What's new

Did Brian Lara play for records?

I

infamous9383

ODI Debutant
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Runs
12,686
Does anybody have Lara's 400. If you do please upload it on justupit or video.google. thank you
 
Last edited:
Excellent player. One of my all time favorites.

But...

In 33 tests where Lara scored a century, WI won only 8 (24%) and lost 13 (39%).

Got worse when Lara made those mammoth 200+ scores.

In 9 tests where Lara scored 200+, WI lost 3 (33%), drew 5 (56%) and won only 1 (11%).

If you get hold of a clip of the match where he made 400*, watch his reaction when he goes past Hayden's highest score of 380 (previous record holder). Was that reaction really necessary? (not judging). That game too ended a draw.

Discuss. :)
 
He definitely played to get the record back from Hayden, and it cost WI a potential encouraging win.
 
Most players play for their team. But when they realize that their team is not winning too many matches, then they (and their fans) want something to cheer about - personal records. Teams that are winning a lot don't care as much for personal records.
 
Robert said:
He definitely played to get the record back from Hayden, and it cost WI a potential encouraging win.
Click to expand...

I think the 400 was better. A win wouldn't mean much. No one remembers the one win in 3-1 but people will remember he broke the 400 barrier.

As for him playing for records, ha seriously. You can't just run two sets of stats and make a correlation. Lara played when West Indies were at their worst. I bet many of his wins came when Walsh and Ambrose were there. Long at his strike rate in those knocks...does not seem selfish to me at all.
 
If that 400* wasnt a selfish knock then I dont know what else is. Lara kept batting for 2 and a half days only to get that record and thus killed any chances that WI had of a Win over England.

Selfish player.
 
An the end of the day, a player cannot win you a match single handedly.

Laxman's 281 wouldn't have won India the match without Bhajji's 13 wickets, Lara's 153 wouldn't have won WI the match without Walsh's brilliant 5 fer in the second innings...so on and so forth...

Lara performed brillaintly countless times when his team was in the dumps, thats all that matters.
 
I don't think Lara 400 was selfish. After all WI scored 751 off just 202 overs at a rate of 3.71/over. Lara himself scored 400 off just 582 balls, at a strike of almost 70.

WI had nearly 240 overs to bowl out England twice and they could not. More than Lara's long innings, it was the flat wicket coupled with Vaughan's resistance in the second innings that prevented a WI win. Had WI declared a session earlier, there was a slightly higher probability of WI winning the match, but even then the match was likely to end in a draw. Note that the first day was interrupted by rain and 38 overs were lost on day one and this already reduced the chances of match outcome.
 
The only selfish player is Selfish Tendulker. Going for that 100 100 in a losing cause and now after his 200th test match. At least Lara has more than 1 300 in his career unlike that Indian.
 
Between Lara's debut and retirement:

WI with Lara playing:

Win % = 24.6%
Loss % = 47.7%

WI without Lara playing:

Win % = 37%
Loss % = 33.3%

WI lost a higher percentage of games when Lara played. :20:
 
Yep, WI were crap back then (still are but are better now) and he knew they weren't gonna win games so he went for personal glory first.

Those mentioning his high SR which indicates his unselfishness, no, that was his style of play and if a high SR means you are unselfish then Afridi is the most unselfish player in history yet many people consider him selfish.
 
Yup he was a selfish guy his 400 is one of the selfish innings he never played that match to win :) he just want to over take mathew hayden 380 :)
 
Lol insecure Sachinitas at it. You just have to live with it Tendulkar just wasnt cut for the big scores, Lara's first Test century was 277 that too ended when Hooper ran him out. Tendulkar just about crossed 200 not too long back!
 
Poeple are discounting how bad of a batting side Lara played the latter part of his career with.

With the exception of Chanderpaul, and the 2-3 year purple patch of Jimmy Adams, he was batting with hacks. Admittedly at the start of his career he had Hooper, Richardson etc.

He would more often than not walk out as an opener because the openers hardly did their job, and the lower order wasn't known to be one that would graft it out and hang around.

And by the twilight of his career even the bowling stocks had dwindled.
 
Yeah he was a selfish player and played for his records. Wasn't a very good captain either, the best players aren't often captain material :sachin
 
maybe but for me Lara's defining innings would be his last wicket stand with Walsh against Australia.
Now that was a special innings
 
I don't understand the people who give almost the same argument to defend Lara (he played in a weak team) from the allegation of selfishness, and have absolutely no problem ignoring the same argument when talking about Tendulkar's match winning ability.

There are so many false/unproven assumptions which are presented as "facts"..
 
deathstreak said:
maybe but for me Lara's defining innings would be his last wicket stand with Walsh against Australia.
Now that was a special innings
Click to expand...

Yes, it was.

Steve Waugh said the following about him :

Lara was a good batsman against average bowling attacks, and a great one against good bowling attacks. But when pushed into a corner with his back against the wall, he elevated himself into a genius.
 
Mamoon_Ghaffar said:
Yep, WI were crap back then (still are but are better now) and he knew they weren't gonna win games so he went for personal glory first.

Those mentioning his high SR which indicates his unselfishness, no, that was his style of play and if a high SR means you are unselfish then Afridi is the most unselfish player in history yet many people consider him selfish.
Click to expand...

S/R coupled with high batting average surely points to selflessness. Lara had phenomenal batting ability - was one of those rare genius who had multiple strokes for every kind of delivery and he could choose what to play very late. This enabled him to score very fast because setting a field for him was nearly impossible. His natural ability enabled him to score almost at well - that is the reason for his S/R. And he was no slogger, that is why his averages are also high.

Afridi is not even comparable, he just scored fast did not have much batting ability and was more of a slogger, and he must have learned to put a higher price on his wicket by slowing down and playing more responsibly.
 
His 400 was the most stats driven selfish innings you could imagine.

Contrast that to say clarke's 325, clarke had all the time in the world to break lara's record but it just wasn't that important to him.

Lara would have batted on to 500 in that circumstance.
 
Yes.

Tendulkar gets the selfish label when it was in fact Lara who semi-regularly traded in victories for a boost to his own first-class batting average. And because he knew the mentality of the average Caribbean cricket watcher, he knew that he could get away with it. A batting genius and also a clever man.

Very unjust. Speaks of both mean-spirited anti-Indian sentiment and also the kind of strange, nauseating, unexplained sympathy for West Indies cricket which is often found in cricketing circles.
 
Pakistan need players like Sachin/Lara who play for records and not for team :p
 
James said:
Yes.

Tendulkar gets the selfish label when it was in fact Lara who semi-regularly traded in victories for a boost to his own first-class batting average. And because he knew the mentality of the average Caribbean cricket watcher, he knew that he could get away with it. A batting genius and also a clever man.

Very unjust. Speaks of both mean-spirited anti-Indian sentiment and also the kind of strange, nauseating, unexplained sympathy for West Indies cricket which is often found in cricketing circles.
Click to expand...

Cant put it any better.
 
Though i liked his batting it cannot be denied that he did give the impression that his personal stats really mattered the most to him .
 
IndianWillow said:
I don't think Lara 400 was selfish. After all WI scored 751 off just 202 overs at a rate of 3.71/over. Lara himself scored 400 off just 582 balls, at a strike of almost 70.

WI had nearly 240 overs to bowl out England twice and they could not. More than Lara's long innings, it was the flat wicket coupled with Vaughan's resistance in the second innings that prevented a WI win. Had WI declared a session earlier, there was a slightly higher probability of WI winning the match, but even then the match was likely to end in a draw. Note that the first day was interrupted by rain and 38 overs were lost on day one and this already reduced the chances of match outcome.
Click to expand...

Got it right bro the wicket was flat.

Between Lara's debut and retirement:

WI with Lara playing:

Win % = 24.6%
Loss % = 47.7%

WI without Lara playing:

Win % = 37%
Loss % = 33.3%

WI lost a higher percentage of games when Lara played.
Click to expand...

Dude Lara played with a crap team whereas the Windies had been on top for decades before him so thats why.
 
Fahdi said:
Got it right bro the wicket was flat.



Dude Lara played with a crap team whereas the Windies had been on top for decades before him so thats why.
Click to expand...

Dude both the stats are from the same time, that is the time between Lara's debut and retirement.

Those are not the overall stats for WI.
 
The 400 was a selfish act by Lara, however any other time he always tried to do what was best for the team and pretty much had to carry a shambolic batting line up for a long period of time.
 
KPfan said:
Dude both the stats are from the same time, that is the time between Lara's debut and retirement.

Those are not the overall stats for WI.
Click to expand...

Hmm..

Dont really have a good defence for Lara here. Then i would go with the theory that he realised his team was crap so why bother and then started playing for personal records.
 
bin_pendi_ka_lota said:
Well, Who remembers the team in which Lara played. Whole team was crap. Lara was only worth watching.
Click to expand...

Well WI had Courtney Walsh and Curtley Ambrose till 2000, Lara played the first 8 years of his career alongside them. It's after both of them retired WI became a weak team, and Lara had to take the burden till 2007 (the year of his retirement). In fact we lost a Test series touring WI back in 1997, they were certainly not crap till 2000.
 
Fahdi said:
Got it right bro the wicket was flat.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have discussed this match with many people in the past, and those who thought Lara was selfish did not give a clear answer when WI should have declared. The wicket was so flat the WI needed almost 60 overs, 30 overs and 25 overs to get three English wickets in the second innings. Almost half of the first day was lost due to rain and this made the flat wicket seem even flatter. If WI had declared at the end of the second day (595/5 with Lara on 313), WI had a slight chance but I am almost sure England would have scored enough runs on that patta wicket to secure a draw.
 
IndianWillow said:
WI had a slight chance but I am almost sure England would have scored enough runs on that patta wicket to secure a draw.
Click to expand...

Based on that logic nobody should ever declare on flat tracks as no matter what a draw is still the fav.

If hayden hadn't scored his 380 and lara still owned the world record then lara would have declared much earlier we all know that.
 
Very simple. Lara is best known for his 400 runs innings. And my word, that was one selfish innings, even his own teammates commented on that.

He is a ego person who played for records.
 
trogger said:
Based on that logic nobody should ever declare on flat tracks as no matter what a draw is still the fav.

If hayden hadn't scored his 380 and lara still owned the world record then lara would have declared much earlier we all know that.
Click to expand...

You can declare if you like to go on a leather hunt. Flat wicket and ordinary bowlers aren't good incentives for a captain to declare. It was one of the weakest bowling sides WI has ever fielded in a test match - best bowler averaging 33 and combined bowling average of around 38. Incorporate the flat deck also.

After noting how easily and quickly WI raced to 500/4 in only 125 overs, Lara might have feared something like this - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63762.html

England choked at the scoreboard pressure ( no such thing would have happened with a much lower score) and collapsed on the flat deck to 280 odd but the second innings should show that WI were wasting their time and energy on the field, like India against Sri lanka.
 
Energetic said:
The only selfish player is Selfish Tendulker. Going for that 100 100 in a losing cause and now after his 200th test match. At least Lara has more than 1 300 in his career unlike that Indian.
Click to expand...

well said. taking 40 balls to score 20 runs to move from 80-100 in slog overs says it all :facepalm: it was looking clear that day that tendulkar didnt care about the team at all. all what he wanted was his 100th 100. never seen any more selfish innings than that
 
amit said:
well said. taking 40 balls to score 20 runs to move from 80-100 in slog overs says it all :facepalm: it was looking clear that day that tendulkar didnt care about the team at all. all what he wanted was his 100th 100. never seen any more selfish innings than that
Click to expand...

