From: skumar@acsu.buffalo.edu (Shivesh Kumar)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Selfish Gavaskar & Shastri
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:38:48 GMT
Organization: UB
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Spaceman Spiff (SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
: well, perhaps you didn't watch the match.  your comments seem to be
: motivated more by personal prejudice than anything.  in that match.  india
: lost 2 quick wickets and were something like 20 for 2.  if gavaskar had got
: out, the indian batting would have totally collapsed given its fragile nature
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you mean to say that if players are running out of form you simply give up
without even attempting.You should know that MIRACLES do occur in sports but
only IF YOU TAKE CHANCE.Just to recall a few...how about that hockey match
against W.Germany in which India levelled 5-5 from 5-1 in last eight minutes;
didn't the Bills win against Oilers some two weeks back after being down 3-35
in the 3rd quarter in NFL.Or don't you remember the first international D/N
match(though not official) in Delhi in which Kirti Azad brought a miraculous
win against Pakistan.... it was a match in which India had only Sandhu & 
Shastri(used to come at no 10) left with Kirti & Madan on the crease with 
required r/o well over 12.But they tried and unexpected did occur with kirti
ending up with 4 sixers in his 71 n.o. Had it been Gavaskar in place of kirti
that time he would have batted rest of the overs thinking that Indian batting
is depended on him only & if he can't do the job, no one else could do this so
better just try to only REACH NEAR the target instead winning because if he 
is out then innings would wind up for even low score.It is this I think
Spaceman is trying to explain!!! Why didn't Gavaskar go for those sixes earlier
in that match????


: at the time.  kapil was having a terrible series as a batsman, vengsarkar
: wasn't playing, amarnath was having a nightmare series and shastri hadn't
: developed into a reliable batsman yet.  the man in was malhotra, who had a
: terrible time initially, and just couldn't get started. given the dependence
: of the indian batting on gavaskar, gavaskar played a pretty good innings.
: he really didn't get the kind of support he could have. malhotra scored
: 65 off 70 balls (acclerating late). but india never had a chance.
: or perhaps you would have preferred it if gavaskar had got out and india
: was dismissed for about 150 or so.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In a limited overs either you win or lose, if atleast you tried for a win and 
ended up with 150 that would be better than just playing to lose from the start
and ending up with some more runs, 150 certainly won't look as good as 250 
but then in the former case you could have landed with a WIN too,as I said
miracles do occur in sports but only if you try.


:i wouldn't give any credence to what faroukh engineer says. that guy is either
:gshing with praise or damning the batsman. in spite of all the hype, he really
:wasn't that great a test cricketer. he didn't score many runs and had only
              ^^^^^
: about 82 victims in about 40 tests. he was in no position to criticise anyone
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
You don't need to be a great cricketer to be in a position to criticise.


: Stay cool,
: Spaceman Spiff


regards,
shivesh
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket