 200, many players came close, and one (MS Dhoni) could certainly have reached the double first.

• powerplays - SRT carried the bat and batted for all 50 overs, meaning he had the benefit of 5 more overs of restricted fields. given that anwar failed to carry the bat, and was only 6 shy of the record, he likely could have gotten it with 30 additional balls of powerplays when well set.

• conditions - SRT's knock was on a small field with a quick outfield.

what was saeed's age and what is sachins age

[AsifTheManRahman]

No takers for Gavaskar's 36*?

[Neel Here]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
No takers for Gavaskar's 36*?

[One World]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
No takers for Gavaskar's 36*?

He was in inhuman form that day. Only Boycott's mom could get the wicket.

[smashyboy]

Tendulkar reached 195 at 45.3 overs. He added only 5 runs after that thanks to Dhoni taking the strike mostly.

[Tigers_eye]

185 > 200* + 194

[Sohel]

This was epic in many ways. Expect Tendy to go on and score many more of those BIG test 100s, 200s and maybe a 300 or two from now on end. He's peaking again after 20 years and will probably end up with 55+ hundreds both in tests and ODIs by the time he retires in 3-5 years. Wickedly consistent application has its rewards ...

[Nocturnal]

I've seen both matches live on TV and there is no way you can compare those two mammoth innings. Both are different and great knocks by great players.

[Sohel]

Without taking any of the greatness away from Tendy, I still rate Richards, Lara and Ponting as better batsmen amongst the ones I've seen. That said, this 200* is easily the classiest ODI innings I've been blessed to witness.

[bharat]

Not much to choose between Anwar's 194* and Sachins 200.

I rate Kapils 175* better than both though.The team was 27 for 5 when he came on to bat .25 extra runs from Tendulkur would not make it better than the 175* for me .But yes had India won the match against SL where Tendulkar made 180 odd , I would have placed it at the best.

Coming to the best ever ! It has to be Sachin for me .Comparing Anwar with Sachin is like comparing Zaheer with Wasim.Good players are brilliant to exceptional in certain games or when in form but to maintain the consistency of Sachin is simply out of the world.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by bharat
Comparing Anwar with Sachin is like comparing Zaheer with Wasim.

Weird analogy.

Good players are brilliant to exceptional in certain games or when in form but to maintain the consistency of Sachin is simply out of the world.

Err, there's a difference between Good Players and Great Players.

End of the day, it all boils down to definition. Zaheer Khan is a good player. But is he a great player? I hope quality for cricket hasn't gone down that much.

[Neel Here]

Originally Posted by Kabir
Weird analogy.



Err, there's a difference between Good Players and Great Players.

End of the day, it all boils down to definition. Zaheer Khan is a good player. But is he a great player? I hope quality for cricket hasn't gone down that much.

he is saying both zaheer and anwar don't rate as greats, which sachin and wasim do. can't say I disagree, this innings aside, anwar would just be a very good player, not a great.

[bharat]

Originally Posted by Kabir
Weird analogy.



Err, there's a difference between Good Players and Great Players.

End of the day, it all boils down to definition. Zaheer Khan is a good player. But is he a great player? I hope quality for cricket hasn't gone down that much.

I guess you got me wrong ! What I mean is Zaheer is a good player at best .He might match a great like Wasim in a spell or two (or a season ) but he can never be classified as a great !

The same goes with players like Anwar ,Inzi ,Jaya and Gibbs. They were simply great in certain seasons but they could never match greats like Pointing ,Lara ,Sachin and of course Viv.Who is better among these is very subjective and depends on how you look at it .The fact that we are discussion who is better among the 'greats' shows that there is no clear winner .


P.S - Among the current lot I only see Shewag challenging the 'greats' and that too only in Tests.But again for me a Great player has to be good at all formats they play most .Dravid could have been considered a 'great' but for his pathetic ODI record.

[Beamer]

Originally Posted by bharat
Not much to choose between Anwar's 194* and Sachins 200.

I rate Kapils 175* better than both though.The team was 27 for 5 when he came on to bat .25 extra runs from Tendulkur would not make it better than the 175* for me .But yes had India won the match against SL where Tendulkar made 180 odd , I would have placed it at the best.

Coming to the best ever ! It has to be Sachin for me .Comparing Anwar with Sachin is like comparing Zaheer with Wasim.Good players are brilliant to exceptional in certain games or when in form but to maintain the consistency of Sachin is simply out of the world.

Yes. I agree with you. There has been many good one day players, but greats are known by their longevity and consistency. If you wanted me to name five greatest one day players, I would have to put Tendulkar at the top ( sheer numbers ) with Richards a very close second. Anwar was devastating for a period, and his innings of 194 could be considered as one of the great, but comparing the body of work that is Sachin, he won't even come close.

My personal ranking :
1 Tendulkar
1A Viv Richards
.
.
.
2 Jayasuriya ( check longevity and consistency )
3 Ponting
4 Gilchrist
5 Bevan

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Beamer
Yes. I agree with you. There has been many good one day players, but greats are known by their longevity and consistency. If you wanted me to name five greatest one day players, I would have to put Tendulkar at the top ( sheer numbers ) with Richards a very close second. Anwar was devastating for a period, and his innings of 194 could be considered as one of the great, but comparing the body of work that is Sachin, he won't even come close.

My personal ranking :
1 Tendulkar
1A Viv Richards
.
.
.
2 Jayasuriya ( check longevity and consistency )
3 Ponting
4 Gilchrist
5 Bevan

i sort of agree...sachin = viv.

viv had a higher average, batted at least part of his career without helmets, had a killer strike rate.

sachin is a complete product, was solid from the tender age of 16-20, and then just out of this world for most of ages 20-36. to be able to do it that long is amazing, considering he's not of the most athletic build.

[Rabz]

A 200 would always be a 200.
There are great innings, but there aint a double century.

[Jesus87]

Sachin did most of the running himself whereas Anwar got a runner. So Sacihn's innings is more genuine.