Yes it was a bit selfish.. specially after scoring 100, he went on offence and scored 3 quick boundaries.. he was perhaps under pressure to get that 100th 100 (WOW!!!) out of the way.. and perhaps took BD batting lightly against Indian bowling.

Overall he is a team-man and not selfish, but that innings was slow (from 80 to 100) and perhaps for one of the times he let his own score take more significance than his team.

I don't see many other knocks which were selfish from Tendulkar.. in the process of scoring 100 centuries, some of them will be not perfect.. it happens.
 
vicky_iisc said:
Yes it was a bit selfish.. specially after scoring 100, he went on offence and scored 3 quick boundaries.. he was perhaps under pressure to get that 100th 100 (WOW!!!) out of the way.. and perhaps took BD batting lightly against Indian bowling.

Overall he is a team-man and not selfish, but that innings was slow (from 80 to 100) and perhaps for one of the times he let his own score take more significance than his team.

I don't see many other knocks which were selfish from Tendulkar.. in the process of scoring 100 centuries, some of them will be not perfect.. it happens.
Click to expand...

Yup, that was a selfish innings.

Sachin isn't selfish most of the times, he just chokes during crunch situations.
 
Sachin being selfish may be another debate but when compared with a "certified" selfish and egoistic player, Lara, everyone is a saint. Lara is definitely the most selfish players in modern times including his long career.
 
Any batsman who gets a triple hundred would consume a lot of time , it will give opportunity to opposition to go for a draw.

I guess Sehwag was only exception.
 
Dont think the great lara was a selfish player, but having watched his 400 against England...we all know what a selfish innings that was
 
I guess sometimes players become nervous or become more interested in getting to a milestone than for the total benefit of the team. I guess these type of instances can be found sometimes in players careers. That doesn't mean they have been selfish players all their life.

Lara was a great player, and he might have played few selfish innings during his career. I think many other players too might have done the same during their careers. In my view, taking such few instances and totally labeling a player as selfish is not correct.

It is similar to saying Sachin was not a match-winner in 1990s. Even though he was in prime form during those times, the Indian team did not have all-round strength to cash-in on his batting displays.

When Lara was in form, it was a treat to watch and was quite simply breathtaking.
 
I dont really get why people call SRT and lara selfish players all the time. not often will you find selfless cricketers like Ashraful, God knows how many bowlers Ashraful has made happy in his career. The same can be said about Afridi
 
Executioner said:
I dont really get why people call SRT and lara selfish players all the time. not often will you find selfless cricketers like Ashraful, God knows how many bowlers Ashraful has made happy in his career. The same can be said about Afridi
Click to expand...

Nah.. Getting Ashraful's wicket is a very normal phenomenon. We can't expect bowlers to be happy to get such a stupid player. Afridi's wicket is priceless because the dude has 0 brain and can explode or implode any moment.
 
Executioner said:
I dont really get why people call SRT and lara selfish players all the time. not often will you find selfless cricketers like Ashraful, God knows how many bowlers Ashraful has made happy in his career. The same can be said about Afridi
Click to expand...


I find your attempts at humour disturbing.
 
Justcrazy said:
Any batsman who gets a triple hundred would consume a lot of time , it will give opportunity to opposition to go for a draw.

I guess Sehwag was only exception.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy :O You are going to get crucified here for praising an FTB like Sehwag! Hell is waiting man
 
Well, the best player in the team has perhaps more responsibility to play for his team than others and hence more allegations on them to be selfish.

No one called Dravid/Hooper/Chanderpaul as playing for own records, coz they didn't have records on their name. Tendulkar/Lara suffered this allegation more because they had more batting records and were the best players in their team.

I am not sure how can one "deliberately" play for self and not team. For that to happen, he has to be a defining player, someone on whom the Team's forturnes depend.
 
Well, the best player in the team has perhaps more responsibility to play for his team than others and hence more allegations on them to be selfish.

No one called Dravid/Hooper/Chanderpaul as playing for own records, coz they didn't have records on their name. Tendulkar/Lara suffered this allegation more because they had more batting records and were the best players in their team.

I am not sure how can one "deliberately" play for self and not team. For that to happen, he has to be a defining player, someone on whom the Team's forturnes depend.
 
vicky_iisc said:
Well, the best player in the team has perhaps more responsibility to play for his team than others and hence more allegations on them to be selfish.

No one called Dravid/Hooper/Chanderpaul as playing for own records, coz they didn't have records on their name. Tendulkar/Lara suffered this allegation more because they had more batting records and were the best players in their team.

I am not sure how can one "deliberately" play for self and not team. For that to happen, he has to be a defining player, someone on whom the Team's forturnes depend.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. Most players get nervous when they are 90s as they are about to reach the 100 milestone. That's very much understandable. But what is not understandable is how one player namely Lara made his mind up on reaching a huge score 400 for his personal achievement over team glory. That test match was dead rubber as series was already won by England, and Lara took that as his right to grab his personal glory. Given how few months earlier, Hayden had broken the previous highest score of 375.

This incident only shows and highlights how self-centric Lara is and thus let his ego over the team. Not just me who is saying that, his own teammates, fellow cricketers also stated that.
 
someone21 said:
You don't understand. Most players get nervous when they are 90s as they are about to reach the 100 milestone. That's very much understandable. But what is not understandable is how one player namely Lara made his mind up on reaching a huge score 400 for his personal achievement over team glory. That test match was dead rubber as series was already won by England, and Lara took that as his right to grab his personal glory. Given how few months earlier, Hayden had broken the previous highest score of 375.

This incident only shows and highlights how self-centric Lara is and thus let his ego over the team. Not just me who is saying that, his own teammates, fellow cricketers also stated that.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My point was on a different angle. Only Lara could have gone for that 400 in that team because only he had that ability. There will be chance on allegation on him only because others in his team don't ever get there. Nowhere, I said that he was not selfish. I am just saying only he had the ability.

Same with Tendulkar, no one else has gone to so many centuries as he has, to invite the scrutiny of his reaching centuries. Some of them he may have played slow to get 100, but many he didn't. The number of times he was unselfish and scored a hundred might be more than the number other players scored hundreds.
 
amit said:
well said. taking 40 balls to score 20 runs to move from 80-100 in slog overs says it all :facepalm: it was looking clear that day that tendulkar didnt care about the team at all. all what he wanted was his 100th 100. never seen any more selfish innings than that
Click to expand...

Media pressure I think. Media had created the big hype of the "100th hundred" which is a nonsensical milestone ( because test hundreds and ODI hundreds are not of the same value and they can't be added as such to give you a meaningful record). Sachin floundered to reach this milestone for over an year, and in his poor form and terminal decline he saw a bright opportunity in cashing in on Bangladesh. If he had missed that 100, I think Tendu would still be at 99. The record had to be broken at any cost ( even if the team lost) because of the media hype and Sachinistas unusual demands and expectations. That is the price you have to pay if you are a "God" in a country like India.
 
IndianWillow said:
Media pressure I think. Media had created the big hype of the "100th hundred" which is a nonsensical milestone ( because test hundreds and ODI hundreds are not of the same value and they can't be added as such to give you a meaningful record). Sachin floundered to reach this milestone for over an year, and in his poor form and terminal decline he saw a bright opportunity in cashing in on Bangladesh. If he had missed that 100, I think Tendu would still be at 99. The record had to be broken at any cost ( even if the team lost) because of the media hype and Sachinistas unusual demands and expectations. That is the price you have to pay if you are a "God" in a country like India.
Click to expand...

Yes.. media can play numbers to mix anything.. 100 Test wins for Ponting is another example of useless glory stats.
 
trogger said:
His 400 was the most stats driven selfish innings you could imagine.

Contrast that to say clarke's 325, clarke had all the time in the world to break lara's record but it just wasn't that important to him.

Lara would have batted on to 500 in that circumstance.
Click to expand...

True. Clarke had all the time to break that record. Wasn't looking like getting out at any point.
 
KPfan said:
True. Clarke had all the time to break that record. Wasn't looking like getting out at any point.
Click to expand...

But Clarke knew his team would win, and to his credit he had the time to score 400 and still win. But he did not want to take even a small chance.

Secondly, Australian batsmen prefer not to break Don Bradman's best in order to pay their respect to him, remember Mark Taylor declaring exactly on 334, the personal highest of Don? (Hayden was an exception, though). I don't expect most Australian batsmen to go beyond 334 even if they have that ability and opportunity because they revere Don. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63811.html

Lara, otoh knew his team had no chance of winning on that flattest of wickets with one of the weakest bowling sides WI ever had.
 
IndianWillow said:
But Clarke knew his team would win, and to his credit he had the time to score 400 and still win. But he did not want to take even a small chance.

Secondly, Australian batsmen prefer not to break Don Bradman's best in order to pay their respect to him, remember Mark Taylor declaring exactly on 334, the personal highest of Don? (Hayden was an exception, though). I don't expect most Australian batsmen to go beyond 334 even if they have that ability and opportunity because they revere Don. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63811.html

Lara, otoh knew his team had no chance of winning on that flattest of wickets with one of the weakest bowling sides WI ever had.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is right. Mark Taylor declared because he wanted his name to be taken alongside the Don (level 334).. I don't think Clarke thought like that.
 
Amir said:
I think the 400 was better. A win wouldn't mean much. No one remembers the one win in 3-1 but people will remember he broke the 400 barrier.

As for him playing for records, ha seriously. You can't just run two sets of stats and make a correlation. Lara played when West Indies were at their worst. I bet many of his wins came when Walsh and Ambrose were there. Long at his strike rate in those knocks...does not seem selfish to me at all.
Click to expand...

So you are saying it was ok he played for the record 400 but he doesn't play for record either at the same time, so which is it ?
 
IndianWillow said:
Lara, otoh knew his team had no chance of winning on that flattest of wickets with one of the weakest bowling sides WI ever had.
Click to expand...


That is not a valid excuse. Your first priority should be winning the game, regardless of the state of the pitch. There are many instances in test cricket history where one team pile up a huge total and then get the opposition out cheaply. Lara played for personal glory that day, I don't think it's even debatable. Lara is one of my favorite batsmen, so I don't have any bias against him, but it is what it is.
 
lol @ the Pakistanis who keeps making excuses for Lara; Oh Oh But but but, he had a bad side to play with so it was ok to play for records..... HE PLAYED FOR RECORDS, also SRT's 100 vs Bangladesh was for the record as well, put it bluntly both players are class above the rest and both did play for records. Do I care ? Hell no, I much rather have a player playing for records than unselfish players who contributes a lot less to their side...
 
Romali_rotti said:
lol @ the Pakistanis who keeps making excuses for Lara; Oh Oh But but but, he had a bad side to play with so it was ok to play for records..... HE PLAYED FOR RECORDS, also SRT's 100 vs Bangladesh was for the record as well, put it bluntly both players are class above the rest and both did play for records. Do I care ? Hell no, I much rather have a player playing for records than unselfish players who contributes a lot less to their side...
Click to expand...

Spot on.

As I inferred above, the double standards on this topic are very telling.
 
James said:
Spot on.

As I inferred above, the double standards on this topic are very telling.
Click to expand...

Ahhh what can I say, its just a Pakistani thing bruz, like you mentioned above on you earlier post; SRT is Indian after all so the flood gates are open for him but not for Lara :).............
 
The excuses for lara are quite fun to read, they make no sense at all but they are certainly inventive.
 
praveen said:
The 400* innings has been debated many times before. I remember giving my reasons in this different thread. Calling it selfish without knowing the conditions then is baseless.

http://pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?p=5353591#post5353591
Click to expand...

I think most of the guys who think that the 400* was selfish did not watch the match live. The "selfish" argument is coming from looking at the scoreboard only. It was one of the flattest wicket I have ever seen (how many times did the ball beat the bat?) and it was one of the worst WI bowling attack to ever play a test match. England could have posted a big first innings score but the seemed to have faced the pressure of a huge WI score thanks to Lara 400. The second innings revealed how hopeless the wicket was, and how hopeless the bowlers were as England played with consummate ease.
 
Did anyone remember Ponting getting desperate to get a 100 and almost run himself out at Sydney, I think many batsmen get nervous when they reach 90's?

His career was ending and he didn't hit a 100 for almost 2 years and there wasn't run there but he took a risk to just get rid of it. I think 100 plays in most batsmen mind all the time.

Same goes for players who play aggressive shots like 6 or something, I think that is also a response to nervousness in mind. Don't think it means batsmen played that shot because he is selfless.
 
IndianWillow said:
I think most of the guys who think that the 400* was selfish did not watch the match live. The "selfish" argument is coming from looking at the scoreboard only. It was one of the flattest wicket I have ever seen (how many times did the ball beat the bat?) and it was one of the worst WI bowling attack to ever play a test match. England could have posted a big first innings score but the seemed to have faced the pressure of a huge WI score thanks to Lara 400. The second innings revealed how hopeless the wicket was, and how hopeless the bowlers were as England played with consummate ease.
Click to expand...

I watched it.

A first innings lasting half the match is basically unheard of.

Indisputably a selfish innings.

NB How many balls made it past the bat, you ask? One of the first ones Lara received: Harmison had him edging behind for 0, and the umpire did not give the decision.

We're well within our rights to not rate the innings.
 
IndianWillow said:
It was one of the flattest wicket I have ever seen (how many times did the ball beat the bat?) and it was one of the worst WI bowling attack to ever play a test match. England could have posted a big first innings score but the seemed to have faced the pressure of a huge WI score thanks to Lara 400. The second innings revealed how hopeless the wicket was, and how hopeless the bowlers were as England played with consummate ease.
Click to expand...


You are loosing your respect as a poster with this kinda reasoning.
Truly non sensical.


James said:
As I inferred above, the double standards on this topic are very telling.
Click to expand...

I knew this thread would be a fun read while sipping coffee.
This, and that amla one.. both makes up for Good reading really :D
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">11,953 runs (52.88 average)<br>34 centuries<br>48 fifites<br>World record high score of 400*<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OnThisDay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OnThisDay</a> in 1990, the Test career of the great <a href="https://twitter.com/BrianLara?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BrianLara</a> began against Pakistan in Lahore! <a href="https://t.co/DokWMcuJBO">pic.twitter.com/DokWMcuJBO</a></p>— ICC (@ICC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC/status/938460536836120576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">6 December 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Is Babar Azam the Sachin Tendulkar of Pakistan?
2
Replies
135
Views
3K
Jatlahoria
J
The Bald Eagle
"I don't have a magic wand with which I can say that the next game will go in our favour": Mohsin Naqvi
Replies
54
Views
1K
nish_mate
N
BouncerGuy
  • Article
[VIDEO] How would Wasim Akram bowl to Babar Azam?
Replies
26
Views
867
Dr_Bassim
Dr_Bassim
A
Measuring the bowling speed of Pacers from 70s and 80s
Replies
19
Views
420
RedwoodOriginal
RedwoodOriginal
C
West Indies (133/6) secure a 4 wicket victory against England (132) in 5th T20I to win the competitive series 3-2
Replies
20
Views
611
Nikhil_cric
N
Back
Top